Good recap.

nice to see the average anal pervert is sitting at it's computer in mommies basement waiting for the board to open.

AAP why are you always the first to post , and always the same dribble, is it , is it you herr untermensch ?

Just a test to see if this goes through-had problems with another thread

Keith forgot to report today's news
He's still singing the Scooter-free blues
No one cares about Plame
Joe Wilson's to blame
You get sideways with Dick and you lose

BU$HWIPES is almost as funny as Fox Noise!

557,000 viewers (153,000)

Glad to see KO's numbers have returned to a more acceptable level.

I was pleased with Senator Webb, yesterday. He certainly disarmed the unfortunate Senator Graham and put Iraq in a most useful context. Senator Graham is obviously not accustomed to defending his positions (since discussion of the Invasion and Occupation was largely verboten over much of the preceding 5 years) and is surpirsingly unskilled at doing so. I expected a much better articulation of the merits of remaining in Iraq, a much better "presentation" by a man who portrays himself as a skilled trial lawyer.
Another positive: I have always thought Texas had the worst two (2) Senators in the nation. That may still be true, but South Carolina is in the running.

I could only hope next week Senator MacCaskill squares off with the compromised Senator Vitter. Now, there was a presentation. A whore-mongering victim is a most fascinating subject. I guess tomorrow will be a long night for the Senate. Vitter's staying powers and late night experience ought to be a tremendous asset to the party Rove reformed. I wonder who will have the diaper concession?

Say it ain't so, John.

Not even KO is so ignorant as to raise the specter of a FILIBUSTER IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Please, say it ain't so, John.

Grammie

Why repeat today's echoing sludge?
Scooter's fate was stolen from the jury and the judge.
Most patriots care about a game of asses,
pinning betrayal on the back of Justice.
At least a shotgun wasn't used this time to shoot an ally in the face.

I could only hope next week Senator MacCaskill squares off with the compromised Senator Vitter. Now, there was a presentation. A whore-mongering victim is a most fascinating subject. I guess tomorrow will be a long night for the Senate. Vitter's staying powers and late night experience ought to be a tremendous asset to the party Rove reformed. I wonder who will have the diaper concession?

Posted by: Clucker at July 17, 2007 12:15 AM

Vitter's wife is pretty hot. What the hell is his problem?

Not even KO is so ignorant as to raise the specter of a FILIBUSTER IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

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

Stupid, indeed.

This seems to be stupid news day. I heard the Comedian Rush Limbaugh explain that the US still maintains a presence in Germany because they use to Nazis and we don't want them to be again.

I think Olbermann and Limbaugh ought to get a road show. The 21st Century's Martin and Lewis, except with two (2) Lewises.

Edward R. Olbermann, the journalistic hack
For spinning all leftward, he sure has a knack
But nightly does he reveal
His brain's begun to uncongeal
He's turned into Howard Beale on prozac

"I was pleased with Senator Webb, yesterday. He certainly disarmed the unfortunate Senator Graham and put Iraq in a most useful context. "

I was gratified that Olbermann made note of Webb's resistance to wave his son's Iraq service in the face of Graham's boasting of his several Green-Zone junkets and their concommittent dog/pony show day-trips guarded by hundreds of Webb's son's comrades. I thought that this - along with Webb's silence regarding his own combat experience - spoke volumes for the man's character. He appears to me to be a statesman who knows when his case is sound enough to leave himself out of it.

Graham, on the other hand,...I mean hell, the guy doesn't even have the self-respect to come out of the closet.

I know you would have preferred for Graham to walk around alone with a bullseye on him but I think it is quite reasonable for a senator to receive that kind of protection. I would levy that he was grateful to the troops who provided it. BTW, I think Graham responded about the number of times he was in Iraq when Webb accused him of not ever going. I'll check the transcript.

I was wrong. Graham talked about his 7 trips and it went back and forth from there. I caught the part (live) where Webb said Graham had not been to Iraq but I guess he meant that he had not been there outside of what he called a dog and pony show.

BTW, SLOB, I did respond to you on the other thread about the news story you related particularly for me.

Senator Jim Webb, unhinged on TV
Letting it all hang out, demands not victory
"Bring my boy home!"
You're not alone
Webb's way would fill Al Qaeda with glee

It is hillarious to read Johnny Dollar's incessant whining about stories Keith Olbermann doesn't cover to his satisfaction, .... but this very same Johnny Dollar rabidly defends Fox 'News', which is by far, the worst network of all for doing the very same thing.

The zombies and the left wing media keep goose stepping behind Billary as she and John Silk Pony Edwards try to get rid of the other twits in the politburo who they deem unfit to debate them. She then has her secret police goons threaten to arrest someone who ask her about Juanita Broaddrick. Meanwhile, Obama Nation is given his cliff notes in the debate so he doesn't look like a moron. Where is Olbermann's great conspiracy radar on these issues?
The zombies keep marching to their brainwashing by this propagandist and his comrades in the media.

I'm new to this site. Why does no one address Mister Olbermanns blatant lies and bias? Is he so obviously unhinged that even the people here that agree with him don't even bother to try anymore?

I could only hope next week Senator MacCaskill squares off with the compromised Senator Vitter. Now, there was a presentation. A whore-mongering victim is a most fascinating subject. I guess tomorrow will be a long night for the Senate. Vitter's staying powers and late night experience ought to be a tremendous asset to the party Rove reformed. I wonder who will have the diaper concession?

Posted by: Clucker at July 17, 2007 12:15 AM

Sorry Chicken Shit, MacCaskill is too busy loosing up Missouri's regulations on Nursing homes so that her husband can re-opened his condemed ones.

rabidly defends Fox 'News', which is by far, the worst network of all for doing the very same thing.

Posted by: Mike at July 17, 2007 1:15 AM

Examples?

Did "Good Morning America" physically remove a man who appeared to be dozing off during Democratic Senator John Edwards's town hall meeting on Monday? Early in the 7am hour, the man (pictured at right) appeared to be sleeping, or at least dozing, while Edwards discussed his plan for Iraq.

"Around 7:11, the individual, who was seated to the back and right of Edwards, mysteriously disappeared (see video below). Diane Sawyer even remarked how audience members for the New Orleans-based event had "gotten up early" to join him. Perhaps the network found it unacceptable that someone might perceive the former trial lawyer to be less than enthralling?"

Don't fall asleep during a John Edwards speech, ABC and secret police might make you disappear.

It is hillarious to read Johnny Dollar's incessant whining about stories Keith Olbermann doesn't cover to his satisfaction, .... but this very same Johnny Dollar rabidly defends Fox 'News', which is by far, the worst network of all for doing the very same thing.

Posted by: Mike at July 17, 2007 1:15 AM

Just realized something VERY funny whe reading this crap. I DISTICTINCTLY remember a certain olbyloon saying "I NEVER read Johnny's recaps!" Guess he really does.......How's those "examples" coming?

Murdoch's prospects for The Journal improve
The bastion of rightful thought soon he'll remove
to replace it with dreck
rational thought more upset
by the infamous purpose to simply be rude

"LOOFAH!"

Jim Webb was pathetic. He kept reaching for his gun(ooops!, they won't let him carry it anymore) Lindsay Graham handled Webb like he was his little brother. Waaa! waaaa~!
"I'm a novelist, dammit!" And this little piggie went 'wee wee wee' all the way home. Grow up Webb, lose the temper tantrums and learn to debate.

Liberal elites that carry firearms are funny.

Guess which news is more important for Olby to bellow about. 1. North Korea shuts down Nuclear Reactor. 2. Joe Wilson endorses Hillary Clinton for President. HA! friggen clowns! HA!

MacCaskill is too busy loosing up Missouri's regulations on Nursing homes ....

-----

Is she in the state legislature the same time she is in the Senate?

KO can redeem himself if he follows up on Murtha. He could claim that he is truly the fair and balanced one. Below resulted as the result of a phone call to Murtha's office:
(I agree with the sentiments)
...

Murtha’s spokeswoman said that he won’t comment because the investigation is ongoing.

* If he was worried about not influencing the investigation, why did he accuse these Marines of “killing innocent civilians in cold blood” on national TV?
* Why did Rep. Murtha say “It’s much worse than was reported in Time magazine”?
* Why did Rep. Murtha say “There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people”?

There isn’t evidence that Rep. Murtha was concerned then about not influencing the trial. Why the concern now? Or does his refusal to address this news have more to do with him spinning this to avoid taking responsibility for his accusations?

Rep. Murtha has reason to worry. He’s accused a group of heroic Marines of cold-blooded murder. He made that accusation before being briefed by Gen. Hagee:

Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is being sued by one of the accused Marines for libel. He had told The Philadelphia Inquirer that Gen. Michael Hagee had given him the information on which he based his charge that Marines killed innocent civilians.

But a spokesman for the Marine Corps said Hagee briefed Murtha on May 24 about Haditha. Murtha had made comments on the case as early as May 17.

On May 17, for example, he said at a news conference, “Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

Now he’s concerned about not influencing the investigation and trial?

Given what we know, isn’t it much more likely that his spokeswoman knows that he’s been caught wrongfully accusing a group of Marines of killing “innocent civilians in cold blood”? Isn’t it much more likely that his accusations weren’t based on facts presented at a Pentagon briefing? Isn’t it much more likely that his accusations were based on his agenda to become House Majority leader?

His spokeswoman’s statement is the least of his worries. This article clearly shows that Rep. Murtha’s accusations were, at best, premature, which means he violated Cpl. Sharratt’s rights to a fair trial and Cpl. Sharratt’s due process rights.

This information should lead to an investigation into Rep. Murtha’s accusations. Furthermore, he should testify under oath about the source of his information. Additionally, Rep. Murtha should be asked to explain why he wasn’t initially concerned with Cpl. Sharratt’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

If Rep. Murtha is found to have railroaded Cpl. Sharratt and the other Marines, shouldn’t that be grounds to have him punished by the House of Representatives up to and including his removal from office? It seems to me that congressmen violating a soldier’s constitutional rights and accusing the military of covering the underlying incident up before being briefed is about as serious an offense as it gets. It seems to me that that’s corruption of a most odious nature.

http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/2007/07/11/rep-murtha-running-for-cover/

hey rk, where's mike?? looks like he must be putting together a very long list of FOX examples of slanting. Either that, or he's at the drugstore re-upping on his prescription of moron pills.

Today there is actually a filibuster starting - you remember, that "archaic, outdated" tool of our legislature that the Republicans claimed to be radical and extreme when the Dems threatened it against Bush'e retard christian judges?

Well today the republicans are supposed to start their own filibuster. They are going to be right out front arguing FOR the continuation of the quagmire in Iraq. I hope a lot of people watch on CSPAN.

CHeck out this site showing political contributions to Republicans from military personnel and vets: ....and guess who wins out?

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates

how many times has Douchebag visited our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?

CHeck out this site showing political contributions to Republicans from military personnel and vets: ....and guess who wins out?

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 17, 2007 9:55 AM

In case none of you comfrtable chickenhawks has had the courage to look; Its Ron Paul! The troops love him, compared to other republicans at least.

Liberal elites that carry firearms are funny.

Posted by: Gleason at July 17, 2007 5:52 AM

So Jim Webb, who was a Republican four years ago, is a "liberal elite"?

Al Jazeera @ 30 rock.
Tehran Keith at the helm.

Sir L,

*Note: These statistics include the contributions of employees who recorded or indicated their military branch. Contributions where no employer was specified were naturally not included.

I really like when all information is provided but you did provide the link. The note may or may not be significant. What I thought was significant was this: 52.53% Ron Paul
35.4% McCain. Ron Paul was the clear leader but given the state of McCain's campaign, I was surprised at his strong second place, at least for this category.

NBC News cares more about giving terrorists a platform on Nightly News with Richard Engel by interviewing the very people that murder our men and woman in uniform.

Then, they repeat the slop on the Today Show.
Follow that up with reguritation on MSLSD.

NBC News is AlJazeera @ 30 rock.

"NBC News cares more about giving terrorists a platform on Nightly News with Richard Engel by interviewing the very people that murder our men and woman in uniform."

Bush and Cheney wee interviewed on NBC? I missed that.

Wow, Sharon!

It's great that you defend the killings of innocent people. Certainly the fifteen people killed in Haditha had it coming for being in a house, especially those little girls!

You are a good soviet!

I would like to know why the marines involved in the Haditha massacre are being tried but the upward chain of command is once again immune. Just like the Abu Ghraib situation, shit rolls downhill and stays there.

The recent CBS story re; 2nd Platoon Apache Company Strykers showed how our troops are put in situations in which they react properly per their training and in the interests of their personal survival, but wind up killing innocent Iraqis trying to go about their legal business, or kill real insurgents who turn out to be members of the Iraqi military or police.

Command responsibility: a totally alien concept in modern America.

Spc. Vassell, 2nd Platoon Apache Company Strykers:

I would like to know why the marines involved in the Haditha massacre are being tried but the upward chain of command is once again immune. Just like the Abu Ghraib situation, shit rolls downhill and stays there.

The recent CBS story re; 2nd Platoon Apache Company Strykers showed how our troops are put in situations in which they react properly per their training and in the interests of their personal survival, but wind up killing innocent Iraqis trying to go about their legal business, or kill real insurgents who turn out to be members of the Iraqi military or police.

Command responsibility: a totally alien concept in modern America.

Spc. Vassell, 2nd Platoon Apache Company Strykers:

"In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place…(but now, on his third deployment), "We killed a man who was setting a roadside bomb. And when we searched the bomber's body, we found identification showing that he was a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

"I thought, What are we doing here? Why are we still here? We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.

"If we stayed here for five, even ten more years, the day we leave here these guys will go crazy. It would go straight into a civil war. That's how it feels, like we're putting a band-aid on this country until we leave here."--Staff Sgt. David Safstrom, Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division.

"In 2003, 2004, 100 percent of the soldiers wanted to be here, to fight this war. Now, 95 percent of my platoon agrees with me." (that we should get out.)--Sgt. First Class David Moore, platoon sergeant., same unit, self-described "conservative Texas Republican"

"The Iraqi Army would not fight with us. Some actually picked up weapons and fought against us…Before that fight, there were a few true believers. After that, I don't think you'll find a true believer in this unit. They're paratroopers. There's no question they'll fulfill their mission. But they're fighting now for pride in their unit, professionalism, loyalty to their fellow soldiers, and chain of command."--Capt. Douglas Rogers, same unit.

"I don't believe we should be here in the middle of a civil war. We've all lost friends over here. Most of us don't know what we're fighting for anymore. We're serving our country and our friends, but the only reason we go out every day is for each other.

"I don't want any more of my guys to get hurt or die. If it was something I felt righteous about, maybe. But for this country and this conflict, no, it's not worth it."--Sgt. Kevin O'Flarity, squad leader, same unit

(source: "As Allies Turn Foe,Disillution Rises in Some G.I.'s," by Michael Kamber, New York Times, May 28, 2007.)

"They feed us (the intelligence) that they want. I guarantee that everyone in the city knows where we're going. Because the Iraqi Army told them. The only thing they don't know is how big a force we're coming with…It's a debacle."--Spec. Josh Lake, 26, of Ventura, Calif., Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade

"The general feeling among us is we're not really doing anything here. We clear one neighborhood, then another one fires up. It's an ongoing battle. It never ends. It's just the same old bull."--Spec. Daniel Caldwell, 20, Montesano, Wash., same unit

"We're constantly being told that it's not our fight. It is their fight." (the Iraqi Army) "But that's not the case. Whenever we go and ask them for guys, they almost always say no, and we have to do the job ourselves."--Sgt. Jose Reynoso, 24, Yuma, Ariz., same unit

"You do have corruption problems among the ranks…They have militias inside them. They are pretty much everywhere. We're chasing ghosts."--Sgt. Justin Hill, 24, Abilene, Tex., same unit

(source: "U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy," by Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post, January 12, 2007.)

"To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do. I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."--Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division

"What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us. Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight.

"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away. And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."--Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, Pulaski, Tenn.,1st Infantry Divisiont

"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much. This isn't our war--we're just caught in the middle."--Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, York, Penn., 2nd Infantry Division

"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it’s not going to change."--Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, Tulsa, Okla., 2nd Infantry Division

(source: "Soldiers in Iraq View Troop Surge as Lost Cause," by Tom Lasseter,McClatchy Newspapers, February 3, 2007.)

"Why are we here when this country still to date does not want us here? Why does our president's personal agenda consume him so much, that he can not pay attention to what is really going on here? I'm still here in this country wondering why, and having to pick up the pieces of what is left of my friend in our room. I would just like to know what is the true reason we are here? This country poses no threat to our own. So why must we waste the lives of good men on a country that does not give a damn about itself? Most of my friends here share my views, but do not have the courage to say anything."--Pvt. Donald C. Hudson, Jr., 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division

(source: "A Soldier in Iraq Asks in Despair: Why Are We Here?" by Donald C. Hudson, Jr., Clarksville, Tennessee Online, May 29, 2007.)

"When are we going to get out of here? We don't feel like we're making any progress."--Spc. David Williams, 22, Boston, Mass., 82nd Airborne Division, the first of five "surge" brigades to arrive in Iraq. This was a question he hoped to pose to Sen. Joseph Lieberman during a visit, but never did.

"We're not making any progress. It just seems like we drive around all day waiting to get shot at. It's just more troops, more targets. But I'd never really say that to the senator." (Lieberman). "I think I'd be a private if I did."--Spc. Will Heden, 21, Chester, Conn., same unit

"It's like everything else in this war. (referring to Baghdad) It hasn't changed."--Spec. Kevin Adams, 20, Moosup, Conn., same unit

"I think it's important we don't lose our will."--remarks made by Sen. Joseph Lieberman to the troops of the 82nd Airborne

(source: "Lieberman Talks to Troops in Baghdad," by Leila Fedel,McClatchy Newspapers, May 30, 2007.)

"In January, we were doing routine presence patrol through the city of Hawja, and one of our trucks was hit by a roadside bomb, an IED, and it killed four of the soldiers out of the five that were in the truck. And during the recovery of the fallen soldiers all the debris inside the truck--we just had the truck loaded with school supplies and soccer balls and crayons and notebooks and coloring books. We just wanna help. And it was just a really eye-opening and frustrating experience. Because we're still getting killed out there."--Spc. Kevin Torres, who appeared on 60 Minutes, out of uniform, to explain why he was one of several thousand soldiers and Marines to sign the Appeal for Redress petition to Congress to end the war.

(when asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan, "What would you say to the people that say, 'All right, it's clear that the war in Iraq is incredibly difficult and life is really tough both for Americans and for Iraqis, but pulling out's not the answer. It's only gonna get worse. There's gonna be all-out civil war.'"):

"How does that become the default? Either someday, we have to leave. We can't stay in Iraq for the next thousand years."

(asked if there's a possibility that Iraq might be better off if American troops stay and finish the job):

"But then our lives are hanging in the balance of a flip of a coin…We volunteered to make a difference, not just to be part of an experiment."--Sgt. Ronn Cantu, answering her on the program

(source: "G.I.'s Petition Congress to End Iraq War," CBS News, Sunday, February 25, 2007.)

"We really don't want to go to Iraq, but we joined the military out of economic necessity. I'm scared. I just want people to know that we didn't want to go over there. We're not looking forward to it. People are over there dying and suffering. Nothing has been accomplished. We've sacrificed a lot of our time, and a lot of people have died for this. And for what?" --female Army soldier, due to deploy soon, who chose not to reveal her name, rank, or unit designation from fear of repercussions

(source: "Opposition to the War Growing Among Troops," by Sarah Olson, truthout.org, March 28, 2007.)

"What do you want us to accomplish over here? We aren't hearing any end state. We aren't hearing it from the president, from the defense secretary…We're working hard and the politicians are arguing. They don't have bullets flying over their heads. They aren't on the front lines, and their buddies aren't dying.

"…We're not complaining. We're tired of being lost. Have you ever been lost and at the same time getting shot at? It's miserable…I want to be here for a reason, not just a show of force."--Sgt. 1st Class Michael Eaglin, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division

"It's almost like the Vietnam War. We don’t know where we're going."--Spec. Adam Hamilton, same unit

(source: "Troops at Baghdad Outposts Seek Safety in Fortifications," by Ann Scott Tyson,Washington Post, May 8, 2007)

"There is an organized, constructive level of dissent with the ranks on this war…It's not political when people heed the call of their conscience. Not one more of my brothers should die for a lie. This is my generation's call to conscience."--Sgt. Liam Madden, 22, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, served in Iraq, 2003--assembling out of uniform to present the Appeal for Redress petition to Congress on Monday, January 15, 2007

(source: "Service Members Rally Against the War in Iraq," by William H. McMichael,The Navy Times, January 15, 2007.)

"One of the key things we all have in common is this frustration with the detachment that we see all around us, this idea that we're at war and everybody else is watching American Idol.

"It's tough to have such a serious sense of commitment, and then come home and see so many people focused on frivolous things. So I think this frustration is serious and growing. And I'll tell you the truth: I blame the president for that. One of the biggest criticisms of the president, and I hear this across the board, is that he hasn't asked the American people to do anything.

"Asking somebody to die for their country might not be the biggest thing you can ask. Asking my guys to kill, on my orders--as an officer, that's difficult. I'm telling that kid to squeeze that round off and take a man's life. And then he's got that baggage for the rest of his life. That's what you have to live with."--Paul Rieckhoff, former Army infantry officer, Iraq vet, co-founder of IAVA--Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and anti-war activist. He is the author of the book, Chasing Ghosts, about his experiences in Iraq.

(source: "An Invisible War," New York Times op-ed, by Bob Herbert, May 3, 2007. Subscription required.)

"We are not fighting the war on terrorism, we are in the middle of a civil war. Meanwhile, the guy who attacked this country on 9/11 is living in a cave in Afghanistan…

(Vice President) "Cheney is a draft-dodger. We've got a president who frankly knows nothing of war and a vice-president who knows even less. Senators on the fence have a choice. They can stand with veterans like us, or they can stand with the draft-dodgers down the road."--Jon Stoltz, 29, Iraq war veteran, co-founder of VoteVets.org, which has 20,000 members, including 1,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

(source: "Veteran's Group Speaks Out on War," by Lyndsey Layton and Jonathan Weisman,Washington Post, February 8, 2007.)

"First and foremost, we should never have gone into Iraq. I felt betrayed by the commanders who said they'd find a way to make this war work, when they knew it wasn't practical. This was a betrayal of the men and women who are fighting in Iraq.

"You can protect the institution of the military through silence. To protect the men and women fighting this war, you have to speak up. There is no courage or honor in silence.

"From the very founding of this nation, patriotism was going against the grain for the greater good of the country. A true patriot is not afraid to look out for the best interests of the nation and its citizens. Today, we are using patriotism to subdue people, to convince them not to exercise their rights. Are we really serving the citizens well by being in Iraq? I think the truth is no, we're not.

"There's story upon story from people who say, 'I can't believe I'm going back for my third or fourth tour. They are all saying they have the same problems, on the streets, as they had when they left.

"I was frustrated that so many people in significant leadership positions remained silent about the war…People are dying. Families have been torn apart. This war is sucking the life out of our military. I cannot stay silent. I need to say that I am concerned enough to put my reputation at risk to point out that this war is wrong."--Chief Master Sgt. Jeff Slocum, 41, United States Air Force. Slocum spent 21 years in the military and planned to retire after 30 years, but has decided to leave the military and speak out.

(source: "War Causes Air Force Chief Master Sergeant to Change Course," by Sarah Olsen, for Truthout.org, April 24, 2007.)

ARMY REGULATION 530-1: OPERATIONS SECURITY (OPSEC): "An OPSEC review is required prior to publishing web log (blog) postings, comments on internet message boards, resumes, letters home…Failure to do so could result in court-martial or administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action.

"Effective immediately, no information may be placed on websites…unless it has been reviewed…The Army Web Risk Assessment Cell has been formed to scan blogs for information breaches and security violations."--"Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death," by Noah Schachtman, Wired.com, May 2, 2007.

http://deaniemills.com/2007/06/06/what-the-troops-really-think-voices-from-iraq.aspx

It is hillarious to read Johnny Dollar's incessant whining about stories Keith Olbermann doesn't cover to his satisfaction, .... but this very same Johnny Dollar rabidly defends Fox 'News', which is by far, the worst network of all for doing the very same thing.

Posted by: Mike at July 17, 2007 1:15 AM

Still looking for some or A example, "mike?"
Good luck!

SLOB, we know you are against our troops, but, posting mile long left wing hate articles is not necessary.

SLOB, we know you are against our troops, but, posting mile long left wing hate articles is not necessary.

Posted by: royalking at July 17, 2007 12:01 PM

Are you for real? An extensive list of clear statements by troops in Iraq expressing their frustration with an inscrutable "leadership" is a "left wing hate article"? What kind of a freak are you?

SLOB posts. Then SLOB worries that no one read his post. Slob posts it again, with a link. SLOB is dismayed that maybe every thinking person didn't follow his directions. SLOB is insecure and CUTS AND PASTES the entire piece. Yet SLOB is still worried. For good reason, actually.

SLOB is insecure? NO SHIT! HA!

I found it telling and damming that in last night's WPITW segment Keith saw fit to call out Sirius for its Sirus Left and Sirius Patriot channels, basically the implication being that the word Patroit only fits for people on the right

Keith in a statement that was completely out of his mind, used the word "facists" as in basically the channel should be called Sirius Facists

Frankly I found that offensive as a Sirius subscriber because I happen to take the time to listen to both the channels, again, the narrow minded putting you in a box that you can only be one thing or the other and if you listen to Sirius Patroiot, that makes you a facist implication

Hey maybe I didint do a good job of explaining what i thought was a cheap hit here, but bottom line the serious newsman bascially whipped out his Air America banner last night and proclaimed I am a leftist

And btw, I think this shot at Sirius was designed to illicit a response from Keiths hero One Howard Stern

SLOB posts. Then SLOB worries that no one read his post. Slob posts it again, with a link. SLOB is dismayed that maybe every thinking person didn't follow his directions. SLOB is insecure and CUTS AND PASTES the entire piece. Yet SLOB is still worried. For good reason, actually.

Posted by: 20 20 Hindsight at July 17, 2007 12:12 PM
SLOB is insecure? NO SHIT! HA!

Posted by: Gleason at July 17, 2007 12:13 PM

Gleason and 20-20 IGNORE ENTIRELY the fact that our soldiers are stuck in a pointless quagmire, and they they know it and speak out.

They call ME insecure, but IGNORE ENTIRELY their fetish/president's claiming of EXECUTIVE PRIVILEDGE in regard to the death of Pat Tillman, whom the administration has demonstrably lied about in the past. What are they hiding?

But in fact, I am insecure; I've been living in a country teetering on the brink of fascist tyranny for almost six years; it gets to you.

Blindrat,

Yes, I am really Satan in disguise. The death of little children just thrills me. Stop the smear campaign. Murtha is the one who accused marines of killing in cold blood before he knew the facts and lied about when he was briefed. He is being sued for libel. Others against the war acknowledge the good that soldiers have done. That doesn't mean I ignore the pain many Iraqis have suffered. Your hatred is directed at the wrong person.
***
SLOB,

"The Army Web Risk Assessment Cell has been formed to scan blogs for information breaches and security violations."

What an incredibly ridiculous thing to do, protect against security breaches. Truth related a story about a young soldier who was badly injured and very disullisioned. I relayed the story to Master Gunner (TankerBrothers). Part of Truth's comment concerned the very issue you raised of OPSEC. I already copied his response on the other thread. I can find it when I get time.

Sharon,

Since there are still Marines from that incident on trial and since Murtha didn't name any particular soldier, I would imagine that you are just spinning your wheels...

In fact, the ones suing for libel are the ones that will probably be testifying against the others...

>> but this very same Johnny Dollar rabidly defends Fox 'News'

> Still looking for some or A example, "mike?"

Whether Mike posts examples is of zero interest to me. If he thinks anything I have written on my own site re Fox News is incorrect he can challenge it there. But I have yet to see him do so. For obvious reasons.

He thinks raising it here will derail the discussion onto a subject other than Olbermann. Those who studied logic will of course recognize the "tu quoque" fallacy, and Mike is a real devotee. This is not the place to debate something I wrote on another site about a separate subject.

Of course, clear-headed readers will note that by doing this, Mike has completely avoided making any defense of the multiple instances of bias, slanting, and spiking documented above. You can add to those the court ruling that we documented last week. If Mike wants to make a genuine contribution to this discussion, he will tell us why Oralmann was right to spike all these stories. He'll explain why Keithy's viewers did NOT deserve to know news that doesn't comport with OlbySpin.

Well, either that, or attack me again. Tough choice, eh Mike?

SLOB, we know you are against our troops, but, posting mile long left wing hate articles is not necessary.

Posted by: royalking at July 17, 2007 12:01 PM

Please take note: rpyalking has labeled those listed below as "left wing haters":

Staff Sgt. David Safstrom, Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division.

Sgt. First Class David Moore, platoon sergeant., same unit, (self-described "conservative Texas Republican")

Capt. Douglas Rogers, same unit.

"Sgt. Kevin O'Flarity, squad leader, same unit

Spec. Josh Lake, 26, of Ventura, Calif., Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade

Spec. Daniel Caldwell, 20, Montesano, Wash., same unit

Sgt. Jose Reynoso, 24, Yuma, Ariz., same unit

Sgt. Justin Hill, 24, Abilene, Tex., same unit

Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division

Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, Pulaski, Tenn.,1st Infantry Divisiont

Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, York, Penn., 2nd Infantry Division

Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, Tulsa, Okla., 2nd Infantry Division

Pvt. Donald C. Hudson, Jr., 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division

Spc. David Williams, 22, Boston, Mass., 82nd Airborne Division, the first of five "surge" brigades to arrive in Iraq.

Spc. Will Heden, 21, Chester, Conn., same unit

Spec. Kevin Adams, 20, Moosup, Conn., same unit

Spc. Kevin Torres

Sgt. Ronn Cantu

a female Army soldier, due to deploy soon, who chose not to reveal her name, rank, or unit designation from fear of repercussions

Sgt. 1st Class Michael Eaglin, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division

Spec. Adam Hamilton, same unit

Sgt. Liam Madden, 22, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, served in Iraq, 2003--

Paul Rieckhoff, former Army infantry officer.

Jon Stoltz, 29, Iraq war veteran

Chief Master Sgt. Jeff Slocum,

What an incredibly ridiculous thing to do, protect against security breaches. Truth related a story about a young soldier who was badly injured and very disullisioned. I relayed the story to Master Gunner (TankerBrothers). Part of Truth's comment concerned the very issue you raised of OPSEC. I already copied his response on the other thread. I can find it when I get time.

Posted by: Sharon at July 17, 2007 12:25 PM

Actually, Sharon, the issue I was raising was the widespread sense of abandonment and pointlessness that is being expressed by the majority of our troops in Iraq - when they get the chance, that is.

You, of course, focus on a minor element of my post for which you feel you can muster some viable response - the Pentagon's efforts to gag dissent in the ranks.

Look at the polls; look at the anecdotal individual statements - the troops' opinions against the war are made in the face of strong and severe institutional sanctions by which the military traditionally maintains unity, discipline, and protects the chain of command. But despite the sanctions, our troops are speaking out against their mission without a mission.

>>>But in fact, I am insecure; I've been living in a country teetering on the brink of fascist tyranny for almost six years; it gets to you.- Sir Loin..
One man's teeter is another man's just fight.

>>>But in fact, I am insecure; I've been living in a country teetering on the brink of fascist tyranny for almost six years; it gets to you.- Sir Loin..
One man's teeter is another man's just fight.

Posted by: QQ at July 17, 2007 12:44 PM

For two days now I have been posting statements of dissent that have become the norm for our over-deployed troops in Bush's profit-war. Yet all negative responses I have recieved have been about ME! Why? I am not significant at all in regard to any of these issues; but the issues are very relevant to war you all love and troops you pretend to honor.

SLOB,

Chickenhawks don't understand how the military deployed troops in previous wars.

You'll have to forgive them...

Blindrat don't understand how dissent was squashed in previous wars...war was like a holiday in the 40's.

QQ,

Thanks for the non sequitar, son...

Slob,

You are being a bit disingenuous. I don't know where you got the series of comments but many sites do use comments as propaganda. I think that was RK's point. There is lots of ammunition from both sides. That is the problem with KO. There is no other side.

blind, actually, my post was perfectly sequential. You started the comparison to 'previous wars'. I simply followed suit. Son.

Blindrat,

Maybe you can call Murtha's office with your talking points. He doesn't seem to have anything to say about it now.

Murtha is irellevant.

ACtually, SLOB, I have tried to respond to your comments and have not lodged any personal attacks against you (that I can remember). I even responded to your Ron Paul campaign contribution numbers. I responded about battle fatigue among the troops somewhere. When there is a mile long post, I don't respond to everything. I didn't cherry pick the aspect of your comment about OPSEC; I thought it was relevant to a discussion from the board yesterday. You want respect for your comments when you clearly don't give the same.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 17, 2007 12:33 PM

25 soldiers out of how many are currently serving? 200,000? No, sob, I didn't label those 25 soldiers as "left wing haters." You did. One more thing, I highly doubt those 25 soldiers think, like you do, that Bush was behind 9/11.

Sir Loin of Milquetoast and Mike,

Don't hold back! Please continue to characterize those who differ with you as either death loving fascists and/or hypocritical stuuuupid fundamentalists.....It seems all the rage for the left to demonize and dehumanize those that hold a different opinion.

The passion you display is very constructive..... and it is producing results!.....those troop numbers are declining as I type this post!

And Loin, I hope you include the following former Marine Scott Ritter in your anecdotal evidence that the military is now against the mission in Iraq.....

http://newsbusters.org/node/12709

###
Bring the troops home now!......cut the funds!

Stop the criminals Bush/Cheney!.......Impeach them now!

And this is my post today, the 1,539th 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

"You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to wage this war. You're not supporting them. You're keeping them in harm's way." CINDY SHEEHAN

QQ,

I agree that your remark was sequential. It certainly came after mine. Please look up "non sequitar", child...

Sharon,

Why ignore the fact that innocent civilians WERE killed and are on trial for it? Why ignore the fact that Murtha didn't name any particular person? My guess would be that you don't have an answer for either...

Posted by ddoc:

"AAP why are you always the first to post , and always the same dribble, is it , is it you herr untermensch ? "

END QUOTE

1. Read the previous post to yours.

2. He's a baby.

3. He's a loser.

4. He's a liberal.

5. No. 3 = No. 4

During the campus convulsions of the late 1960s, when rebellion against any authority was considered obedience to every virtue, the film "To Die in Madrid," a documentary about the Spanish Civil War, was shown at a small liberal arts college famous for, and vain about, its dedication to all things progressive. When the film's narrator intoned, "The rebels advanced on Madrid," the students, who adored rebels and were innocent of information, cheered.
Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, had been so busy turning undergraduates into vessels of liberalism and apostles of social improvement that it had not found time for the tiresome task of teaching them tedious facts, such as that the rebels in Spain were Franco's fascists.

That illustrates why it is heartening that Antioch will close after the 2007-08 academic year. Its board of trustees says the decision is to "suspend operations" and it talks dottily about reviving the institution in 2012. There is, however, a minuscule market for what Antioch sells for a tuition, room and board of $35,221 — repressive liberalism unleavened by learning.

Johnny: Those who studies logic will of course recognize the "tu quoque" fallacy, and Mike is a real devotee":
-----------------------------------------------
Funny, I spent a 20 year career working in a field (Engineering) , in which logic is a necessary prerequisite, and I was very good at it. Most who know me personally consider me to be excessivly 'logical', if anything....Strike one!

Johnny: "This is not the place to debate something I wote on another site about a separate subject:
------------------------------------------------This is very much the place to debate the Nation's need for a polar opposite of the Fox 'News' administration cheerleader network...and to call into play the hypocricy of one who complains about something if it opposes his own personal views, or to cheer it on if it happens to fit those same views....Strike two!

Johnny: "Mike has completely avoided making any defense of the multiple instance of bias, slanting, and spiking documented above":
-----------------------------------------------
There is no need whatsoever to post a such a 'defense'. I have agreed that Countdown is biased, and I have also stated emphatically why it is imperative that we have at least one cable news show that expresses the opposite view. Even your mentor, Robert Cox, has publicly admitted on this very blog that cable news in general, is slanted to the right. Also, on the few occasions that I have carefully checked the accuracy of your 'recaps' against the text of the actual show, I have found that you have taken far too many liberties yourself, and always in the negative direction, which serves only to amplifly your own bias and slant, and then you insert that into your 'recaps',.... to the wild cheering of all your minions who could just as easily pretend Keith Olbermann doesn't exist. I guess you do this as a backlash to Keith's perceived bias?......Strike three!

Innocent people were killed. I acknowledge that. Were they killed senselessly or under the circumstances alleged by those on trial? You are missing the point. Murtha claimed that the killings occurred as a result of cold blooded murder based upon a briefing that occurred after he made those accusations. He didn't distinguish and claim that some may have been cold blooded, others not. Read why the investigator recommended that all charges be dismissed against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, accused of killing three Iraqis execution-style. What answer are you looking for?

> I spent a 20 year career working in a field (Engineering) , in which logic is a necessary prerequisite

Ah, then you KNEW you were using a logical fallacy to distract and divert the conversation. Thank you for that admission.

> the hypocricy of one who complains about something if it opposes his own personal views

What are my own personal views, Mike? Please back up whatever you claim with quotes from me, not invented suppositions.

> I have agreed that Countdown is biased

Then you agree with this site and its purpose. Thank you so much.

Mike,

What type of engineer are you?

Why ignore the fact that innocent civilians WERE killed and are on trial for it? Why ignore the fact that Murtha didn't name any particular person? My guess would be that you don't have an answer for either...

Posted by: blindrat at July 17, 2007 1:18 PM

blindbat, who cares if Mad Man Murtha didn't "name" the soldiers? Does that change anything? No. Nifong called the lacrosse players "hooligans" and "thugs" early in the case against them. He was disbarred and will pay MILLIONS for shooting off his mouth to get votes. Mad Man Murtha claimed that the soldiers "murdered innocent people in cold blood." Which is worse? Mad Man Murtha will, undoubtedly, have to pay for shooting his mouth off purely for political play. I find it very troubling that people here in the US would even think of defending Mad Man Murtha's comments. Especially a "good liberal" like you.......Liberal hypocrisy? Indeed.

rk opens his mouth but nothing of substance comes out. Let me explain, folks:

Murtha said that our soldiers killed innocent people. They are currently charged with killing innocent people. rk thinks that Murtha should've named the ones that did it...

Has rk EVER said anything remotely intelligent? Odds are that, just by accident, he would've had to have done it at least once...

Johnny: You just did to me and my post EXACTLY what you constantly complain about Keith Olbermann doing:

You quoted the parts that served your very biased purposes and left out the rest, to 'try' to make your point.

I rest my case as well.

Blinrat: Actually Jeff does occasionally post something coherent, but that only happens when he is cutting and pasting something he lifted from elsewhere, usually with no attribution.

As for your question to me at 1:28, I worked in the field of Electronics. I have been out of that for over 10 years now.

blindbat, Where did I say that Mad Man Murtha "should have named the ones that did it?" Nice diversion, by the way. Not that I am surprised. I wouldn't expect you to defend anything you said, anyways, just run full speed, it's easier.

Back on point regarding Olbermann's selective use of intellegence......(boy is that a good example of benign double entendre),

J$ observation that Olbermann believes that "Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't really that other Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Al Qaeda."

From today's NIE (http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf).....

"We assess that al-Qa’ida will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland.

"In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to
energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks. We assess that al-Qa’ida’s Homeland plotting is likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties,
visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the US population. The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices, and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles.

"We assess that al-Qa’ida will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical,
biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use
them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability."

###
So let's just abandon a democratically elected government in Iraq to fall to Al-Qaida and become a supporter of world-wide terrorism.....the Democrats' plan to protect our country!

Will Olbermann mention the NIE tonight?

> I rest my case as well.

Ah, so that means you're not going to tell me how you know what my personal views are? Having a little trouble coming up with those direct quotes I asked for? Heh. Enjoy your time on OlbyPlanet.

"Olbermann to Moderate AFL-CIO Presidential Forum"

The horror!

Source: http://tinyurl.com/2zlnxq

Quoting www.dni.gov, cee?

Couldn't you find an more-qualified source? :)

Mike,

I have a degree in chemical engineering...

...so, I program computers...

"And so, what Gen. Petraeus is saying, some early signs, still dangerous, but give me -- give my chance a plan to work." --George W. Bush, in an interview with Charlie Rose, April 24, 2007

"The solution to Iraq -- an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself -- is more than a military mission. Precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007

And will Olbermann quote this snipet from the NIE tonight on COUNTDOWN?.......

"We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11."

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf

###
Mmmmm....I thought the plots disrupted in The United States were only because the plotters were stuuuuuupid, according to Olbermann. I thought that THE NEXUS OF POLITICS AND TERROR was the only thing functioning from the administration and no one was really making us safer regarding another terrorist attack.

You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

So to the poster named, "The Bush Presidential Archives" a simple question....

Is there no connection between what and who our troops are battling in Iraq and terrorism?

"I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you're a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I-concerned." --George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005

cee,

What an ambiguously phrased question!

And Loin, I hope you include the following former Marine Scott Ritter in your anecdotal evidence that the military is now against the mission in Iraq.....

http://newsbusters.org/node/12709

No, not really. Ritter has fought in Iraq, but that was in Gulf War I. More recently he has had experience there as a weapons inspector whose work, reports and advice was pointedly ignored and repudiated by the government. The soldiers that I anecdotally quoted (supporting the scientific polls that show a majority of deployed troops feel they have no mission) are those who have served under George W Bush.

Ritter, however, continues to make excellent points from his particular perspective.

blindrat,

The quote from "The Bush Presidential Archives,"

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror"

could be seen 1 of 2 ways.....

1) Bush is trying to erroneously and cynically tie the war on terrorism to the war in Iraq

or

2) Bush honestly holds a view that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq and is trying to get that across to a public told something different from his opponents.

I was trying to see which conclusion the poster had come to....although based on his/her other posts I think I already know.

>So to the poster named, "The Bush Presidential Archives" a simple question....

Is there no connection between what and who our troops are battling in Iraq and terrorism?

Posted by: cee at July 17, 2007 2:09 PM

Sure, there's a connection. But, when you ask a questions so broad and general, it really serves no real purpose other than to give you the false sense someone somewhere agress with your false pretense.

Sure, there's a connection. However we vehemently disagree about:

1.) The nature of the connection.

2.) The cause of the connection.

3.) The threat of the connection.

4.) What to do about the connection.

5.) How to mitigate the toll of the connection.

Now, since I've answered your question, why don't you bother telling me what you think your president meant when he said:

You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

People are tired of Olberloon's schtick-
The ratings show he's a miserable prick...
No real woman would date him-
Only little girls go for this gem,
And he still has to pop a pill for his dick!

cee,

There is a larger connection between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda or Pakistan and Al Qaeda. If you are talking about terrorism in general, the very term is subject to the whim of the user...

Slob,

You are being a bit disingenuous. I don't know where you got the series of comments but many sites do use comments as propaganda. I think that was RK's point. There is lots of ammunition from both sides. That is the problem with KO. There is no other side.

Posted by: Sharon at July 17, 2007 1:02 PM

The quotes I posted were over various length and specificity; and they stand on their own legs regardless of which website supplied them (the link is at the bottom of the post). I admitted they were anecdotal, but the fact that scientific polls support the perception that these views are becoming the dominant opinion among active units should give you pause to think about the honesty of your "support for the troops".

"Ritter, however, continues to make excellent points from his particular perspective."

Including this Ritter quote from 1998, Loin,

"Iraq has lied to the Special Commission and the world since day one concerning the true scope and nature of its proscribed programs and weapons systems. This lie has been perpetuated over the years through systematic acts of concealment. It was for the purpose of uncovering Iraq's mechanism of concealment, and in doing so gaining access to the hidden weapons, components and weapons programs, that you created a dedicated capability to investigate Iraq's concealment activities, which I have had the privilege to head. During the period of time that this effort has been underway, the Commission has uncovered indisputable proof of a systematic concealment mechanism, run by the Presidency of Iraq and protected by the Presidential security forces. This investigation has led the Commission to the door step of Iraq's hidden retained capability, and yet the Commission has been frustrated by Iraq's continued refusal to abide by its obligations under Security Council resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding of 23 February 1998 to allow inspections, the Security Council's refusal to effectively respond to Iraq's actions, and now the current decision by the Security Council and the Secretary General, backed at least implicitly by the United States, to seek a "diplomatic" alternative to inspection-driven confrontation with Iraq, a decision which constitutes a surrender to the Iraqi leadership that has succeeded in thwarting the stated will of the United Nations."

###
You see Loin, being intellectually honest is an important aspect of this debate. Just because someone is not a "chickenhawk," does not make them immune from critiques of their intellectual honesty. The noncontexts of your "evidence" of disquiet in the ranks is not adressable because I have no idea what these men and women said or thought before. With Ritter I do! He thought Saddam had WMD and needed to be more aggressively confronted until it was discovered he and many others were wrong and then he changed his tune.....even calling his fellow citizen Nazis.

Very dishonest, very disgusting. And I would like you to provide some more background on those you quote....some biographies and some previous ideological revelations that allow the reader logically decide whether the person has an ax to grind, like our dear former Marine, Mr. Ritter.

Cee-

So why is it so hard for the president to connect the war in Iraq with terrorism? In fact, the HARDEST part of his job according to him.

Because what the president's 'opponents' are telling the 'public'?

Give ME a break and give the PUBLIC more credit.

One could easily translate Bush's quote into saying that the toughest part of his job is swaying public opinion in his favor when the facts don't support such a sway.

The way you carry on like only you and the president REALLY know what's going on makes me nauseous.

Doesn't agreeing with someone who's been wrong about just about everything make you feel like you're banging your head against a wall?

It LOOKS like that from where I'm sitting...

Now, enough of trying to divert me from displaying your president's (and your) ignorance.

It's an easy job, but someone's got to do it!

"There is a larger connection between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda or Pakistan and Al Qaeda. "

Your source for this statement, blindrat?

According to the NIE today, Al Qaeda in Iraq is now a major source for future terrorist activity in conjunction with Al Qaeda.

And, "The Bush Presidential Archives", I believe #2....Bush honestly holds a view that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq and is trying to get that across to a public told something different from his opponents. Meaning he is trying to confront the lies from the radical left and it's slave, the democrat party. The lies that say Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism and is simply a function of USA imperialism and that "its all about oil."

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

"Doesn't agreeing with someone who's been wrong about just about everything make you feel like you're banging your head against a wall?"

Show me where Bush has been wrong.

Looks like Mike and blindrat have had their asses handed to them in a hand basket, today.

Show me where Bush has been wrong.

Posted by: cee at July 17, 2007 2:51 PM

Are you serious? You honestly don't think Bush hasn't been wrong about ANYTHING?

I always knew you weren't very bright, but to be so completely self-deluded is truly frightening.

Okay, so either you honestly don't think Bush has been wrong about anything, or, in a vain attempt to win an argument you require your opponents to rub your nose in your own excrement.

I could spend all day answering your question, but to be practical and convenient, just look at the post above the one where you're asking me the question.

Next?

Hey blindrat, How's your buddy Chemical Ali doing?

"I'm the master of low expectations. I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

Very dishonest, very disgusting. And I would like you to provide some more background on those you quote....some biographies and some previous ideological revelations that allow the reader logically decide whether the person has an ax to grind, like our dear former Marine, Mr. Ritter.

Posted by: cee at July 17, 2007 2:38 PM

Hmmm, I couldn't find Ritter's admonitions for an invasion of Iraq in your 1998 quote - or any recognition in your post that further inspections in Iraq by Ritter and his associates drastically altered his and their conclusions regarding what Saddam was up to.

I guess to cee "intellectual honesty" is analogous to a fossilized statement locked in the sediments of time, isolated from any additional information deposited above.

I'm curious Are you now going to add this statement by Ritter to the growingstratigraphy of quotations with which you end your posts, and hide your idiocy and cowardice?

cee,

Al Qaeda is a small portion of the anti-American forces in Iraq. Al Qaeda, according to a recent report, is BASED in Pakistan. Most of its fighters in Iraq are Saudis...

Proof of Saudi assertion:

BAGHDAD — Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-saudi15jul15,1,6916057.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo

"Are you serious? You honestly don't think Bush hasn't been wrong about ANYTHING?"

###
Does my statement say that? You have seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.

Do I have to spell it out for you? Are you that dense? Ok then....

I would like to see an example of something cogent to the war on terrorism (which is the subject we are discussing!) that Bush was wrong about and I will gladly address it.....just like I did with today's NIE that shows Bush is correct in his policy on Iraq because we are engaged with terrorists ideologically identical to those who attacked the country on 9/11.

I will easily show your belief that "Bush was wrong" is easily shown to be incorrect based on the information everyone had at the time.

Proof of Pakistan assertion:

...The report paints a worrisome picture of increased training at camps along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, giving al Qaeda added capability to mount strikes on the U.S. and its key allies...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/17/terror/main3065010.shtml

Some of the best news out of Iraq in 2 years in the last several weeks. Forge on! We don't need to declare surrender quite yet. SLOB and Mike, however, can continue to be the official ' sensitive pacifists' on my behalf. Thanks guys.

blindrat, I'm curious. Just a few weeks ago, al qaeda was a non story. Gonzales and Libby were the MOST important issues at hand. Anytime terrorists were brought up, we were called "fear mongers" or "warmongerers." Al qaeda, according to Olbermahn and his loons were considered "morons" over and over. Why all the concern for Al qaeda, now?

"I'm curious Are you now going to add this statement by Ritter to the growingstratigraphy of quotations with which you end your posts, and hide your idiocy and cowardice?"

###
No Loin, I am simply pleased to show that people without any shred of credibility are the foundations of your claim of moral superiority in being against the war in Iraq. Ritter is just one example of someone CONVINCED Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction even up to 2001.....oh boy, no one calls his a liar!

Read the rest of the article....

"As the Washington Post’s Jim Hoagland wrote at the time:

"Clinton and Albright need to reexamine the tactics they have chosen. The present approach ignores the fundamental point Ritter makes: Saddam was allowed to avoid complete destruction in 1991 by promising the world to give up all his prohibited weapons and to prove he had done so.

"Failure to enforce such a commitment on Saddam, the world's most flagrant user and hoarder of the new weapons of terror, will destroy any hope of effective international nonproliferation. It will seriously undermine U.N. credibility with the American public. Failure on Iraq will push the United States onto a solitary, unpredictable and expensive path outside the United Nations to confront these dangers. No one should want that."

###
Wow, then 9/11 occurs and no one stopped George Bush from going into Iraq......Why?

Oh yeah....Bush and Cheney are evil geniuses that hoodwinked 300 million people with their patriotism and good will!

There were practically no Al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush invaded. The only so-called camps were in the north, which was not controlled by Hussein. To say that fighting them there is something good is the same as stating that the civilians in Iraq are better fodder for crossfire than other countries.

Moreover, Bush knew where Al Qaeda was before he attacked Iraq. It would've been a lot smarter to have attacked them in Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than stopping military actions in the middle as he did...

Al Qaeda is sending as many or as few individuals as they want to Iraq. To say that it is a good idea to fight them under those terms is entirely ignorant...

Basically it comes down to this (whether the Bush supporters want to admit it or not):

If you like the president, if you think he’s a good guy, if you think he gets a bum wrap, if you feel sorry for him when he’s ridiculed,

Then:

You support the war, you support no change in strategy, and you hate Keith Olbermann.

I would guess about 9 out of 10 Olby-Haters here support the president, and Keith’s willingness to take him to task for mistakes he’s made is a principle reason you dislike KO, Countdown, and MSNBC, whether you admit it or not. If I’m wrong here, and you hate Olbermann AND think GWB is a screw-up, I’d love to hear from you (BTW-Cox thinks Bush’s mug should be on Rushmore, if that tells you anything). The other 9 out of 10 will defend this administration regardless of what it does.

If you think the president is a world-class buffoon, then you likely don’t support the war, support a change in strategy, and you appreciate KO for taking Bush to task. Anybody hate Bush AND KO? Would love to hear from you as well.

Now the first group, because they can see no other position other than supporting the president (although this sentiment was curiously lacking during Clinton’s administration) ASSUMES the second group 1.) Doesn’t want to fight Terrorism,
2.) Doesn’t love their country,
3.) Are far-left liberals, and
4.) Are rabid blue-blog blooded Olbermann fans.

I firmly believe that Bush’s presidency is a tragic chapter in the illustrious history of the United States. His thought process, strategy, and execution on just about everything is flawed, ill-conceived, and fraught with unintended consequences. If you don’t know what I am talking about, you haven’t been paying attention.

However, contrary to the views of his political supporters, my opinion of Bush does NOT mean that I am:

1 - Deranged (an argument could be made against the sanity of Bush supporters)
2 - A ‘leftist.’ (I am actually fairly conservative both socially and economically)
3 - Anti- American (If I didn’t care about the country, why would I care about Bush?)
4 - Pro-Terrorist (Are we still after Osama Bin Laden? I forget.)
5 - An Olbermann Fan (Tedious and uninteresting, but not always wrong)

I just like how the Bush supporters get all uncomfortable and feel the need to explain them away when I start throwing Bush quotes around. What’s that saying cee likes to say when he lacks a coherent argument? Oh yeah, ‘Nerve Struck.’

He’s YOUR president and they are HIS words.

Deal with it.

Very dishonest, very disgusting. And I would like you to provide some more background on those you quote....some biographies and some previous ideological revelations that allow the reader logically decide whether the person has an ax to grind, like our dear former Marine, Mr. Ritter.

Posted by: cee at July 17, 2007 2:38 PM

...should I also supply "biographies and some previous ideological revelations" revealing "axes to grind" for the 6000 troops surveyed by the Army times showing the beginnings of this trend in 2006?

You're an asshole cee - where is your recognition of the "axes to grind" and " biographies and some previous ideological revelations" of oil-man Bush, oil-man/military contractor Cheney, oil-girl Condi,

Very dishonest, very disgusting. And I would like you to provide some more background on those you quote....some biographies and some previous ideological revelations that allow the reader logically decide whether the person has an ax to grind, like our dear former Marine, Mr. Ritter.

Posted by: cee at July 17, 2007 2:38 PM

Interesting request from someone who routinely hides behind a wall of out-of-context and disjointed quotes from people, some of which are NOT public figures with no body of work from which to judge.

No Loin, I am simply pleased to show that people without any shred of credibility are the foundations of your claim of moral superiority in being against the war in Iraq.

Posted by: cee at July 17, 2007 3:18 PM

So, since your participation in this conversation today began with a comment on my post regarding the statements of active servicepeople, which I have been focusing on for days now, - and seeing as how you brought up Ritter yourself - I have to assume that you include in your category of "people without any shred of credibility" those who I quoted in that post:

Staff Sgt. David Safstrom, Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division.

Sgt. First Class David Moore, platoon sergeant., same unit, (self-described "conservative Texas Republican")

Capt. Douglas Rogers, same unit.

"Sgt. Kevin O'Flarity, squad leader, same unit

Spec. Josh Lake, 26, of Ventura, Calif., Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade

Spec. Daniel Caldwell, 20, Montesano, Wash., same unit

Sgt. Jose Reynoso, 24, Yuma, Ariz., same unit

Sgt. Justin Hill, 24, Abilene, Tex., same unit

Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division

Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, Pulaski, Tenn.,1st Infantry Divisiont

Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, York, Penn., 2nd Infantry Division

Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, Tulsa, Okla., 2nd Infantry Division

Pvt. Donald C. Hudson, Jr., 1st Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division

Spc. David Williams, 22, Boston, Mass., 82nd Airborne Division, the first of five "surge" brigades to arrive in Iraq.

Spc. Will Heden, 21, Chester, Conn., same unit

Spec. Kevin Adams, 20, Moosup, Conn., same unit

Spc. Kevin Torres

Sgt. Ronn Cantu

a female Army soldier, due to deploy soon, who chose not to reveal her name, rank, or unit designation from fear of repercussions

Sgt. 1st Class Michael Eaglin, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division

Spec. Adam Hamilton, same unit

Sgt. Liam Madden, 22, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, served in Iraq, 2003--

Paul Rieckhoff, former Army infantry officer.

Jon Stoltz, 29, Iraq war veteran

Chief Master Sgt. Jeff Slocum,

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 17, 2007 12:33 PM

...and cee, I'm sorry I cannot provide the full dossiers that you demand on each of these individuals that you think should keep killing and dying for your mythological wet-dreams, but I would think their (mostly)active-duty status would speak for itself: their "axes to grind" would include staying alive and keeping their fellows alive.

I would think that even a vapid little cloud-sitter like yourself would recognize that.

Here's another one cee. Sorry, but I don't have a dossier on him either - but he and his entire unit are all over the web, and were featured on CBS the other night saying basically "WTF?"

Spc. Vassell, 2nd Platoon Apache Company Strykers:

"We're supposed to be on the way home right now. We were supposed to be flying home in six days. Six days. But because we have people up there in Congress with the brain of a two-year old who don't know what they're doing. They don't experience it. I, I challenge the President or whoever has us here for fifteen months to ride along, alongside me. I'll do another fifteen months if he comes out here and rides along with me every day for fifteen months. I'll do fifteen more months. They don't even have to pay me extra. I just want him to come out here and ride with me another fifteen months."

I would like to see Sen Lindsay Graham - perhaps the President's only remaining Republican war-supporter - react to this invitation. He brags about his several day-trips to the Green Zone as war-zone experience, but he has no idea what he is talking about.

I hope its not too presumptuous of me to extend Spc Vassell's invitation to the unelected sycophants here at OW - cee (oh, particularly cee), royalking, Cox, Dollar, Schatz, etc.

"Interesting request from someone who routinely hides behind a wall of out-of-context and disjointed quotes from people, some of which are NOT public figures with no body of work from which to judge."

###
Wrongo.....Every quote I repeat was placed during a past post easily accessable in the archives of OW for their context....In fact, you will find that the context is pretty much what the average reader would assume when reading the statements. The environment, preceding and following words or actions match exactly what the quotes imply. Check out the archives, anon....you will find these quotes very interesting!

ESPECIALLY SIR LOIN OF MILQUETOAST'S IMPERATIVE FOR WHICH I SEE NO ONE IS TAKING SERIOUSLY!

"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

"You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to wage this war. You're not supporting them. You're keeping them in harm's way." CINDY SHEEHAN

>Does my statement say that? You have seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. Do I have to spell it out for you? Are you that dense? Ok then....

Reading comprehension? Is there no level cee won't stoop, to try to 'win' an argument? No, cee YOUR statement doesn't say that, but you were responding to something I SAID. So, in context:

ME:

"Doesn't agreeing with someone who's been wrong about just about everything make you feel like you're banging your head against a wall?"

I'm not LIMITING my discussion to simply the war in Iraq. My point should be obvious, but I'll never assume anything is obvious to you ever again. It remains to be seen whether the war in Iraq is as big a debacle as I think it is. So far it appears to be. My point is, why would you trust someone's judgment on one thing, when they've been wrong about so many other things.

YOU:

Show me where Bush has been wrong.

Posted by: cee at July 17, 2007 2:51 PM

ME:

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

Oh, I'm sorry, did you mean to add something particular to the end of your request as a qualifyer that you can go back and say, A-Ha! See, I'm right. It appears to be a general open ended request. In fact, a request I've filled, quite willingingly, readily,and easily.

ME:

"Are you serious? You honestly don't think Bush hasn't been wrong about ANYTHING?"

YOU:

Does my statement say that? You have seem to have trouble with reading comprehension. Do I have to spell it out for you? Are you that dense? Ok then....

I'm not the problem with comprehension cee.

I ask again, why would you follow someone on ANYTHING that's been wong about most EVERYTHING.

Even my 7 year old son feels embarrassed for your president when he gives a speech.

Cee, you sir are a charlatan.

>Wrongo.....Every quote I repeat was placed during a past post easily accessable in the archives of OW for their context....In fact, you will find that the context is pretty much what the average reader would assume when reading the statements. The environment, preceding and following words or actions match exactly what the quotes imply. Check out the archives, anon....you will find these quotes very interesting!

All the same things can be said about the quotes by SLOB.

It's spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y

Cee, you sir are a charlatan.

Posted by: The continuing education of cee at July 17, 2007 3:46 PM

You give cee too much credit - a "charlatan" typically has some aptitude in performing his tricks. After long observation I concluded long ago that cee is merely a very small coward who holds a very high opinion of his own cleverness and importance.

Go ahead; ask him why he hasn't enlisted in this war that he views as being of existential mportance. He is age 38, if memory serves; perfetly acceptable to his local recruiters, I'm sure. He claims to be a medical professional - ostensbly of great potential service to his fetish/president's crusade.

chickenhawk - not charlatan.

"Chickenhawk" is always such a weak statement/argument.

question: does Olbermutt really want the Dems to win office in 08? If that's the case, than what the hell will his Meltdown show be about? I mean right now, his stories are all about how bad Bush is and how bad the war in Iraq is, what will he possibly be talking about if Hillary wins office? Maybe he could criticize some of her moves than; o no wait, that doesnt happen on Olbyplanet, only a fair and objective newscaster would do something like that. So if Hillary wins, does Olbermutt's audience suffer and dwindle from 25 to 5? Just wondering...

"All the same things can be said about the quotes by SLOB."

No it can't.....I have no idea who the people are, their pasts or reasons for enlisting. Loin uses their statements as proof and then uses the demogogic weapon of "attacking the troops," to try to make their opinion untouchable.

What about General Petraeus' opinion?....Loin will dismiss his opinion because he is part of the armed forces and is following orders....as well as anyone else who has a supportive opinion about the mission in Iraq (they have blind devotion to the MIC).

The argument is silly.....Loin is simply using people he has condemned as "killers" to try to advance his rhetorical and theological argument. Just as much he calls me a chickenhawk for not enlisting, Sir Loin of Milquetoat's true character is shown in his pathetic contribution to stopping the killing of this Military Industrial Complex by only posting on OW while the streets remain free of anti-war protesters!

Yes....the opposition to this war is TEPID at best and the commitment to its end is greatly illustrated in the tactics of the impotent Sir Loin of Milquetoast. He may claim I am a chickenhawk (rhetorical ploy), so should I point out that he continues to encourage people to particpate in his wholly evil MIC?.....Hypocrisy?

No, I will try to keep the discussion civilized and simply present quotes, cogent facts (the NIE) and simple logic to show that the arguments you try to use to convince people you are genuinly anti-war are really no more important to you than your preference of soft drink.

"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

I love how Olbermutt keeps mentioning for 2 straight days now that Al Qaeda isint realy the same Al Qaeda as before. Here's hoping that if they do ever attack, they get ole four eyes first.

It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.

Bad timing for Bill O. He calls the war lost at exactly the time we turned the corner toward victory. Forge On!

Bill O 's call aint nothing compared to disgraced, so called "terror expert" Larry Johnson, predicting about two days prior to 9/11 that Al Qaeda is no real threat to us, and no attack is imminent, it's just "hyped up media stuff". LOL of course, a joke of a man like this is always welcomed on Countdown..and only on Countdown, the laughing stock of cable news.

SLOB is my hero. His degree in English literature certainly makes him qualified to.....well.....ummm......errr.......well....speak english.

Si vis pacem para bellum

We love latin too.....

The argument is silly.....Loin is simply using people he has condemned as "killers"

Posted by: cee at July 17, 2007 4:12 PM

OK, cocksucker - where do you get this?

Empirically, those in the military are, in fact "killers" - just ask any marine. But "condemned"? No way. I stand in awe and gratitude of those who have served in combat for the United States;

I condemn the chickenhawk leadership that uses our troops' altruism and highly-tuned capacity for violence to venal, political, and surreptitious ends.

"No, I will try to keep the discussion civilized and simply present quotes, cogent facts,...blah blah blah"

Posted by: cee at July 17, 2007 4:12 PM

The "quote" (re:"killers") above that you provided from me is a lie, and you are a piece of shit beneath contempt.

...as cee searches madly through the OW archives for some statement of mine that he can construe as my "condemnation of our troops as killers", I must sign off.

Keep kicking that panywaist's ass while I'm gone.

"The "quote" (re:"killers") above that you provided from me is a lie, and you are a piece of shit beneath contempt."

###
I knew that would get you Loin.....The logical end to your argument that the war in Iraq is IMMORAL is that the agents of this war are MURDERING. That is the definition.....Stop trying to have your cake and get to eat it too.....Anti-war is ANTI-WAR....

Try acting more like your brave forefathers of the 60's and 70's and BE ANTI-WAR 100%....Stop trying to thread the needle that the leaders are only to blame and then cherry pick supporters as either good or just stupid.....or worse....use the old canard....

"I support the troops but not the policy."

Meaningless and cowardly rhetorical games.....Ridicule me for being 100% behind the President's policy while ignoring your own luke-warm peace stance......

I have more respect for Ms. Sheehan, Sir Loin of Milquetoast!

I am one of the weakest statements ever.

I am a loon. I make Olbermann look sane.

Cindy Sheehan has got to be the ugliest, craziest lady you will ever meet in your lifetime.

"I stand in awe and gratitude of those who have served in combat for the United States;"

Oh so Sir Loin of Milquetoast is changing his opinion about the war in Iraq.....it IS in the interest of the United States and those who serve there are serving in defense of the interests of the United States!

Hurray! A convert!

So all of those wonderful leftist (read: Marxist) ideas about US hegemony, MIC and corporatist goals (for whom those godly Marines are the agents of) was simply rhetorical flare on your part, Loin?

Loin?

Hello, Loin?

I take offense to that comment, Tim.

It is logical to want the US to lose in Iraq because if we lose then that means that the republicans will lose providing a way for a presidential democrat win. The democrats would be so much better for the country and therefor the ends justify the means. A loss in Iraq means a win for the dems which mean a win for America. Also legalizing all illegals would mean more votes for the dems which is just good for the country. The cost is irrelevant. This is real patriotism, when our side wins for the good of the ill-informed plebs, it is actually good for you. You just don't understand; we're trying to help you and if we have to do that by force, so be it. This is also why we relate to the Islamo-fascist. They're just lookin out foor the peeps.

having a Democrat as president can be the worst thing that can possibly happen to this country. Look at how great the ecomomy is under George Bush, Dow just topped 14,000, I doubt that would happen under Hillary.

"Keep kicking that panywaist's ass while I'm gone."

###
My fanny is still bootprint free....Anyone care to tag the leftist demogogue's hand to continue?

Or shall I assume the emotional and hateful arguments from the rabid left have been abandoned for now?

In refence to the 5:04 post above, I love how these right wingers keep using ridiculous terms such as 'lose', 'win', 'defeat', or 'victory', in regards to Iraq. They do it despite an inherent ablity to visual a practical 'victory', or define what 'victory' would look like. In other words, it's nothing but empty rhetoric.

Let me try: 'Victory' would mean a slightly more stable Iraq that did our bidding and stayed under our colonial control. This would require massive continued deployments of US troops indefinitely. Of course, true stability could never really be attained when the majority of the population believes they are under occupation and consider America their idealogical opposition. This seems to be about as rosy a scenario as anyone can practically imagine....yet it's not really all that rosy, is it?

On the other hand, 'defeat', or 'lose' is apparently defined by 'Loon' as a failure on our part of forcing an alien population 6000 miles from us to bend to our will and become more like us.

Using the word 'defeat' is patently unfair to our fine military, who easily 'won' when they took out Iraq's military and completed the initial occupation. The aftermath never was a military situation to be 'won' or 'lost'. That 'loss' was purely a political loss by those greed driven and incompetent politicians who misunderstood the dynamics and politics of the region from day one.

No Loon, you just can't hang any failures in Iraq on either our military or the left.

Tim, I would appreciate you not using the words 'under' and 'Hillary' in that manner. It makes me shudder a little.

My personal favorite Bush quote:

"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"

(After being presented with the presidential daily briefing entitled 'Bin Laden determined to attack US using airplanes.'

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

Year please, "The continuing education of cee....."

Oh, and I would like your opinion about the mission is Iraq......Is it against terrorists or is it not? Do you understand the question, The continuing education of cee? It is about the PRESENT....something real the adults talk about and do something about....unlike you, and the rest of the impotent left, who only can talk about things that no one can do anything about.....

CUT THE FUNDS!....BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

STOP THE CRIMINALS!......IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY!

Wow.

How long will it take you autocrons to realize that some folks prefer to place the nation's best interests before party?

That knife cuts both ways, by the way.

Marching our men and women into Iraq makes as much sense as the British pouring troops into Tripoli during WWI, but hey if it makes you feel better about your president mangling constitutional law or getting a hummer in the Oval Office, why not?

With apologies to Twain:
The difference between "al-Qaeda (Bin Laden's gang) and the group called "al-Qaeda in Iraq" is like the difference between a lightning bug and lightning.

If you haven't already dismissed this post, consider this: http://tinyurl.com/39e7l4 (from TMP)

"My personal favorite Bush quote:

"'ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ'

"(After being presented with the presidential daily briefing entitled 'Bin Laden determined to attack US using airplanes.'"

###
Year and source, please......

Tim sez: "having a Democrat can be the worst thing that can possibly happen to the US. Look how great the economy is under George Bush."

How quickly they forget the boom years under Clinton when we enjoyed 1) - The biggest stock market boom in history, 2) - A balanced federal budget, 3) - an 8 year period of relative peace and harmony.

In THOSE years, the middle class was growing along with the wealthy. Today, the economy is mostly good for the upper crust.

It's astounding that anyone would even make such an argument!

Mike:

Yeah, but Clinton lied about those BJs in the Oval Office, so f*ck him,... well, not literally.

Funny how "compassionate conservatism" seems to be applied exclusively to White House staff and Bush's claim to be "a unite-er" means attracting a bunch of Sunni-hating thugs to Iraq, with our guys now caught in the cross-fire.

Viva Saudi Arabia y Los Bushes!

I would guess about 9 out of 10 Olby-Haters here support the president, and Keith’s willingness to take him to task for mistakes he’s made is a principle reason you dislike KO, Countdown, and MSNBC, whether you admit it or not. If I’m wrong here, and you hate Olbermann AND think GWB is a screw-up, I’d love to hear from you"

Or maybe there are people who post here on Olbermann Watch who think that Olbermann is disgusting because he falsely smears people by calling them Nazis, tells hecklers to "kill" themsleves and to f*** their mother, claims he is "not political" when he is blatantly partisan, will not tolerate dissent and uses guests to say what he wants to the point of calling in disbarred felons. You can believe what you want about whether Olbermann critics give him heat because he rants about George W. Bush. You claim to know that that is the case when you know no such thing.

"1) The biggest stock market boom in history, 2) - A balanced federal budget....."

###
All because of the Republican lead congress wisely placed in 1992 and the simple fact that Clinton's government run health care system was stopped in it's racks in earlier that same year, dear Mike.

Give the credit where it is due....I can assure you that if the democrats control both The White House and The Congress in 2008, there will be economic malaise and inflation the likes we did not even see in 1979.....

Also, during that, "8 year period of relative peace and harmony," OBL was allowed to grow, plan and ready the most devastating attack on The United States in history.....

Wonderful legacy! Please sir, give me more!

Hank, you pretended to answer James Watt's question by diverting back to how 'bad' you think Olbermann is.

The question I believe he was asking is how many anti-Olbermann posters here also think GWB is an screw up who couldn't even manage a corner hardware store successfully?

I think it's a very good question.

I meant 1994......and its stopped in its tracks....

Sure sure Cee...it was all because of the Republican majority! It had absolutely nothing to do with a president who maintained sustainable veto power during the entire period?

Nice to see Dr. Cee defending the current highly corrupt, unfair, privatized, and highly INEFFICIENT health care system designed specifically to treat the healthy and lock out the sick.

Par for the course I guess...for Dr. No! ...."I mean Dr. Cee"!

Oh and I also meant to say Clintons' government run behemoth.....or Hillary-care.....Perhaps she'll have another bite at the apple!

I hope so!

It's astounding that anyone would even make such an argument!

Posted by: Mike at July 17, 2007 5:38 PM

Not NEAR as astounding as your comparing wanting a corvette to ending the war.........

Oh dear Mike....look at my next post.....

Please lets have at it.....I want the government who has done such a good job with disaster relief, Passport making, The VA hospital system, The Military Industrial Complex, oh....and don't forget the efficient and cost-effective US Postal Service.....to run a huge industry that relies on incentive and imagination to bring the best treatments to as many patients as possible.....

Being a government employee will be fun....I just hope I have decent specialists and state-of-the-art facilities at my disposal when my patients need them....

Unlikely if the government decides to control how much these fine men and women are paid.....Oh, and how are we going to pay for the system, Mike.....Payroll taxes or some other way?

Cee sez: "Give credit where credit is due...I can assure you that if the Democrats control both the White House and the Congress in 2008, there will be an economic malaise and inflation the likes of which we did not even see in 1979...."

Yea, yea, yea....THIS prediction from someone who, 1) - Thought invading and occupying a country 6000 miles away that did not attack or threaten us was a good idea, 2) - STILL thinks staying in that same country on borrowed funds is a great idea. 3) - Routinely defends torture, trashing the Geneva convention, and other GWB shenanigans in direct opposition to cherished American principals....that I never thought I would see, & 4) - And he still thinks GWB and Dick "shoot em up" Cheney are principaled men.

Sure Cee....we really should give YOUR predictions and misplaced idealogy much consideration!

"I knew that would get you Loin.....The logical end to your argument that the war in Iraq is IMMORAL is that the agents of this war are MURDERING. That is the definition.....Stop trying to have your cake and get to eat it too.....Anti-war is ANTI-WAR...."

cee - rolling shit downhill onto the troops just like his fetish/president.

There definitley is horrible guilt to be attributed in regard to the waging of this war - but it accrues to each and every member of our ostensible democracy - at least as long as we have a constitution that we could and should be using.

cee is correct that murder for profit is being committed - but he and his leaders are happy and satisfied to blame the troops for high-profile incidents (see: "bad apples"), while ignoring or excusing the rest as "collateral damage".

It is not hypocritical for me to honor the military for placing itself at the command of our government to be used in the defense of the country. Nor is it hypocritical for me to assume onto myself and fellow citizens the guilt of the senseless deaths that have been occurring in Iraq. In fact, as a non-combatant who has NOT temporarilly abdicated many of my civil rights and my political will in an altruistic sacrifice to the defense of our country, as have our troops, I would argue that my guilt (and most certainly cee's) is greater than those soldiers who have killed countless unarmed and innocent families while following their training and the rules of engagement set by their commanders.

I have been balls-to-the-wall against this war since before it started, and my actions and efforts have matched the rhetoric I post on this site. But cee tries to trap people with my perspective in some black/white construct he has slapped together for his own ego protection: he says that to honestly oppose a war you need to blow up your country's troop transports, etc; while to support the war all you need to do is...well, support the war (ribbon-magnets; loving the thought of Bush, etc.).

We propgressives still see ourselves as part of a democracy, and retain hope that justice can be returned to our foreign and domestic policies by using legal political procedure. That requires us to vote out the corporatist front-runners of both parties and elect and support people like Gravel, Kucinich, Nader, Paul, Hagel, etc.

cee, please let me know what you think about the concept of "command responsibility", you penis-headed red-assed baboon.

Look at history Mike....The Republican Congress in 1995 passed a balanced budget WITHOUT raising taxes.....Clinton raised taxes in 1991 with the approval of the then Democrat congress.

The plan for national health care would have bankrupted the economy with even more tax increases and it's defeat was actually the best thing for Clinton's re-election.....Why don't you think he NEVER tried to have Hillary do it again?.....political cowardice?

No, no, Mike.....the pablum about "The Clinton economy" is simply lies. DESPITE Clinton, the economy from 1994-1999 was good and mostly because of The Congressional budget balancing and the defeat of Hilliary-care.

Under Bush now, the deficit is declining...it is 200 Billion down from a predicted 800 Billion. Federal and State tax revenues have INCREASED because of positive economic activity stimulated by federal tax decreases.

The unemployment rate is at a record low for the longest time and the stock market is heading over 14K....

You have any more blue blog propaganda about a horrible economy, Mike?

Lets see 'Cee': I personally use the US Postal Service you just discredited all the time in my own personal business. I have mailed upward of 20,000 packages in the last few years, and I have found them to be, on the whole, both more efficient and less careless then the other privately run alternatives....including UPS. And yes, I can certainly tell you some stories about both!

And that is just to call you on just one of your own examples of that so called Government 'inefficiency' you express so much disdain for.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann to moderate AFL-CIO presidential forum in Chicago on Aug. 7.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/07/sweet_blog_special_msnbcs_keit.html

WHO:Sen. Joe Biden,
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Sen. Christopher Dodd
Former Sen. John Edwards
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich
Sen. Barack Obama
Gov. Bill Richardson
----------------------------------------------
Mike Gravel not invited...

I have to hand it to the Senate leadership. To be sure, the Republican obtructionists are not going to allow anything meaningful to happen now (being content to let the carnage and the waste continue), but the predicate is really being laid for the the Bush-selected magic September date. Our little tyrant should be completely naked by then, and the country will have had its fill of DeMint, Graham, Hatch, Kyl, McConnell, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby and their cohorts lining up to worship Bush's derriere, and Bond, Chambliss, Coburn, Cornyn, Dole, Hutchinson, and their fellow voyeurs standing in the wings nodding and smiling, while nothing gets accomplished in Iraq, except more lives lost, more money wasted. In the early Spring, I was beginning to think the leadership was huge disappointment, but slowly, methodically, every rationalization is being denuded, every excuse emasculated. I suppose the Surge was never really more than smoke and mirrors, but it may be the weapon that finally ends our engagement in a way the Bushies never foresaw.

And, if you listen and read carefully,the Bushies know what is about to happen. It's classical textbook manic-depressiveness unleashed. We go from the shrill to the morosely contemplative in mere seconds. I think Webb almost forced Graham into an admission on Sunday during one of those quieter times.

So, it's time for those of us who saw the debacle long ago to prepare for the rending and the gnashing, the screaming and the clawing, the pounding and the wagging. It is a certain as the heat in August.

Cee believes the Clinton Health Care system would have "bankrupted the economy" but this same Cee seems to have little or no concern for this un-neccessary WAR that HAS in fact, "bankrupted the economy"!

Par for the course!

Why do I think he "never had Hillary try to do it again?": Duh....can you say "doomed to failure" (at that time), as well as "political suicide" (at that time)?

And lets add one last News Flash: A 200 Billion dollar deficit down from a 'predicted' 800 billio dollar deficit is STILL a 200 Billion dollar deficit....which adds directly on to our spiraling national debt!

And that is just to call you on just one of your own examples of that so called Government 'inefficiency' you express so much disdain for.

Posted by: Mike at July 17, 2007 6:25 PM

...Ahhh, cee pulls out the old "efficiency of the private sector" bullshit.

How many blades does a disposable razor need? How many directions do the bristles on my tootbrush need to point, and just how many ergonomic contours are required on its handle? How much money is spent by these industries to convince the public that we need this crap?

Now in no way do I want the government producing toothbrushes and razors, but please don't insult our intelligence by asserting that such free-market masturbation represents "efficiency".

But when it comes to things that represent constitutionally enshrined rights - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the government is obligated to make such things its business. Healthcare, housing, clothing, food, and education must be ensured by our society.

From the blog:
http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/2007/07/olbermann-mystery-solved.html

Olbermann mystery solved:
So NBC had a session for "Sunday Night Football," and after conducting a quick interview with Tiki Barber, I wandered over to Keith Olbermann to introduce myself and find out, as several people have asked me, what he was listening to on his iPod during my first "Countdown" appearance. According to him, it was Sean Kingston. I had no idea he was into reggae.
---------
The best comment from said blog about above thread:

Dennis said...
After watching some of Keith's Special Comments, I'm surprised he's not just listening to the voices inside his head.
10:14 PM

The fact that more affordable, government TAXED and efficient PRIVATE alternatives to the US Postal Service even exist makes your 6:23 post funny, Mike.....I won't touch it because I know you can do much better....

Oh and Loin.....

"cee, [...] you penis-headed red-assed baboon"

###
Yeah, baby....that's what I like....More emotional and unsubstanative rhetoric from someone who claims moral AND intellectual superiority over us sky-god believing idiots.

Quit while you're ahead, Sir Loin of Milquetoast.....No one took you up on kicking my behind and it is simply sad to see you try to portray your failed world-view as noble or compassionate.

Anyone with a 9th grade education can see that the previous history of today's "progressive," was one of death, war and oppression. We got to that history the same way we are going now....confusing who the enemy really is and doing it through an open political system that is manipulated by people who want to hold power over their fellow.

No thanks, I will remain the loyal opposition to the religious left because of history....The Soviets, The Nazis, The Viet-Cong....all took advantage of fear to attain secular power for their ideology and I see the same is occurring now....using a war against terrorism no less....

Oh the irony.

"My personal favorite Bush quote:

"'ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ'

"(After being presented with the presidential daily briefing entitled 'Bin Laden determined to attack US using airplanes.'"
###
Year and source, please......
Posted by: cee at July 17, 2007 5:38 PM

White House releases bin Laden memo

(CNN) -- The White House declassified and released Saturday the daily intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush a month before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The declassified intelligence report said the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings."

The names of countries that supplied the CIA with intelligence have been removed from the memo dealing with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and dated August 6, 2001.

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to secure the release of 'Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists," the memo says in part.

Rahman is serving a life sentence for conspiring to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to blow up New York landmarks.

The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was requested by Bush, who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.

"The PDB article did not warn of the 9/11 attacks," the White House said in a statement released Saturday night. "Although the PDB referred to the possibility of hijackings, it did not discuss the possible use of planes as weapons."

The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.," had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.

The memo includes intelligence on al Qaeda threats as recent as three months before the attacks.

Highlights of the report include:

• An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

• An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.

• An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.

• Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.

• A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.

The two-page document became the highlight of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony Thursday before the commission investigating the attacks.

Rice told the commission Thursday that the briefing included mostly "historical information" and that most of the threat information known in the summer of 2001 referred to overseas targets.

She said she did not recall any reports about al Qaeda using aircraft as weapons before September 11.

Former counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke had testified two weeks before that the White House had ignored warnings about bin Laden's terrorist organization. Clarke said the Bush administration, including Rice, was aware of al Qaeda threats but did not treat them as "urgent."

The commission asked that the presidential daily briefing be declassified after Rice's testimony.

"This was the commission's hope," spokesman Al Felzenberg said Saturday.

"The White House has now complied. The White House agreed to release the documents. This is what the commission had hoped."

The August briefing was delivered to Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Some commission members said the administration was given enough information about bin Laden's intentions and capabilities to have warned the public that an attack was possible.

Cee just stated the alternatives to the US Governemnt run Postal system were "more affordable"....even after I just stated from an insider's position that they were not!

But, duh....what do I know?....I just ship hundreds of fragile, expensive, and virtually irreplacable items every single month, ...but I haven't figured out who does it most efficiently yet!

What kind of a busnessman am I????

Your selective attacks on my posts are nice, Mike. Keep up the good work while I'm gone.

And don't forget to parrot Sir Loin of Milquetoast's humane and compassionate reparte.....Secular humanists are such lovely people when they get angry.

Good night all.

Bring the troops home now!......cut the funds!

Stop the criminals Bush/Cheney!....... Impeach them now!

And this is my post today, the 1,539th 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

"You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to wage this war. You're not supporting them. You're keeping them in harm's way." CINDY SHEEHAN

AW...poor Dr. Cee! Poor baby! Doesn't wanna argue no more when he knows he can't win?

But keep your chin up Cee....facts, logic, and reality never seem to get in your way!

The petty personal attacks on Ms. Sheehan are a mystery. I sometimes fear they belie a deep ugliness and hatred of the RW'ers, far more than they say anything about her. Goodness. Her son died. In her view his life was wasted. Maybe, you don't agree with her conclusion. And, you can always disagree with substantive views. But, is there anything served by calling her ugly, stupid, a traitor. If she did nothing else, Ms. Sheehan showed us a bit of grace and courage. She also showed us the lack of it in the President.

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

>Year please, "The continuing education of cee....."

I like how cee could easily look this stuff up himself, but likes to be kept willfully ignorant. I guess after you bury your own head in the sand, you'd have to rely on someone else to dig you out.

No casualties? White House disputes Robertson comment
'The president never made such a comment'
Thursday, October 21, 2004

EAU CLAIRE, Wisconsin (CNN) -- A White House spokesman denied Wednesday that President Bush told Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson that he did not expect casualties from the invasion of Iraq.

"The president never made such a comment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Senior Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes, a longtime confidant of the president, said she was "certain" Bush would not have said anything like that to Robertson.

"Perhaps he misunderstood, but I've never heard the president say any such thing," Hughes said on CNN's "Inside Politics."

Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, told CNN in an interview Tuesday night that he urged the president to prepare the American people for the prospect of casualties before launching the war in March 2003.

Robertson said Bush told him, " 'Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.' "

More than 1,100 American troops have been killed in Iraq since the invasion, most of them battling an insurgency that followed the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic challenger, quickly seized on Robertson's account.

Kerry's campaign issued a statement Wednesday challenging Bush to say whether the "700 Club" founder and 1988 GOP presidential candidate was telling the truth.

"We believe President Bush should get the benefit of the doubt here," Kerry spokesman Mike McCurry said in a news release.

"But he needs to come forward and answer a very simple question: Is Pat Robertson telling the truth when he said you didn't think there'd be any casualties, or is Pat Robertson lying?"

McClellan said Bush did meet with Robertson in Nashville before the invasion, as Robertson recounted. But McClellan said Bush always has recognized that war "requires sacrifice" and that there would be American casualties.

In a statement issued Wednesday afternoon, Robertson restated his "100 percent" support for Bush's re-election and said he began and ended his CNN interview "with my warm endorsement and praise of President Bush." But he did not back away from his comments.

"I emphatically stated that, 'I believe 'the blessing of heaven is upon him,' and I am persuaded that he will win this election and prevail on the war against terror in order to keep America safe from her avowed enemies," Robertson said.

In his CNN interview, the religious leader described Bush on the eve of the invasion as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."

"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on CNN's "Paula Zahn Now."

"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "

He said that's when the president told him he did not expect casualties from the invasion.

Even if he stumbles and messes up -- and he's had his share of stumbles and gaffes -- I just think God's blessing is on him.
-- Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson

In the interview, Robertson also said he wishes Bush would admit to mistakes made.

"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him about casualties."

Asked why he thought Bush has refused to admit to mistakes on Iraq, Robertson said, "I don't know this politics game. You know, you can never say you were wrong because the opposition grabs onto it: 'See, he admitted he screwed up.' "

Even as Robertson criticized Bush for downplaying the potential dangers of the Iraq war, he heaped praise on Bush, saying he believes the president will win the election.

"Even if he stumbles and messes up -- and he's had his share of stumbles and gaffes -- I just think God's blessing is on him," Robertson said.

So, I guess it comes down to which scenario is more plausible: Bush is mistaken, Robertson is mistaken, Bush is lying, or Robertson is lying.

So who has the motivation to want you to not think it's true? (besides cee, that is)

Hmmmmmmm.......

Naw, we don't need a fence......

The FBI is investigating an alleged human smuggling operation based in Chaparral, N.M., that agents say is bringing "Iraqis and other Middle Eastern" individuals across the Rio Grande from Mexico.

An FBI intelligence report distributed by the Washington, D.C. Joint Terrorism Task Force, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, says the illegal ring has been bringing Iraqis across the border illegally for more than a year.

Vote for your favorite Rudy slogan; he really needs your help!

1. Rudy: His kids hate him, but your kids hate you too

2. Rudy: When fire fighters in your own city hate you, they must be terrorists

3. Rudy : Because 9/11 happened on that fateful day of 9/11. Let’s not forget 9/11. 9/11″

4. Rudy: Respect my AuthoritAY” (Eric Cartman knockoff)

5. Rudy: Ignorance is bliss

6. Rudy: Now available in Woman Form!

7. Rudy: Death to Ferrets

8. Rudy: War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

8. Rudy: When God won’t even let you talk at the debates, you know you’re right!”

9. Rudy: Who cares about freedom anyway?”

10. Rudy: Strong where it counts! Just ask his cousin

11. Rudy: *Godfather music playing in background* “you wouldn’t want nothin’ bad to happen to your city, now would ya?

12. Rudy: Is Rudy going to have to divorce a bitch?

13. Rudy: America’s mayor, because NY hates him

14. Rudy: He’ll marry the war on terror so it will be over in 2 years!

15. Rudy: Because Bush didn’t go far enough

16. Rudy: Because he’ll TRIPLE Guantanamo. Doubling is for pussies.

17. Rudy: “It’s about time law enforcement got as organized as organized crime.”

18. Rudy: Because if it doesn’t start with a 9 and end with an 11, its not important

19. Rudy: “Thank God George Bush is our President!”

20. Rudy: Because the dress does fit.

21. Rudy: Because taking shits on the constitution is fun.

22. Rudy: Give me your freedoms. I’ll keep them safe for you.

23. Rudy: Because we look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

24. Rudy: because the constitution now comes in two-ply

25. Rudy: 9/11

26. Rudy: We have nukes!

27. Rudy: They have nukes!

28. Rudy: On to Iran! We will be greeted as liberators!

29. Rudy ‘12: On to Syria and Sudan!

30. Rudy ‘12: “Im sorry.”

31. Rudy ’16: Rudy 16: Yeah, I can run again

32. Rudy 08: Endorsed by former mayor Penguin!

33. Rudy: Ferrets are terrorists too

34. Rudy ‘08: A vote to end all votes!

35. Rudy: Because Polygamy isn’t reserved for Mitt and the Mormons.

36. Rudy: “There is something deranged about you. … The excessive concern you have for ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist. … There is something really, really very sad about you. … This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness. … You should go consult a psychologist. … Your compulsion about—your excessive concern with it is a sign that there is something wrong in your personality. … You have a sickness, and I know it’s hard for you to accept that. … You need help.”

37. Rudy: You need help.

38. Rudy: Freedom is about authority.
Sex is about rape. Childhood is about patricide.

39. Rudy: Because America needs to rule the world.

40. Rudy: Because I said so.

41. Rudy: Because free speech is overrated.

42. Rudy: “I have your wife and child here with me. If you want to ever see them alive again, you’ll vote for me! Got it?!”

43. Rudy: Because they hate us for our freedom. Get rid of our freedoms, get rid of the hate.

Oh and Loin.....

"cee, [...] you penis-headed red-assed baboon"

###
Yeah, baby....that's what I like....More emotional and unsubstanative rhetoric from someone who claims moral AND intellectual superiority over us sky-god believing idiots."

Yes cee throws in the towel when I revive an old joke I coined at his expense some weeks back - making a devastating point against him at that time, if he would be honest with himself.

Of course I should learn to tone down my bad language when dealing with these shrinking, bleeding-heart fascists - they get the vapors so readilly, and it gives them an excuse to avoid salient issues....like the question "what do think of the concept of command responsibility?" that he replaced with elipses in his indignant reaponse.

cee doesn't know what I mean when I use that term ("command responsibility"), as I have tried repeatedly and unsucessfully to elicit his comment in this regard. I guess he thinks it means "roll shit downhill".

Some news about one of our earlier dogs that didn't bark.

From the WaPo:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071600626.html

"In a 2 to 1 decision in March, a panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's prohibition against residents keeping handguns in their homes is unconstitutional. In May, the full appeals court declined a petition from the city to reconsider the panel's decision."

Now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled en banc against the Washington DC power structure and for individual rights the next, and probably final, stop is SCOTUS.

How long will the canines remain quiescent? My money is on they will never bark again unless the ruling goes against the rights of individual citizens to bear arms per the Second Amendment.

Grammie

The petty personal attacks on Ms. Sheehan are a mystery. I sometimes fear they belie a deep ugliness and hatred of the RW'ers, far more than they say anything about her. Goodness. Her son died. In her view his life was wasted. Maybe, you don't agree with her conclusion. And, you can always disagree with substantive views. But, is there anything served by calling her ugly, stupid, a traitor. If she did nothing else, Ms. Sheehan showed us a bit of grace and courage. She also showed us the lack of it in the President.

Posted by: Clucker at July 17, 2007 6:59 PM

I've met Cindy Sheehan, and she is a sweet lady with incredible depth. Her detractors are the detractors of Mrs. Tillman, Sgt Kokesh, Senator Webb, etc: they are people with no honor or empathy.

"How long will the canines remain quiescent?"

Grammie uses the word 'quiescent' instead of quiet in an attempt to make us think she is literate.

Ever hear of the term 'economy of language?'

Typing four extra letters to use a word people don't generally hear during their daily routine doesn't make you smart.

In fact, it makes you seem pretty dumb (and pretentious)...

Chicken Blogger, my use of the word 'quiescent' was a subtle h/t to JohnDoll.

Two points for you.

Substituting 'quiescent' for 'quiet' is not using extra letters when one will do. That happened when I used 'dogs that didn't bark' rather than 'quiescent canines'.

The question of my 'dumbness' or 'pretentiousness' aside I notice you did not address the theme of my comment.

Perhaps you can't frame an answer using only four letter words which seems to be your benchmark for not dumb and not pretentious.

Grammie

Typing four extra letters to use a word people don't generally hear during their daily routine doesn't make you smart.

In fact, it makes you seem pretty dumb (and pretentious)...

Posted by: at July 17, 2007 7:38 PM

Coming from someone with a twelve word vocabulary, I'm not surprised you don't hear such words in your "daily routine."

The progress of mankind has always been in the nature of 3 steps ahead and 2 steps backward, Ms. Hawkins. Sometimes, the pace is not as brisk. I should think that the issue of preventing gun crimes by controlling access to guns is, indeed, dead, pardon the ghoulish pun, for a time. But, only a time. The government, as always is a lagging indicator. We have ample evidence that the American public has moved away from the reactionary "Give every American a gun and a six pack!," and "Fry 'em they might be guilty!," attitudes with reference to gun control and capital punishment. It's not so much that the turnip truck hitchhikers represent current public opinion as it is the truck just hasn't made it to Washington. Someday, perhaps sooner than we may think, we will have responsible gun control, and, when we do, we will have responsible gun owners. The great beauty of our nation is that the knuckle-draggers seldom lead us for more than a few years at a time. Rejoice all you want that the number of victims of gun violence will not be declining for a while. Your joy is not enduring.

I have owned multiple guns for many years, and I use them frequently to plink cans or seasonally to kill deer. I support the sort of responsble gun-control/ownership described eloquenlty by Clucker, because its only common sense.

The NRA straw-man about gun registration being only a list for future confiscation is ridiculous. In fact, the only evidence I have ever seen in regard to anyone keeping "lists" has been the letters and phone calls I recieve like clockwork from the NRA themselves within two weeks of any purchase I make of a gun, gun component, or hunting license. Its uncanny.

Now if we could just get Sir Loin to use the guns on himself or Olbermann.............

Now if we could just get Sir Loin to use the guns on himself or Olbermann........"

Yes, you'd like that wouldn't you. Your idea of a perfect world would be a a huge right wing cabal with no disent, wouldn't it?

But before you go charging down that narrow minded little near fascist road, take a few minutes to reflect on the colossal mess this current crop of right wingers have gotten us into....and it only took them 6 years to do it!

Now if we could just get Sir Loin to use the guns on himself or Olbermann.............

Posted by: at July 17, 2007 8:48 PM

----------

Thank you for providing such a succinct and compelling argument for responsible gun control.

You have simultaneously made a strong case for lobotomies.

For some reason, the word "doppelganger" keeps streaming across the windows of my mind.

Chicken Blogger, you surely must be clucking somewhere because that is what chickens and Chickens Bloggers do.

But nary a peep from you to answer the substance of my first comment.

Grammie

But before you go charging down that narrow minded little near fascist road, take a few minutes to reflect on the colossal mess this current crop of right wingers have gotten us into....and it only took them 6 years to do it!

Posted by: Mike at July 17, 2007 8:54 PM

Ironic or hypocritical? Only a "narrow minded little fascist" would make an asinine comment like that.
How's the hunt for "examples" that Fox News is just like Olbrmahn? Still none? Just spew you can't back? How long before you deny saying it?

"Right wingers have destroyed it all!"
"43rd Reich reigns but it's going to fall!"
Loons in hysteria
Silly words gonna bury ya
"When Hillary becomes 'da man' she will stand tall!"

AAP fillibusters away
He goes off topic like making hay
But he drops turds like a champ
His silly words are almost camp
If Mom knew she would say "Son, Ixnay!"

Mike says:

"Hank, you pretended to answer James Watt's question by diverting back to how 'bad' you think Olbermann is.
The question I believe he was asking is how many anti-Olbermann posters here also think GWB is an screw up who couldn't even manage a corner hardware store successfully?"

Wrong again, Mike. Bush Archives made a ridiculous post opining that the clear thinkers on this site attack Olbermann simply because he attacks Bush. I did give examples about how "bad" I thought Olbermann is, but that is by no means a "diversion" . I listed these examples to show that Olbermann's is a sorry, dishonest and unstable person. One need not support or oppose President Bush to be repelled by Olbermann, so the loony idea that one would have to be motivated by a desire to support Bush to attack Olbermann is simply wrong. The analysis in my earlier post at 5:52 clearly demonstates this.

The House shares a long night of debate,
"Were the towers hit by the Al Qaeda of today?"
While W. commends high treason,
The troops await reason,
To triumph over the Executive's decay.

But, Hank, you do have to admit that the essence of Rovian Republicanism is to meet information that might have negative implications for the Administration or which might tend to cast Administration policy or practice in an unfavorable light with some grand or smarmy diversion or with some meaningless or nasty catch phrase. Criticisms are never countered with facts in Rove's America because facts can be very dangerous.

Emphatic typography like "GREAT!"
Seems tainted with elements of hate
What point he says
Is the Dirty Sanchez
Of his verbal equal for debate

I see that Rudy has fallen into second place in the polls name, behind Not Any of the Above. Does anyone know NAOTA's position on Non-Cheney Gay Marriage?

"If she did nothing else, Ms. Sheehan showed us a bit of grace and courage. She also showed us the lack of it in the President."

From RadarOnline.com:

"In the book [Peace Mom], which hits bookstores September 19, the antiwar icon admits she has fantasized about going back in time and killing the infant George W. Bush, thereby preventing the Iraq War."

Sorry, Cluck, your gal Cindy has flat struck out in the grace department.

Exactly, Clucker.

Facts imply Truth, and Truth is Bad for the GOP.
When you think about it, it makes divine sense: as everyone who follows The Good Book knows, it was Truth that got us kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

So, consider an apple a day to keep the Rovians away!

You STILL have avoided the question, Hank....why?

The question is: What percentage of Olbermann haters on this blog are also Bush supporters? THAT is the question...nothing more complicated than that.

I personally believe that percentage is CLOSE to 100%.

Now Hank, once again.....the question ISN'T whether it is necessary to be a Bush supporter to also be an Olbermann detractor....The question remains unanswered by you: What percentage of the current regular anti - Olbermann poaters are also Bush supporters?

"But, Hank, you do have to admit that the essence of Rovian Republicanism is to meet information that might have negative implications for the Administration or which might tend to cast Administration policy or practice in an unfavorable light with some grand or smarmy diversion or with some meaningless or nasty catch phrase."

Tell you what Cluck, I will whip out my Rovian secret decoder ring (that I received after making my annual under the table RNC donation) containing the phone number for the super secret Rove back line. I will then instruct Rove (since all OW clear thinkers are in the conspiratorial Rove inner circle) to cease challenging all Democratic allegations of Bush being the worst President in history, that Guantanamo is the equivalent of Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. I will tell Rove you are quite distressed that Rove dares to respond to such allegations, something that Begala and Carville would never dare to do during the Clinton years.

Mike and others,

What is this "Bush" that many of you keep talking about? We on Pluto catch Keith Olbermann on our "satellite dish" as you on earth like to call it, and he talks about this "Bush" also. Please explain and thank you in advance.

Mike, the point that the original poster was making was that the MOTIVATION of OW clear thinkers was suspect because they all are Bush supporters AND they are criticizing Olbermann because he attacks Bush. I could care less what the percentage is of Bush supporters there are that do not care for Olbermann. That is beside the point. The point is that the MOTIVATION for many OW clear thinkers in criticizing Olbermann is his lack of professionalism, which you completely avoided in answering my previous post.

"What is this "Bush" that many of you keep talking about?"

Don't worry 'visitor'....it's just our problem here on Earth. I THINK you are out of harms way from the destructiveness of Bushism out there on Pluto.

"Sure is very tough work being a Bush supporter these days"

Has nothing to do with being a Bush supporter, bird brain. You would know that if you read and comprehended my posts.

Sorry Hank, it's not beside the point at all!

If nearly 100% of the Olbermann haters on this board are in fact also Bush supporters, as I suspect they are, then it is far more than either coincidence or KO's so called "lack of professionalism" that are driving their rabid opposition.

It's the MESSAGE!

I predict that 99% of the Olbermann tool lickers are Hillary supporters, just too ashamed to admit they plan on voting for a woman and a total fraud.

"We're all Bush supporters, and we all now have egg on our faces. Our only hope is the constant barrage of condemnations of Keith Olbermann."

If Keith is such a great journalist and the modern day Edward R. Murrow, why don't you mount a defense against the many criticisms I levelled against him at 5:52 today that HAVE NOTHING TO DO with whether I support Bush or not?

Actually Jeff, I'm an Obama supporter...and I'm not even one of "his people" either, whoever THEY are.........LOL!

Guantanamo is the equivalent of Stalin, Pol Pot, etc
---------------------------
Guantanamo is a place, while Stalin and Pol Pot are persons. All three are nouns, but I
have never heard anyone argue, even the most IQ-challenged RW'er, that a place is just a person. You might say that Romney is like the Colorado River, always changing positions, but you wouldn't say Romney is the Colorado River. You might say Vitter is like the Empire State Building, erect but dirty, but you wouldn't say Vitter is the Empire State Building. Is your point that the person who has given us Guantanamo, Bush, is like the people who gave us gulags (Stalin) and killing fields (Pol Pot) ? If it is, I would take exception. Although I am terribly unfond of Bush, I would never compare him to such men, and for you to do so, a dyed-in-the-wool, confirmed Bushie, I find most odd. Indeed, I find Bush to be much more like those little tags sewn in the collar of dress shirts. They constantly irritate you and you wonder why they are there. You are relieved when they are finally removed. Even then, that is metaphor or simile, depending on how phrased, and it is not a statement of equivalency.

It is hillarious to read Johnny Dollar's incessant whining about stories Keith Olbermann doesn't cover to his satisfaction,
but this very same Johnny Dollar rabidly defends Fox 'News', which is by far, the worst network of all for doing the very same thing.

Posted by: "mike" at July 17, 2007 1:15 AM

Still looking for some proof to back your spew? Or, have you waved the white flag, again? Good luck!!!!!!

one of "his people" either, whoever THEY are.........LOL!

Posted by: Mike at July 18, 2007 12:26 AM

Of coarse you wouldn't know anything about heritage. I'm not surprised, one bit. You're an idiot.

course, settle down "mike."

Hank, Hank, Hank: You miss the point entirely: I don't think I have EVER read any Olbermann supporter on this board call him "a great journalist and the modern day Edward R. Murrow". However, J$ and a few other Olbermann haters do it regularly with dripping sarcasm.

Olbermann is a flawed 'journalist' and I WOULD certainly change some things about him if I could, however, there is not a single news personality in the business that I wouldn't change SOMETHING about as well.

That said, none of his obvious flaws diminish my thankfulness that there is now SOMEBODY on cable news speaking out against this meglamaniac president with the needed passion that Olbermann displays.

Once again Hank...It's the MESSAGE, not the messenger!

Of coarse [sic], Mike, you could offer this as some proof:

The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox's newsroom personnel into action - or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be 'whining' about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.

(From: http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo, as quoted in http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News)

Of coarse [sic], that may not be considered reliable enough to some.

Leave it to Mrs. Philby to be all over a typo, even though I corrected it before she had to dance in glee. Leave it to "mike" to avoid backing his lies, again. Lie # what? I've lost track.......

What 'lies' would you be referring to Jeff?

Jeff, there are several good posts above....some addressing you personally, asking you very pertinant questions, and giving you real information about real issues....and what do you do in response?....you choose to call me a 'liar' without any basis....and then worry about a spelling error.

A joke you are...and a joke you will remain!

Thanks, patsy!

Mike,

So you are for Obama? I support Hillary, but for the "wrong" reasons. I have complete confidence that she cannot win in the general election, so she's my girl.

If Obama were a little smarter, he could easily win the Democratic nomination. A few months ago he came on strong, looking confident, like a winner, like somebody who didn't "need" to be president, like Hillary does. But he has slipped because he has given some lame ass answers to a few questions. He had better figure out that he needs to memorize his talking points. If he does that he can glide to the nomination. Somebody had better tell him the facts of life. Not that I am complaining, because I am hoping that he never figures it out.

Rico: I have been suspicious that some of Hillary's 'support' has been from folks like you.

I too believe she will have a tougher time in the general election than either Obama or Edwards would.

At least I can say my support is genuine where you admit your's is not. I hate to say it, but I can't help but wonder what you just admitted to says about your character?

Mike,

I admit it. I'm evil.

But if Obama reads my critique of him and follows my advice, he will win it all, and easily.

So, Mike, I remember you in the past supporting Edwards. What happened to that? Wind change?

Modern day Sodom and Gomorrrah.

The victims deserve every penny. Cardinal Mahoney has much to account for on Judgment Day, unless he repents.

anonyloon, McCain aligned himself with Feinbronze and Ted the murderer Kennedy, that's what cooked him, has nothing to do with the surge.

The worlds all time flip flopper is Ketchup Kerry, wrong about Romney.

Rudy is a republicrat with no base support, has nothing to do with marriages, kids or whatever else Olbermahn has pounded in your empty head.

Ron Paul, if the olbyloons support him, I DEFINATELY don't support him.

Thompson will win the GOP, mark my words.

I know the Senator had the good taste to bring out his wife dressed like a high class crack whore, all leopard and grins, but why are you calling for the Republicans to be turned into lumps of salt?

Posted by: Average American Patriot at July 18, 2007 1:53 AM

You mean like BJ Clinton did with Hillary? LOL!!!

I would consider voting for Ron Paul, but as things stand now, he won't win the ticket. He is pro-life and he took a position against the war when it was not popular, which indicates strength. I want a strong leader. I'll have to research his position more about how he plans to handle the war on terror and what his plan is for Iraq. Unlike what some of you think, I didn't follow the war vote. Once war was underway and I started following more closely, I wanted to see success. The fact that lives have been lost and billions spent is not a shock because this is war. Some comparisons can be made to past wars but times have changed so much that the comparisons are limited, IMO. When I look back at the statements made at the time of the war (now in hindsight) and consider that no one has yet presented a clearcut case of lying by Bush, I believe he what HE believed he had to at the time. That does not mean that I support every action since. You either know me from here or you don't. I am not going to the archives but just yesterday (?) I composed a list of what I consider were major mistakes.

I don't view the world the same as you AAP (obviously). I don't know anything about Vitter or his wife except the recent headlines. Maybe he'll step down. (Too many women in church dress no differently than what you claim of Vitter's wife). I view it as more a victory for the Evil One than for Vitter's critics. When you are in public office, you are going to suffer much more for a hypocritical lifestyle than the Average American Patriot. There is a price to pay for misdeeds. Better to repent and pay the price now than in the hereafter.

Anon of 1:46
If you understood the Catholic faith, you would know that a priest is responsible to God for shepherding his parish, a Bishop is responsible for the Diocese and a Cardinal for an even greater region. Every soul is in their care.

Anon,

Have someone bring your case. Republicans are defecting, the public approval rating is low, bring it on. To me a case is made not on the internet with cut and paste but with a full investigation, people under oath, that sort of thing.

I really don't see the joke of Thompson taking the GOP ticket. Polls look good for him now. It still is early but I would say that when he gets in, he'll be a top tier candidate.

People like Jay Rockefeller would have to account for himself under oath in an impeachment investigation. I copied an interview with Chris Wallace recently where he admitted that he saw a discrepancy between the CIA's view of Saddam's nuclear capability and the State Department. He still voted yes because he said he just got the report but after further reflection, he went to the floor and expressed concern. Too late buddy!
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:QTLdpRZqFSoJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175433,00.html+rockefeller+wallace+interview&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

1:35, you want to show me where I ever said I supported Edwards over Obama? Either one would make a good and ETHICAL president in my opinion, and I would enthusiastically support either one as the nominee, but I don't ever recall favoring Edwards over Obama.

Colin Powell appears to have been against going to war because of the aftermath. He stated on Meet the Press that Bush didn't lie us into war.

I just have time for one more point. I'll take on more another time.

Lie No. 6: “[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.”

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

If you guessed Hillary Clinton as the speaker, you were right!

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:fne_Xq754OUJ:clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html+hillary+clinton+al+qaeda+iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Forgot the link for Clinton.

Clucker says:

"Guantanamo is the equivalent of Stalin, Pol Pot, etc
---------------------------
Guantanamo is a place, while Stalin and Pol Pot are persons. All three are nouns, but I
have never heard anyone argue, even the most IQ-challenged RW'er, that a place is just a person. You might say that Romney is like the Colorado River, always changing positions, but you wouldn't say Romney is the Colorado River. You might say Vitter is like the Empire State Building, erect but dirty, but you wouldn't say Vitter is the Empire State Building. Is your point that the person who has given us Guantanamo, Bush, is like the people who gave us gulags (Stalin) and killing fields (Pol Pot) ? If it is, I would take exception. Although I am terribly unfond of Bush, I would never compare him to such men, and for you to do so, a dyed-in-the-wool, confirmed Bushie, I find most odd. Indeed, I find Bush to be much more like those little tags sewn in the collar of dress shirts. They constantly irritate you and you wonder why they are there. You are relieved when they are finally removed. Even then, that is metaphor or simile, depending on how phrased, and it is not a statement of equivalency.

Posted by: Clucker at July 18, 2007 12:29 AM

Well, Cluck if you will forgive my literary imprecision, I will forgive your concrete, rigid thinking. Naturally, most persons who have moved developmentally beyond concrete thinking quickly recognize that my use of the terms "Stalin" and "Pol Pot" were shorthand terms to describe horrific conditions of incarceration imposed by these evil men. I'm glad to hear that you denounce any comparison between Guantanamo and the conditions that existed in gulags and prison camps during the terroristic rule of Stalin and Pol Pot. See, Clucker I made the comparison as a sarcastic "inside baseball" political joke, never dreaming that I would have to actually spell out the actual event that sparked it, but I guess the Austin American Statesman, liberal rag that it is, failed to cover this story. It seems that one of your favorites, Mr. Dick Durbin, tried to seriously make the comparison between Guantanomo and the gulags under Stalin and the prison camps under Pol Pot. Of course, when public outrage turned against him, he had to tearfully apologize. Since word of this event is just now getting to you and you wish to denounce such an outrageous comparison, perhaps you would like to join us Rovian Republicans in rebutting such dubious Democratic criticism.

Sharon, since you have admitted not paying much attention to the war until after it was underway, I do wonder if that doesn't color your perception to some degree?

I paid very close attention to the rhetoric and the run up to the war as it was happening, and that probably has much to do with my personal anger about it today. It didn't just happen. I, along with many others felt we were making a colossal mistake at the time. I read and heard many of the opinions of some pretty savvy people warning against it....that were simply shouted down. It's funny how little is ever said about any of that today. At the time, I was on the road a lot and I listened regularly to Rush Limbaugh as he rabidly pushed for war on his 'EIB' network for almost an entire year before it actually happened.

It is appalling how much of a pass those who pushed hard for this colosal mistake are still given a pass today....and how many of those that fought it from the start are still being villanized by the right today.

The people who are giving the president a pass are those in power who claim he "lied" us into war and are doing nothing about it. You may argue that it was a poor decision, a disastrous decision. I will wait for sworn testimony and hearings for the "lie" argument. I have said that about twenty times here. Goodnight

Austin American Statesman
-------------------------------
Endorsed Bush for governor once and president twice ....

A purely local newspaper of no particular merit nor interest outside greater Austin ....

Your point would be? Your head?

Of course, Guantanamo is a national shame, the poor comparisons notwithstanding. Problem is, Bush probably can't close it without bringing the detainees to the US. Virtually all riff-raff despite not being of any terror threat .... Another good example of Bush not bothering to think anything through ....

Gitmo is a national shame for letting people picked up on the battlefield receive awesome healthcare (thanks Michael Moore), pray five times a day, receive the best meals they have ever had, receive a quran, and we let them throw feces at our guards. Your right Gitmo is an American embarassment. The monkey cages at the San Diego zoo are much better.

It is appalling how much of a pass those who pushed hard for this [colosal]sic mistake are still given a pass today....and how many of those that fought it from the start are still being [villanized]sic by the right today.

Posted by: Mike at July 18, 2007 2:53 AM

Should we lock up Rush? What's funny to me is the fact that all of the dems that voted FOR the war are getting passes from people like you. Should I re-post the list for you to refresh your memory? All you seem to do is blame the Republicans over and over and over and over. It's very old and tiresome.

Your word has been so good at this site, hasn't it.

What a joke !

Posted by: at July 18, 2007 2:09 AM

Your words, other than your 2:09 spew are where? Keyboard warrier with no name?

Luke AFB is west of Phoenix and is rapidly being surrounded by
civilization that complains about the noise from the base and its
planes, forgetting that it was there long before they were.

A certain lieutenant colonel at Luke AFB deserves a big pat on the
back. Apparently, an individual who lives somewhere near Luke AFB wrote
the local paper complaining about a group of F-16s that disturbed
his/her day at the mall. When that individual read the response from a
Luke AFB officer, it must have stung quite a bit.

The complaint:
"Question of the day for Luke Air Force Base: Whom do we thank for
the morning air show? Last Wednesday, at precisely 9:11 a.m., a tight
formation of four F-16 jets made a low pass over Arrowhead Mall,
continuing west over Bell Road at approximately 500 feet. Imagine our
good fortune! Do the Tom Cruise-wannabes feel we need this wake-up call,
or were they trying to impress the cashiers at Mervyns early bird
special? Any response would be appreciated."

The response:
Regarding "A wake-up call from Luke's jets" (Letters, Thursday): On
June 15, at precisely 9:12 a.m., a perfectly timed four-ship flyby of
F-16s from the 63rd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base flew over
the grave of Capt. Jeremy Fresques.

Capt. Fresques was an Air Force officer who was previously stationed
at Luke Air Force Base and was killed in Iraq on May 30. At 9 a.m. on
June 15, his family and friends gathered at Sunland Memorial Park in Sun
City to mourn the loss of a husband, son and friend.

Based on the letter writer's recount of the flyby, and because of the
jet noise, I'm sure you didn't hear the 21-gun salute, the playing of
taps, or my words to the widow and parents of Capt. Fresques as I gave
them their son's flag on behalf of the President of the United States
and all those veterans and servicemen and women who understand the
sacrifices they have endured. A four-ship flyby is a display of respect
the Air Force pays to those who give their lives in defense of freedom.
We are professional aviators and take our jobs seriously, and on June 15
what the letter writer witnessed was four officers lining up to pay
their ultimate respects.

The letter writer asks, "Whom do we thank for the morning air show?"
The 56th Fighter Wing will call for you, and forward your thanks to the
widow and parents of Capt. Fresques, and thank them for you, for it was
in their honor that my pilots flew the most honorable formation of their
lives.

Lt. Col. Scott Pleus
CO 63rd Fighter Squadron
Luke AFB

Royalking, can you say "off topic'!

"Should we lock up Rush?"

No jeff, not at all....but maybe we should stop LISTENING to him!

As for the dems who clearly used bad judgement and went along with Rush and the Neocons by voting for the authority to go to war IF NECESSARY, you've NEVER seen me give them a pass, so quit lying. It's the major reason i favor Obama over Edwards. However, at least Edwards has publicly admitted his mistake.

I keep forgetting, you can't quit lying...it's part of your DNA).

No jeff, not at all....but maybe we should stop LISTENING to him!
Posted by: "mike" at July 18, 2007 12:22 PM

"He's just the MESSENGER!" to use your words. Does that logic only work when referring to Olbermahn? I think not.

"Gitmo is a national shame for letting people picked up on the battlefield receive awesome healthcare (thanks Michael Moore), pray five times a day, receive the best meals they have ever had..."

Yeah! Under those conditions, why would you ever WANT to sleep anyway? Their so dawggone happy they just spontaneously spout blood on the floor and play fun games like bobbing for the ticking time-bomb. Or there's the perennial favorite of Turkish prisoners in eternal limbo everywhere, Hang-Yourself-Ha-Ha!

Even 13 year old kids get in on the fun, at least until they go insane and chew off their own body parts. We should all be so lucky.

Seriously though, what do you crazy liberals want, the U.S. to treat our suspected vicious barbarian enemies better than they would treat us if they are who we suspect they may be? What kind of fucked-up moral system is that? How could we win a big war that way?

Since the olbyloons have received their latest talking point of the last couple of days that "al qaeda is stronger!" Why no mention of the capture of the senoir al qaeda operative who was the go-between for OBL and Al Zawahiri? No long cut and pastes from the usual suspects, not a single peep. Most definately a "non barker" for Olbermahn as well as his loons. We'll just sweep this little bit of good news right under the carpet......never happened.

"What kind of fucked up moral system is that?"

Duh.....It's called living up to our own American ideals that are supposed to be better than eveyone else's. It's clled creating more goodwill and respect for America around the world, which would ultimately pay it's own dividends.
'
FInally, when we stoop to barbarism in retaliation to barbarism, we become just like the enemy we are fighting!.....THEN what re we fighting for?

It's a great moral system...one we should never have abandoned!

"He's just the MESSENGER", to use your words. Does that logic only work when referring to Olbermann. I think not."

Damn Jeff...you are SO dense it defies conventional logic!

Rush is on record for rabidly pushing for this war that has cost America so much and gained us absolutely nothing.

When Keith Olbermann becomes guilty of pushing for something that ends up hurting America as badly as this war has, I would be the first to say we should stop listening to him too. So far he hasn't done that....and I don't think he ever will.

The last two posts were from Mike, I don't know why the "remember me" button got changed to 'no' again.

I think it's time to rally the base, set Bush on fire!
Cheney will provide the voice from above.

Let me address a few issues surrounding my assertion regarding critics of KO and supporters of Bush. My original post forwarded the notion that ‘a principal’ reason for the anti-KO sentiment of this site is the fact that KO takes Bush to task for his ineptitude.

Here is my original assertion:

I would guess about 9 out of 10 Olby-Haters here support the president, and Keith’s willingness to take him to task for mistakes he’s made is a principle reason you dislike KO, Countdown, and MSNBC, whether you admit it or not.

Hank, curiously not forthcoming on his feelings about Bush (Hmmmm….), posts:

>> Bush Archives made a ridiculous post opining that the clear thinkers on this site attack Olbermann simply because he attacks Bush. I did give examples about how "bad" I thought Olbermann is, but that is by no means a "diversion" . I listed these examples to show that Olbermann's is a sorry, dishonest and unstable person. One need not support or oppose President Bush to be repelled by Olbermann, so the loony idea that one would have to be motivated by a desire to support Bush to attack Olbermann is simply wrong. The analysis in my earlier post at 5:52 clearly demonstates this.

Posted by: hank at July 17, 2007 11:32 PM

Hank says: ‘One need not support or oppose President Bush to be repelled by Olbermann.’ What Hank fails to understand is that his statement can be true alongside my statement. They are not mutually exclusive. Yes, I’m sure it is possible (although apparently not likely) to be repelled by Olbermann regardless of feelings about the president. One can simply be repelled by the way he dresses. But the way he dresses isn’t POLITICAL. Hank misses the part about ‘Olby-Haters here.’ Does Hank deny this site has a dominant POLITICAL theme to it? Why is Hank so uptight about the linking of anti-KO sentiment to pro-Bush sentiment? Are you ashamed of your political allegiances? Are you surprised your motivation appears so transparent to others? Are you frustrated that critics of OW don’t buy the emphasis you put on the myriad sideline reasons you create, nurture, and propagate to underscore your hatred of Olbermann?

Do you seriously want us to believe your disdain for KO is chiefly UNPOLITICAL?

I would say KO critics hate Him, Countdown, and MSNBC for mainly these three reasons:

1.) His criticism of GWB,
2.) The fact that he doesn’t come out and say he is a liberal, and
3.) The fact that he mocks all things Fox with a focus on his dear friend Bill O’Reilly.

Sure, I believe you when you say you resent the fact he doesn’t do a debate show or allow dissenting voices on his show. Sure, I believe you when you say it’s his Murrow impersonation that you really find irksome. And I even ALMOST believe you when you say it’s because he is a misogynist woman-hater (but there’s just enough anti-KO posters here that like to use the term ‘pussy’ to describe the opposition that the misogynist stuff is still a bit of a stretch).

Sure, you may not like those things about Keith (along with his Ashleigh Banfield sunglasses, agent-orange man-tan, or his stripes with polka dots with stripes ensembles), but those things are merely salt in the wound. Those are easy targets of ridicule. Mocking those things would just be the proverbial ‘piling on.’

Now, let’s take a look at the three (real) reasons I think the anti-KO contingency flock to this site to show off how smart they are.

Here’s a hint: It might just be motivated more by politics than fashion.

Now, ALL the anti-KO posters might be conservative. It’s a possibility. I’m conservative leaning on many issues, but I don’t hate KO.

Now, MOST of the anti-KO posters might be Fox News fans. But I’ve read posts from cee and cecelia stating that they do not watch Fox with any sort of regularity.

So, what does that leave us? Hank would have you believe the common denominator that unites the anti-KO sentiment on this site is (drum-roll please) …

…the view that Olbermann is ‘unprofessional’

>> Mike, the point that the original poster was making was that the MOTIVATION of OW clear thinkers was suspect because they all are Bush supporters AND they are criticizing Olbermann because he attacks Bush. I could care less what the percentage is of Bush supporters there are that do not care for Olbermann. That is beside the point. The point is that the MOTIVATION for many OW clear thinkers in criticizing Olbermann is his lack of professionalism, which you completely avoided in answering my previous post.

Posted by: hank at July 18, 2007 12:10 AM

Beside the point? Puhleeeeeez. It must just be twin strange coincidences that a.) KO is unprofessional AND takes Bush to task, and b.) OW just decided to focus their attention on KO and IGNORE all the other unprofessional news personalities of varying political persuasions out there.

My assertion is that a vast majority of anti-KO posters (by some statistical fluke as Hank would have you believe) also happen to be Bush supporters. Sorry Hank, you don’t get to decide what is ‘beside the point’ when you aren’t the one making the ‘point.’

Hank says:

>> So the loony idea that one would have to be motivated by a desire to support Bush to attack Olbermann is simply wrong. The analysis in my earlier post at 5:52 clearly demonstates this.

The ONLY thing that would ‘clearly demonstrate’ that my assertion is indeed inaccurate would be having several posters, after having read my post, let their combined anti-Bush and anti-KO sentiment be known through a subsequent posting. Anything else looks an awful lot like the ‘spin’ you claim to be against.

There must be some folks here who hate Bush and KO nearly equally isn’t there?

Almost 24 hours later on the top recap thread of the site and I have yet to hear from a single one…

"The ONLY thing that would ‘clearly demonstrate’ that my assertion is indeed inaccurate would be having several posters, after having read my post, let their combined anti-Bush and anti-KO sentiment be known through a subsequent posting. Anything else looks an awful lot like the ‘spin’ you claim to be against."

Sorry, the burden is on you to show that your assertion is accurate, not for others to show that your assertions are inaccurate. So far, all that your "War and Peace " length diatribe has achieved is a bunch of inferences on YOUR part that Olbermann critics are almost invariably Bush supporters.

"Do you seriously want us to believe your disdain for KO is chiefly UNPOLITICAL?"

I don't care what you believe. I do know that I have given cogent nonpolitical reasons that I find Olbermann repellent and many others have expressed these same sentiments with no evidence of whether they are supporters of Bush or not (if you have been contributing to this site for a while as I have you would already know this).

I notice in your "analysis" of my nonpolitical reasons for finding Olbermann distasteful, you carefully exclude the most vile acts of Olbermann I cite (falsely smearing ideological opponents as Nazis, telling hecklers to "kill themselves and to "f***" their mother).

The fact that you refuse to even honestly present my arguments shows that you are dishonest and have no interest in a fair debate. If you were, you would attempt to answer my points of argumentation by presenting your own evidence to attempt to show that my nonpolitical reasons for my strong distaste for Olbermann are pretextual. But you can't do that becaue you know that what I am saying is true.

Take your phony crap over to Media Matters or some other left fringe site where the loonies will fall at your feet.

Hank: It's hard to believe you keep carrying on with this. The simple FACTS refute you. Anyone who has posted on the blog for any length of time knows full well that 99% of the anti-Olbermann posters are also pro-Bush, and vice versa.

Keep on arguing hypotheticals, but thats ALL you are doing and you sound ridiculous in the process.

A good metaphor for your illogical argument might be: "liberals are as likely to be republican as they are to be a Democrat". You could argue all day long the entirely possible hypothetical truth of that argument, but hard statistics would prove you wrong every time.

"Hank: It's hard to believe you keep carrying on with this"

The only "carrying on" I'm doing is replying to the posts that you and BPA keep putting up. I know that the hard core libs don't like it when their views are challenged ("You're questioning my patriotism!!!")

"Anyone who has posted on the blog for any length of time knows full well that 99% of the anti-Olbermann posters are also pro-Bush, and vice versa."

There is no basis for your making this assertion, you are simply arguing based on your feelings. Try using logic like I do in my posts.

"Keep on arguing hypotheticals, but thats ALL you are doing and you sound ridiculous in the process."

You must not know what a hypothetical is because I have not employed such a device in my posts on this subject.

Oh Brother Hank!!

Neither one of your adversaries in this argument have argued that it is not possible to be both an Olbermann hater and a Bush hater. If that is the basis for your argument, then you are probably correct.

The argument is that the vast majority of the Olbermann haters on THIS site are in fact ALSO Bush supporters. If that were not true, I wouldn't even be psoting here.

"Sorry, the burden is on you to show that your assertion is accurate"

Hank, hell will freeze over when and if this is done by a certain olbyloon.

I will wait for sworn testimony and hearings for the "lie" argument.
-----
Sharon, that is a Catch 22, you know? We have an alleged liar who asserts Executive Privilege every time someone within a 25 mile radius of the Whitehouse hiccups. The truth will come out, but not in the fashion you have mandated. In a couple of years, someone will write a book, someone with far more credibility than Bush, someone who would have been in circumstances to know the truth. Colin Powell is a strong possibility. He is stung, embarassed, frustrated and angry. There will likely be others as well. That is the only way Bush will ever be exposed for the liar I believe him to be.

>Sorry, the burden is on you to show that your assertion is accurate.

My assertion is perpetually being proven by the fact that, thus far, not a single person has admitted to being disgusted by both Bush and Olbermann. This is 'The #1 Keith Olbermann Blog in the World' and I was referring to Olby-Haters on this site, not Olby-Haters the world over.

You know how I know my assertion is accurate? What are the two favorite past-times of KO-Haters here? Let's see, trashing KO has to be no.1... And a close second? That would be defending Bush and his wrong-headed policies like the war in Iraq.

>I don't care what you believe. I do know that I have given cogent nonpolitical reasons that I find Olbermann repellent and many others have expressed these same sentiments with no evidence of whether they are supporters of Bush or not (if you have been contributing to this site for a while as I have you would already know this).

Hank, simple logic escapes you. Yes, it is possible to dislike KO for more than one reason at a time. I never argued otherwise. Certainly you can do a better job of the old strawman routine. And yes, I have contributed to this site for quite a while, and I stand wholeheartedly by my assertion. So your tired old 'I know better than you because I've been around longer' doesn't wash here. Save that for your offspring, if you are capable of procreating.

>So far, all that your "War and Peace " length diatribe has achieved is a bunch of inferences on YOUR part that Olbermann critics are almost invariably Bush supporters.

LOL! Uhhhg! Reading and Writing Baaaad!

If you weren't so opposed to reading, having read what I wrote, you would realize my 'inferences' are accurate.

>The fact that you refuse to even honestly present my arguments shows that you are dishonest and have no interest in a fair debate. If you were, you would attempt to answer my points of argumentation by presenting your own evidence to attempt to show that my nonpolitical reasons for my strong distaste for Olbermann are pretextual.

Wow, Hank, even when I rub your nose in your own misunderstanding of my original post, it still doesn't stick. I NEVER said being pro-Bush is the ONLY reason someone wouldn't like Olbermann.

Go ahead and show me where I said that your reasons for not liking KO are exclusively political? Sure you can list as many 'non-political' reasons you dislike Olbermann as you want. What does that prove? Does that mean that you ONLY dislike KO for non-political reasons? Answer this question honestly: If Olbermann was a fan of the president, never said a bad word about him, praised him and his strategy in Iraq, would: 1.) This site even exist? 2.) Would you harbor any where near the resentment for KO you apparently have now? and 3.) Would all the other oh-so-important NON-political reasons you hate Olbermann be as important?

Go back, re-read my post, and get back to me to tell me who is being intellectually dishonest. Actually, I got a better idea, how about you just tell me exactly where your support for the president lies, and then you can silently acknowledge I'm right and we can move on.

>Take your phony crap over to Media Matters or some other left fringe site where the loonies will fall at your feet.

Left fringe site? Talk about inaccurate 'inferences.' You must have also missed the part about me being conservative on many issues. 'Phony crap,' 'Left Fringe', 'Loonies.' Oh Hank, I think another Olbermann Derangement Syndrome spell is coming on. Better pop a pill and count backwards from 100.

In a previous post (you've actually made more posts regarding this topic than I have-congratulations) you mentioned I thought your 'motivation' for hating Olbermann was 'suspect' because of my assertion regarding it's origin. I never even implied such a thing. And, in fact, if I thought Bush was a good guy doing the best he can under difficult circumstances, and KO repeatedly trashed him, why wouldn't that be a principle reason to dislike Olbermann? Unless, of course, you've grown ashamed of your own political allegiances.

I simply made the assertion, whether or not it matters is up to the reader. Apparently it REALLY matters to you, Hank. A LOT. So much, in fact, you've got yourself all lathered up defending yourself against something that seems about as obvious as gravity.

So, I ask again...

There must be some folks here who hate Bush and KO nearly equally isn’t there

Over 24 hours later on the top recap thread of the site and I have yet to hear from a single one…

I will wait for sworn testimony and hearings for the "lie" argument.
-----
Sharon, that is a Catch 22, you know? We have an alleged liar who asserts Executive Privilege every time someone within a 25 mile radius of the Whitehouse hiccups. The truth will come out, but not in the fashion you have mandated. In a couple of years, someone will write a book, someone with far more credibility than Bush, someone who would have been in circumstances to know the truth. Colin Powell is a strong possibility. He is stung, embarassed, frustrated and angry. There will likely be others as well. That is the only way Bush will ever be exposed for the liar I believe him to be.

Posted by: Clucker at July 18, 2007 6:44 PM

Wouldn't you think the "catch 22" is found in an argument that essentially says if there's nothing discovered during investigations, I"ll respond by argugin that it will likely be found out later somehow.

Hank, this is only my opinion but when you said:

".......(if you have been contributing to this site for a while as I have you would already know this)."

I think you are being too generous and perhaps a bit too trusting.

I suspect you are arguing with a 'nom du jour'.

Grammie

I suspect you are arguing with a 'nom du jour'.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 18, 2007 6:57 PM

...And that matters how exactly?

think you are being too generous and perhaps a bit too trusting.

I suspect you are arguing with a 'nom du jour'.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 18, 2007 6:57 PM

Ah... the Bushkill Falls, Coward Watch, and Kulture of the Klan of yesteryear...

Typical Grammie...

The messenger matters more than the message.

Of course, if the message made me look petty, partisan, dishonest, and hypocritical I'd get all hung up on names too.

Cecelia, of course that is the logical approach. I don't think, though, that logic has anything to do with many of the conclusions stated as fact that we see here.

I once had someone here respond to my question where is the proof to boldly state that the fact that there is no proof absolutely proved that what he said was true because of course they destroyed the proof which proved that they did it.

If no proof = proof

Does

Proof = no proof.

Just asking.

Grammie

Typical Grammie...

The messenger matters more than the message.

Of course, if the message made me look petty, partisan, dishonest, and hypocritical I'd get all hung up on names too.

Posted by: The Bush Presidential Archives at July 18, 2007 7:08 PM

Well, we've just seen arguments here that the status of how one feels about the president "matters" as to whether one can objectively comment upon Keith Olbermann or any political matter.

If tactics in the midst of argument such as using all sorts of AKA's and/or going anonyloon (when you have a regular screen name) in order to pad the ...dissent gallery... then certainly you should argue that above doesn't matter either.

If fact, I'd say that your political druthers in an argument are far less indicative of an inability to discuss a matter objectively, than is someone's willingess to engage in these sorts of tactics.

Wouldn't you think the "catch 22" is found in an argument that essentially says if there's nothing discovered during investigations, I"ll respond by argugin that it will likely be found out later somehow.
-----------------------------
Not if the investgation is thwarted, as it will be. You know that, Cecelia. You can even admire and Respect Bush's secrecy if you wish. Just don't pretend that secrecy and the truth are necessarily compatible. Most often, they are not. Most often, secrecy is a way to avoid exposing the truth. That is a human reality, not just a political one, although we have plenety of examples in the political sphere, Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Oliver North and the Iran-Contra conspirators, Scooter Libby, just to name a few .... I think they Democrats are wasting their time on investigations at the moment. In time, the lies and deceptions will all come out, and we will be better for it. It will inform us how to select good leaders and how to avoid selecting the bad ones. In the end, it will be a good thing, and if the truth emerges 2 days from now, 2 years from now, 2 decades from now, the truth will set us free.

Okay, out of respect for our Elder Statesman 'Planet Squawkins' and in the interest of full disclosure (like it matters, it's a goddamn hypocritical smear site, not access to Los Alamos...

LMAO =

Commission Accomplished =

Bush isn't Evil and Cheney ain't Dumb =

The Bush Presidential Archives.

Now, I know all the Wing-Nut NeoCons will accuse me of 'hiding' from something. They'll accuse me of being a 'coward.' They'll accuse me of all sorts of characteristics they've all exhibited here at one time or another. Actually Cecelia has already accused me of such before I've even made this post. Typical.

But go ahead all you fine folks with more time on your hands than common sense:

Try to show where I've changed my ID mid-argument (in fact I tend to keep the same ID for weeks at a time) and show me where any of the points of view from any of the names above are ideologically at odds with one another. And I've never 'anonymously' agreed with myself to show artificial support for a point of view.

JD or Cox could back up this claim, but I know with the 'agenda' they are pushing they won't.

I actually write in the exact same style and express the exact same viewpoint every time I post. I'm actually sort of surprised no one could figure it out sooner. I'm guessing there's no members of Mensa actively posting on OW.

I change my name because:

a.) I don't take this site as seriously as you do

b.) My name usually dove-tails with a point I'm making

c.) We're all frickin' anonymous genius!

d.) My posts are generally humorous (at least to those NOT in denial) and the name field is an extention of that

So, while I'm not beholden to a self-given and anonymous moniker such as 'factor' or 'royalking' that doesn't mean I change my name to somehow gain the 'upperhand' in an argument.

In fact, you'd think that someone who routinely gets the type of compliments I do on my posts (from both righty tighties and leftie loosies), wouldn't want to change their name.

But, if it will make Grammie, Cecelia, and their ilk happy, I'll disclose the next time I decide to change my name.

That way they'll know exactly who's questions and points they're dodging.

BTW-You think 'Dollar' is really Johnny's last name?

>If tactics in the midst of argument such as using all sorts of AKA's and/or going anonyloon (when you have a regular screen name) in order to pad the ...dissent gallery... then certainly you should argue that above doesn't matter either.

Personally, I think they both matter...

Do YOU think they both matter, Cecelia?

Do YOU think they both matter, Cecelia?

Posted by: The Ruffler at July 18, 2007 7:55 PM

Nope. I do not think political persuasion automatically implies an inability to be objective.

Yes, I think engaging in the aforementioned tactics ALWAYS does.

>Nope. I do not think political persuasion automatically implies an inability to be objective.

Where did I ever say THAT?

In fact, like Hank, I think you need to re-read my post.

"In a previous post (you've actually made more posts regarding this topic than I have-congratulations) you mentioned I thought your 'motivation' for hating Olbermann was 'suspect' because of my assertion regarding it's origin. I never even implied such a thing. And, in fact, if I thought Bush was a good guy doing the best he can under difficult circumstances, and KO repeatedly trashed him, why wouldn't that be a principle reason to dislike Olbermann? Unless, of course, you've grown ashamed of your own political allegiances."

>Yes, I think engaging in the aforementioned tactics ALWAYS does.

And how enlightened of you to ascribe your own motivation to what you perceive as a dishonest 'tactic.'

Can prove your assertion as to my motivation for changing my name?

...And now that you AND Grammie have read my posts, and have NOT fallen into the ranks of the countless hoards of Bush / KO haters that certainly must be here somewhere...

PROOF of my assertion continues to mount...

Oh, BTW, I've changed my name to 'The Ruffler' in case you hadn't noticed. :D

Not if the investgation is thwarted, as it will be. You know that, Cecelia. You can even admire and Respect Bush's secrecy if you wish. Just don't pretend that secrecy and the truth are necessarily compatible. Most often, they are not. Most often, secrecy is a way to avoid exposing the truth. That is a human reality, not just a political one, although we have plenety of examples in the political sphere, Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Oliver North and the Iran-Contra conspirators, Scooter Libby, just to name a few .... I think they Democrats are wasting their time on investigations at the moment. In time, the lies and deceptions will all come out, and we will be better for it. It will inform us how to select good leaders and how to avoid selecting the bad ones. In the end, it will be a good thing, and if the truth emerges 2 days from now, 2 years from now, 2 decades from now, the truth will set us free.

Posted by: Clucker at July 18, 2007 7:45 PM

If the sort of privileges about secrecy are invoked, you automatically conclude (even in matters that are highly classified) that it is a mere tactic.

If you opponent points out that no one has come forth with accusations made under oath. You point out that this is no evidence of non---- guilt either.

Of course this is the quintessential catch-22 argument. You allow your opponent NO option in allowing yourself EVERY option.

>If the sort of privileges about secrecy are invoked, you automatically conclude (even in matters that are highly classified) that it is a mere tactic.

LOL, Yeah, and so do you Cecelia...

Ironically in a different agument occuring on the same thread at the same time.

Priceless!

I might just go back to Laughing My Ass Off!

Isn't Cecelia great...

She demands transparency from anonymous opponents on a blog, but not from her government.

That's precious.

Poor little thing probably doesn't even know any better...

PROOF of my assertion continues to mount...

Oh, BTW, I've changed my name to 'The Ruffler' in case you hadn't noticed. :D

Posted by: The Ruffler at July 18, 2007 8:07 PM

Actually, I was responding to this post:

...And that matters how exactly?

Posted by: at July 18, 2007 7:02 PM

However, you are correct about name changes being unimportant in one sense-- it doesn't matter what or how many name changes you make. They won't give you IQ points.

Isn't Cecelia great...

She demands transparency from anonymous opponents on a blog, but not from her government.

That's precious.

Poor little thing probably doesn't even know any better...

Posted by: The Ruffler at July 18, 2007 8:14 PM

Is this what you think non de jour means?

If the sort of privileges about secrecy are invoked, you automatically conclude (even in matters that are highly classified) that it is a mere tactic.

LOL, Yeah, and so do you Cecelia...

Ironically in a different agument occuring on the same thread at the same time.

Priceless!

I might just go back to Laughing My Ass Off!

Posted by: The Ruffler at July 18, 2007 8:12 PM

Agreed! Your claim of executive privilege IS funny!

BTW-You think 'Dollar' is really Johnny's last name?

Posted by: ...And you will know me by the trail of hypocrite's feathers I ruffle... at July 18, 2007 7:45 PM

The point is that Johnny $ uses the same name, consistently. It doesn't matter if it is his real name,it's called "accountability" einstein. P.S. You think we didn't know it was you, lamo, constantly heckling Cecelia? We know you can't stay away from here......

LMAO/CA/Nom Du Jour, a word from your leader: :)

"If you don't care about what you said yesterday, every day is a bright, fresh new day to express your anger. And it saves a lot of time. If you're not responsible for what you said previously, you don't have to explain it. You don't have to roll with it. You don't have to acknowledge, 'Oh yeah, I was wrong about that.' You don't have to slow it down."

From: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/archives/118243.asp

Grammie

PS You should remember that I expressed concern for you that at the rate (reiterated in some posts four or five times) you were laughing your ass off so fast that I wondered how big of an ass, oops, how big was your ass to withstand such losses. Obviously my concern was justified because eventually you stopped laughing your ass off.

PS You should remember that I expressed concern for you that at the rate (reiterated in some posts four or five times) you were laughing your ass off so fast that I wondered how big of an ass, oops, how big was your ass to withstand such losses. Obviously my concern was justified because eventually you stopped laughing your ass off.

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 18, 2007 8:29 PM

And started wearing ruffles...

(What a quote! Hoisted on Olbermann's petard!)

to 8:54 comment of Why

AS usual, the cut and paste WHY only sees what he wants to see.

The victims deserve every penny. Cardinal Mahoney has much to account for on Judgment Day, unless he repents.
Posted by: Sharon at July 18, 2007 1:51 AM
***

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6).
***
Pope John Paul II was completely distressed over the scandals. I think he was weak in his handling of it, although I loved and respected him very much.

Thanks for the detailed recap that only humiliates the victims even more. You don't bother me by your hatred. I had nothing to do with the crimes. They occurred before I was Catholic, many before I was even born.

The whole catholic church has much to hang their heads in shame about.

Posted by: nobody cares at July 18, 2007 8:54 PM

How ironic you condemn the Catholics for what VERY few have done, but, not once have you EVER criticised the muslims for the slaughter and atrocities they commit on a daily basis. Unbelievable!

Sharon, Whatizname just accused Cecelia and I on another thread of :

"Also notice that the Cecelia, Grammie crowd never throw their mean spirited barbs in any direction of Gannon's.

Imagine what they would be saying if it was a democratic president !
Lordy lordy !
Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 18, 2007 9:20 PM"

Nothing mean spirited about Whatizname. Where most feel saddened and repulsed by this repulsive chapter in the Catholic Church's long history Whatizname positively revels in the details as long as he can make a point with it.

He should have a starring role in Michael Moore "Sick".

Grammie

RK,

That is something that I will never understand. The hatred is never directed in the right place. Even the Catholic example. I need to hang my head in shame, not because of being Catholic, but because I am a Catholic who doesn't agree with his views. Ron Paul is pro-life but that is okay because he was against the war. I am pro-life but that is not okay because I don't think Bush lied us into war.

I wasn't really clear- the hate should be directed at the violators of children, not at me. He knows I am Catholic, hence the reference to the scandals, only because of my other views. I have endured similar comments about abortion, not because he really cares, but because he associates it with Christian conservatives who voted for Bush.

>>Regarding my assertion on anti-KO sentiment and support for G-Dub…

So the primary argument in opposition of my assertion is:

a.) It’s not true, and
b.) Even if it is true, you can’t ‘prove’ it, and
c.) Even if you can prove it, it doesn’t matter, and
d.) Even if it does matter, you’ve changed your name, so we’re ignoring it

Well, I guess you’ve got yourself covered in any case.

All I can say is, whether it matters or not is up to each and every one of you to decide. I never said it makes your opinion of KO suspect. Also, I wasn’t formulating my hypothesis in a vacuum, without evidence, for partisan reasons. I read your posts, I see what you have to say, and I’ve invited anyone who happens to hold a negative opinion of both Olbermann and Bush to chime in. So far, no one has. Whether that ‘proves’ anything or not is up to you to decide. Thus far, anyone who disagrees with me has only been able to show anecdotal evidence for a parallel argument that can be true alongside mine that I actually stated as well….If an Olbermann hater needs political cover, they can come up with all sorts of reasons to hate KO that appear to be un-political.

My opinion is that anti-KO sentiment is politically motivated. I question why anyone here would even think that is debatable. Are there conservatives here that love Olbermann? I don’t know…if there are, let’s hear from them. Are there liberals here that hate Olbermann? I don’t know. Again, if there are, let’s hear from them. Is Countdown primarily a political show? Is this website primarily a political website? Take a random sampling of posts (or better yet, take them all!) and you tell me honestly you don’t think it is.

Cecelia says:

“I do not think political persuasion automatically implies an inability to be objective.”

In response I ask her this:

Can someone be blatantly partisan and still be objective?

And if her answer is ‘yes’ I would go on to ask:

Does the level of their partisanship affect their level of objectivity?

I happen to be one of the few self-identified politically independent posters here. After mentioning some of the positions I hold on divisive issues, Cecelia has said she thinks I am more conservative than most people on this site and more conservative than Cox.

When I debate cee, Cecelia, and Grammie, I’m not trying to change their mind. It’s clear to everyone here, they already have their mind made up about most everything. What I AM doing is challenging their views in hopes that someone who is more open-minded than the ‘choir’ here can formulate their own views. I realize someone who just watches Countdown isn’t getting the whole story. I would never want someone to just watch Countdown to formulate their political views. I’m no fan of Olbermann. I’m also not a liberal, leftist, or loon. But when anyone debating me can’t handle the debate, they either imply all of those things, or actually say them… Intellectually dishonest to say the least.

>>Regarding the fact that I have changed what I type into the name field on occasion…

I really could care less what you think my motivation is for changing my name. I’ve stated what my motivations are (repeatedly). The archives are open for anyone who’d like to find ‘proof’ that I’ve changed my name to gain an upper hand in debates. Anyone who has read any one of my posts would know I have no need to employ such tactics to ‘win’ a debate. As I’ve stated above, ‘winning’ a debate isn’t even my goal. My goal is to get the Cox Nazis to come out and admit what is plainly obvious to any clear thinker here: That they are Partisan Hacks! Cee, Cecelia, Hank, and Grammie have ALL asked to take my posts somewhere else at one time or another. What does that tell you? It tells me I think I have good reason to stay.

I’ve been posting as ‘Bush isn’t Evil and Cheney ain’t Dumb’ for quite a while when I thought it would be a good idea to illustrate exactly how bright the president really is by posting some of his quotes. So, I put ‘The Bush Presidential Archives’ into the name field, since that was what I was doing…archiving Bush’s illiterate legacy. Does that sound like I was dodging or hiding from anyone? The funny thing is, cee asked me to provide more information on the origin of some of the quotes (as if to say, I don’t believe he said that, prove it) which I promptly responded by providing exactly what he asked for: time, place, context, etc. Not surprisingly there was no follow up to that on cee’s part.

I’ve been accused of being ‘Mike’ often enough (among other people) that I’ve come to the conclusion that the KO bashers will draw whatever conclusions they want, think I am whatever they imagine me to be (I’m still not a female, Cecelia), regardless of evidence and regardless of what I put in the name field. And no Brandon, I’m still running the two successful businesses I started, and I’m still NOT an underemployed college-educated female. And hey Brandon, whatever happened to that little ‘project’ you were working on that was going to make liberals look so foolish. Did that happen already and I missed it, or did you have second thoughts about unveiling your masterpiece?

I happen to think there are far more egregious offenses one could commit on OW than changing their name every once in a while: Name jacking is one, not answering direct questions asked specifically even though you go on posting on the same thread is another, and assuming someone is ‘running scared’ just because they are no longer online is a third. I can think of no other reason someone would do any one of those three things other than NOT wanting to debate an issue honestly. Well, senility perhaps, but that’s another discussion. Oh, and making cryptic threats to posters and their family is pretty bad, too.

What I would like to see is equal treatment and a single standard. When Grammie thought save the cats changed it’s name to STC, she didn’t criticize he/she, she complimented he/she about how much she liked it’s posts. When Cecelia thought ‘sharm’ must be Sharon in disguise, she didn’t rail against Sharon for the nefarious reasons she changed her name from Sharon to sharm and then back to Sharon (twice!).

The fact is, when Cecelia and Grammie suspect an opponent of doing something they feel is dishonest, they WON’T give them the benefit of the doubt, like when the same exact behavior is employed by ‘their side.’ Double standard anyone? Yet more proof of their partisan behavior.

Is being partisan bad? Depends of who you ask. Cecelia and Hank among others seem to have a problem with the label.

>>Public disclosure announcement:

I am now changing my name to ‘Hunter of Nazis.’ I’ll be keeping it a while, so Grammie, Cecelia, don’t fret that I’m trying to jam your radar. You’ll be able to keep track of me just fine. You’ll be able to go on focusing more on the messenger than the message. And you’ll know exactly who’s questions you are dodging.

Some may take offense to me implying that the fascist-loving, boot-licking, power-hungry, war-mongering, fear-using, transparency-hating, law-breaking, constitution-ignoring, dissent-bashing Bush supporters here are Nazi-like. I say the proof is in the pudding.

I take offense to implying that anyone who openly dissents must be mentally ill. An odd position considering that sentiment is shared by a super-majority. You just keep on believing you are really the ‘sane’ ones…I’m sure your mentally ill counterparts in padded cells feel the same way.

>LMAO/CA/Nom Du Jour, a word from your leader: :)

"If you don't care about what you said yesterday, every day is a bright, fresh new day to express your anger. And it saves a lot of time. If you're not responsible for what you said previously, you don't have to explain it. You don't have to roll with it. You don't have to acknowledge, 'Oh yeah, I was wrong about that.' You don't have to slow it down."

From: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/archives/118243.asp

And you think KO is my leader WHY exactly?

I stand by each and everyone of the posts I've made here. In fact, perhaps I should start reposting all the posts I've ever made just to illustrate how they all could all have been made on the exact same day without an ounce of ideological conflict.

Unlike your 'Hero':

Bill O'Reilly claimed that during his tenure the program won two Peabody Awards; a false claim. However, the show did win one George Polk Award for reporting done after O'Reilly had departed. O'Reilly later said that he had confused the Polk awards with the Peabodies, after his claim was repeatedly called into question by author Al Franken.

I can say that you accomplish what you accuse me of trying to accomplish (without proof) by employing selective reading, selective memory, selective reasoning, and employing double standards.

And you even sign the same name when accomplishing all that! Congratulations.

>Wonder how much responsibility they took for these young boys souls when they took them out of their Catholic School classroom, brought them over the rectory and made them lay down and forced their cocks down their throats ?
( All documented many times over)

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 18, 2007 8:50 PM

If you watch and like O'Reilly you probably believe they 'enjoyed' it.

Speaking of never having to say you're sorry, never having to admit you are wrong, and awaking fresh each day with a new reality:

Bush: ‘We’ve Never Been Stay The Course’
During an interview today on ABC’s This Week, President Bush tried to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker’s plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is “between ’stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’”

Bush responded, ‘We’ve never been stay the course, George!’

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

You had better watch who you accuse of what, Grammie.

That glass house that you and 'your leader' live in don't stand a chance.

"made them lay down and forced their cocks down their throats ?"

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 18, 2007 8:50 PM

Sounds like a man with experience, kinda scary, if you ask me!

Sharm is a nickname that I never tried to hide. Grammie signs of as Grammie but types in Janet Hawkins. Should Grammie drop one or the other, everyone knows it's Grammie. It wasn't intentional. You type in different names to accentuate certain points. I haven't done that. It is a nickname. Changing names makes it difficult for people who don't regularly come here. It is also somewhat arrogant.

Nom du jour, I think that is an excellent idea:

"......In fact, perhaps I should start reposting all the posts I've ever made just to illustrate how they all could all have been made on the exact same day without an ounce of ideological conflict.....made them lay down and forced their cocks down their throats ?....

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 18, 2007 8:50 PM"

Grammie

>Sharm is a nickname that I never tried to hide.

I never said you tried to hide it. Nor have I ever tried to 'hide' anything. I was merely making the point that someone else doing the same thing doesn't meet Grammie's skepticism and criticism. You said your reasons were because you didn't want people insulting you while you used that name. Fine, I believe you. I'm not questioning your motivation. Grammie is the one questioning MY motivation, without a shred evidence. I used your example to illustrate Grammie's double standard.

>Grammie signs of as Grammie but types in Janet Hawkins. Should Grammie drop one or the other, everyone knows it's Grammie.

I'm not sure what you're missing here, Sharon, but I'm not the one that has any problem at all with what people want to type into the name field. It's the OTHER folks here who have a problem with it. Grammie can sign her name however she likes, and I will debate the wrong-headed ideas above the name field until the cows come home, whether they say Grammie or not.

>You type in different names to accentuate certain points.

Exactly. Thanks for not insinuating I have some secret agenda. I think I will go ahead and consecutively post some of my more long-winded posts using the various names just to show "Grammie" how little water her theory holds that I MUST be doing it to distance myself from past comments.

>I haven't done that. It is a nickname. Changing names makes it difficult for people who don't regularly come here. It is also somewhat arrogant.

Posted by: Sharon at July 19, 2007 4:16 PM

People who don't regularly come here would see several weeks worth of posts of mine with a single name. And if they are interested in catching up on ridiculously conflicting, ignorant, and incoherent quotes from the president that they may have missed, they'd get that as well, although they may or may not know it was 'ME' that posted it.

If me changing names every so often makes 'it' so 'difficult' for 'non-regulars' why is it only the regular Cox Choir members complaining?

And how is changing names 'somewhat arrogant.' I personally think it shows an appropriate level of irreverance, brilliant sense of humor and unparalleled creativity.

Oh, I'm sorry, did that sound arrogant?

And Grammie, I'm not sure why you would purposefully combine something I wrote to describe a measure I should take to prove you wrong with a post someone else made to describe child sexual abuse at the hands of pedophile priests in an effort to 'slander' me, but I can't say I'm too surprised.

I've said my peace regarding the FACT that all you KO bashers just happen to Bush supporters AND regarding how you are wrong in your assumptions about why I've changed my name on occassion.

And all I get in reponse is you trying to link me with religious pedophiles.

And you think I run from debate!?!

Now, I am laughing my ass off!

"......In fact, perhaps I should start reposting all the posts I've ever made just to illustrate how they all could all have been made on the exact same day without an ounce of ideological conflict.....made them lay down and forced their cocks down their throats ?....

------

Please, in the Name of All that is Holy, no. Some things, like Rootbeer Fizzies, the Ice Capades and your posts should be endured but once in life.

>Please, in the Name of All that is Holy, no. Some things, like Rootbeer Fizzies, the Ice Capades and your posts should be endured but once in life.

Posted by: Clucker at July 19, 2007 6:32 PM

If you're going to quote me, Clucker, at least you can do me the service of not quoting the misquote.

Because as is, you are only quoting the infamous deplorable Grammie.

...And I consider my posts more like Broccoli, you may not like it, but it's good for you, and you'll be better for having 'endured' it.

Thanks for the clarification, Hunter. I was actually referring to Ms. Hawkins reposting, a most disagreeable prospect indeed. No doubt, I should have included the Grammie or the Ms. Hawkins. I'm never sure which is proper. I found the post from which the unfortunate Ms. Hawkins quoted to be rather good, indeed.

Because as is, you are only quoting the infamous deplorable Grammie.

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 6:39 PM

As illustrated above, I think you've done Hunter a real disservice here, ladies.

If we did lay his posts from end-to-end (after we finished marveling over his iconoclastic brilliance, verve, and illuminating consistency on complex ideological matters) and then counted the number of times he made the sort of references quoted above to....Grammie....Sharon.... Cee...Cecelia.... we'd be dismayed over how we had OVERWHELMINGLY forced him to concentrate on WE particular messengers, rather than upon our messages....

Maybe we should all go anonymous if only to keep poor Hunter an honest Nom du Jour...

Fair enough Clucker...

Keep on Clucking my fine feathered friend.

PS-

If you actually want Grammie to respond, I've found addressing her as 'Planet Squawkins' works fairly well.

But if you don't want her to respond, just ask her a difficult question regarding her political views. You'll get no response.

Works every time...

If you actually want Grammie to respond, I've found addressing her as 'Planet Squawkins' works fairly well.

But if you don't want her to respond, just ask her a difficult question regarding her political views. You'll get no response.

Works every time...

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 7:02 PM

Help him before he has to contradict himself again.... Conservative Consistent Namers!

>If we did lay his posts from end-to-end (after we finished marveling over his iconoclastic brilliance, verve, and illuminating consistency on complex ideological matters) and then counted the number of times he made the sort of references quoted above to....Grammie....Sharon.... Cee...Cecelia.... we'd be dismayed over how we had OVERWHELMINGLY forced him to concentrate on WE particular messengers, rather than upon our messages....

Ahhh, Cecelia wrong again.

Surely you are smart enough to acknowledge the difference between someone who addresses the message AND the messenger and someone who just gets hung up on the name someone uses.

I don't focus on your names RATHER than your message (and you know it!) I focus on the message primarily, and include names so that the Cox Nazi Choir can benefit from my efforts.

What I do shows a certain thoroughness, and the other shows intellectually dishonesty.

My MO is to copy and paste a quote someone has made (like with this post) and then refute it. Do you think that is being dishonest? I've used your exact words against you enough times I would think you would have my technique down by now. I guess I was giving you too much credit. At least you got my gender correct. See you can be taught!

BTW-Your obsession with me is starting to get a little creepy. Does you husband know?

Help him before he has to contradict himself again.... Conservative Consistent Namers!

Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 7:12 PM

Oops! Sorry! Signed it! Force of habit! My bad!

>Help him before he has to contradict himself again.... Conservative Consistent Namers!

Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 7:12 PM

Because I've become your favorite topic on OW, could you please tell me what contradiction you are referring to?

Ahhh, Cecelia wrong again.

Surely you are smart enough to acknowledge the difference between someone who addresses the message AND the messenger and someone who just gets hung up on the name someone uses.

I don't focus on your names RATHER than your message (and you know it!) I focus on the message primarily, and include names so that the Cox Nazi Choir can benefit from my efforts.

What I do shows a certain thoroughness, and the other shows intellectually dishonesty.

My MO is to copy and paste a quote someone has made (like with this post) and then refute it. Do you think that is being dishonest? I've used your exact words against you enough times I would think you would have my technique down by now. I guess I was giving you too much credit. At least you got my gender correct. See you can be taught!

BTW-Your obsession with me is starting to get a little creepy. Does you husband know?

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 7:16 PM

Well, of course that you can do any of the above and can do it, is because we DO use consistent names. Not only that, but you often invoke our names in posts that are not in response to our or anyone else's particular post. No one has shown more interest in attacking particular personalities than you.

Johnny, Bob, Grammie, Cee, Sharon and your visceral reaction to them is WHY you are here. If no one used consistent names on this board, you would have moved on long ago.

Because I've become your favorite topic on OW, could you please tell me what contradiction you are referring to?

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 7:19 PM

it's interesting that you would personalize the message in this way. There are any number of anonymous bloggers or bloggers who change names like socks, so I'm not sure why you've taken negative comment on this so personallly.

Grammie, Sharon, etc. consistently post all sorts of arguments that are completely topical. There is no need for you to call Grammie "Planet Squawkins" in your quest for you ideas to be considered rather than your personality. That you do make such references and that you have built a "personality" around Grammmie in which to hang these sorts of remarks that are entirely personal, is quite a contradiction indeed.

Nom du jour, dear, I realize that the stress and strain of keeping up with what you said and under what name you said it must be a heavy burden. Your post to Clucker:

">Please, in the Name of All that is Holy, no. Some things, like Rootbeer Fizzies, the Ice Capades and your posts should be endured but once in life.

Posted by: Clucker at July 19, 2007 6:32 PM

If you're going to quote me, Clucker, at least you can do me the service of not quoting the misquote.

Because as is, you are only quoting the infamous deplorable Grammie.

...And I consider my posts more like Broccoli, you may not like it, but it's good for you, and you'll be better for having 'endured' it.
Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 6:39 PM "

Stress and strain aside, if you can't keep up with what you say in your various incarnations how do you you expect the rest of us to so.

Please note that I copied and pasted your comment "Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 3:24 PM" with the proper ellipsis.

Let me copy and paste that entire comment and add caps so that you can readily see that I simply used your own words.

">LMAO/CA/Nom Du Jour, a word from your leader: :)

"If you don't care about what you said yesterday, every day is a bright, fresh new day to express your anger. And it saves a lot of time. If you're not responsible for what you said previously, you don't have to explain it. You don't have to roll with it. You don't have to acknowledge, 'Oh yeah, I was wrong about that.' You don't have to slow it down."

From: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/archives/118243.asp

And you think KO is my leader WHY exactly?

I stand by each and everyone of the posts I've made here. IN FACT, PERHAPS I SHOULD START REPOSTING ALL THE POSTS I'VE EVER MADE JUST TO ILLUSTRATE HOW THEY ALL COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE EXACT SAME DAY WITHOUT AN OUNCE OF IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICT.

Unlike your 'Hero':

Bill O'Reilly claimed that during his tenure the program won two Peabody Awards; a false claim. However, the show did win one George Polk Award for reporting done after O'Reilly had departed. O'Reilly later said that he had confused the Polk awards with the Peabodies, after his claim was repeatedly called into question by author Al Franken.

I can say that you accomplish what you accuse me of trying to accomplish (without proof) by employing selective reading, selective memory, selective reasoning, and employing double standards.

And you even sign the same name when accomplishing all that! Congratulations.

>Wonder how much responsibility they took for these young boys souls when they took them out of their Catholic School classroom, brought them over the rectory and MADE THEM LAY DOWN AND FORCED THEIR COCKS DOWN THEIR THROATS ?
( All documented many times over)

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 18, 2007 8:50 PM

If you watch and like O'Reilly you probably believe they 'enjoyed' it.

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 3:24 PM"

I felt I was quite forgiving by not including this post script from your post:

"If you watch and like O'Reilly you probably believe they 'enjoyed' it."

Grammie

Give it up Hunter of Nazis...Cecelia IS a dog with bone when it comes to back & forth off topic shit like these little cat fights. She doesn't really talk politics. She's very obsessed with Katy Tur (Olbermann's squeeze) and Brandon.

Nom du jour, I see you are in denial big time:

"And Grammie, I'm not sure why you would purposefully combine something I wrote to describe a measure I should take to prove you wrong with a post someone else made to describe child sexual abuse at the hands of pedophile priests in an effort to 'slander' me, but I can't say I'm too surprised.

I've said my peace regarding the FACT that all you KO bashers just happen to Bush supporters AND regarding how you are wrong in your assumptions about why I've changed my name on occassion.

And all I get in reponse is you trying to link me with religious pedophiles.

And you think I run from debate!?!

Now, I am laughing my ass off!
Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 6:25 PM"

See my post @ 7:44PM.

Grammie

Give it up Hunter of Nazis...Cecelia IS a dog with bone when it comes to back & forth off topic shit like these little cat fights. She doesn't really talk politics. She's very obsessed with Katy Tur (Olbermann's squeeze) and Brandon.

Posted by: at July 19, 2007 7:45 PM

You're doing poor Hunter a disservice here. He would far rather address each post based upon it's merits. He doesn't want to hear about particular personalities or the patterns that connote the natural inclinations of personalities such as mine or Planet Squawkins....

He finds the sort of natural expectation of consistency of mind that a Consistent Name poster would expect from say... Brandon... or of anyone.... in this sort of forum to be entirely unnecessary. Each message is to be evaluated upon its own merits and not weighted with any constructions from past arguments.

Get with the message, not the messenger, anonyloon!

For all Clucker's urbane sophistication he does seem to have problems comprehending simple declarative sentences:

"Thanks for the clarification, Hunter. I was actually referring to Ms. Hawkins reposting, a most disagreeable prospect indeed. No doubt, I should have included the Grammie or the Ms. Hawkins. I'm never sure which is proper. I found the post from which the unfortunate Ms. Hawkins quoted to be rather good, indeed.
Posted by: Clucker at July 19, 2007 6:49 PM"

Dear Clucker, it was LMAO/CA/Nom du jour who considered reposting everything he ever said under whatever persona he said it and proving whatever it was he wanted to prove.

You two deserve each other!

One doesn't know what he said, when and where and the other one swears by it.

This time I'm laughing my ass off.

Grammie

>Well, of course that you can do any of the above and can do it, is because we DO use consistent names.

You sure don't give yourself much credit. So you're saying I can poke holes in your lame theories and positions BECAUSE you use the same name?!? LMFAO

Actually, Cecelia, it has a little more to do with your ideas than your name. Your consistent use of a name just allows people to see the depth and regularity of your stupidity. And, of course, put a name to it.

>Not only that, but you often invoke our names in posts that are not in response to our or anyone else's particular post. No one has shown more interest in attacking particular personalities than you.

Oh, I beg to differ. In order to attack your personality you would have to HAVE a personality. I name names because I have intently debated with each and every one of you at varying times (and often at the same time). It's odd you would take issue with personal attacks Ms. "I've been on Olbermann Watch since it's inception." So let's see... personal attacks bad. Okay, I'll keep that in mind when posting here at OlbermannWatch.

>Johnny, Bob, Grammie, Cee, Sharon and your visceral reaction to them is WHY you are here. If no one used consistent names on this board, you would have moved on long ago.

Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 7:25 PM

Not true oh clarvoyant one. I'm here to shine a spotlight on hypocrisy, whatever name it is posted above. The more hypocritical, the more the light shines. So, when I name names, now you know why. If there wasn't a name field at all, I would still be here, exposing the hypocrisy.

>it's interesting that you would personalize the message in this way. There are any number of anonymous bloggers or bloggers who change names like socks, so I'm not sure why you've taken negative comment on this so personallly.

>Grammie, Sharon, etc. consistently post all sorts of arguments that are completely topical. There is no need for you to call Grammie "Planet Squawkins" in your quest for you ideas to be considered rather than your personality.

You object to me referring to you by the names you have given yourselves and continue to use by choice, and you think I'm taking something too personally? That's hysterical! Besides I'm already on record as saying I will keep my name and disclose if and when I feel like changing it. Having said that, NOW do I have the 'right' to name names?

You are using false logic again, Cecelia. And the fact that you have also called people names indicates once again you are a hypocrite. Just because I will sometimes call someone a name DOES NOT mean I don't also address the topic at hand. Look at this goddamn thread. Are you honestly trying to say that ALL I DO IS CALL NAMES? For goodness sakes, girl! You say there is no 'need' to call names. Yeah, there is a whole lot that goes on here that isn't 'necessary.' Necessity is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think Grammie 'needs' to sign her name twice, but who cares?

To use your own logic...There are any number of posters here who call people names (on both sides of the aisle) so why do you point me out personally? Uhhh, perhaps because I am the one you are debating right now. Duh.

>That you do make such references and that you have built a "personality" around Grammmie in which to hang these sorts of remarks that are entirely personal, is quite a contradiction indeed.

Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 7:33 PM

How is asking what contradiction you are referring to 'personlizing' the message? You specifically said I was contradicting myself.

I still don't think you've made a case for me contradicting myself. You think because I refer to Grammie by name and sometimes will belittle her by calling her names is 'contradictory'? How exactly? I have yet to call someone here a mean-spirited name who didn't do it to me first...Perhaps not on that particular thread or day, but at some point.

I don't have a problem with heated discourse here. I don't have any problems with people calling each other names. I don't have any problem with someone criticizing the messenger if they stop and take the time to address the message as well. I am not the one making demands of Grammie. She can do whatever she wants.

Where's the contradiction?

JohnDoll, I think these two, Nom Du Jour and Clucker (and his probable other personas) should be banned from the site for sheer hubris and stupidity. :)

Grammie

Nom du Jour, if you can dispute that I quoted you properly do so.

My evidence is there for all to see.

Grammie

>Nom du jour, dear, I realize that the stress and strain of keeping up with what you said and under what name you said it must be a heavy burden

The only one who seems to be having a problem with it is you, Grammie.

You combined something I wrote with something WCWMNI wrote when you posted this:

"......In fact, perhaps I should start reposting all the posts I've ever made just to illustrate how they all could all have been made on the exact same day without an ounce of ideological conflict.....made them lay down and forced their cocks down their throats ?...."

You know you did it, and so does everyone else.

You 'projecting' your denial on me is not a surprise to me in the least.

Par for your course Planet Squawkins...

I thought O'Reilly was on record as saying underage boys being held against their will and repeatedly raped 'enjoyed it.'

Did he not say that?

>JohnDoll, I think these two, Nom Du Jour and Clucker (and his probable other personas) should be banned from the site for sheer hubris and stupidity. :)

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 19, 2007 8:15 PM

Once more, trying to eliminate me from posting here.

Yeah, I'm sure it's because of my 'hubris' and 'stupidity.' If those two things disqualified someone from frequenting this party, you would have been checked at the door!

The real reason you don't want me posting here? Yeah, it's obvious....

You dislike being called on your lies...

And, frankly, who could blame you.

I still don't think you've made a case for me contradicting myself. You think because I refer to Grammie by name and sometimes will belittle her by calling her names is 'contradictory'? How exactly? I have yet to call someone here a mean-spirited name who didn't do it to me first...Perhaps not on that particular thread or day, but at some point.

I don't have a problem with heated discourse here. I don't have any problems with people calling each other names. I don't have any problem with someone criticizing the messenger if they stop and take the time to address the message as well. I am not the one making demands of Grammie. She can do whatever she wants.

Where's the contradiction?

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 8:14 PM

You're not that dense. Of course you see a contradiction in your ability to give consistent name posters derogatory nicknames that denote whatever particular personality trait you see from the retinue of their past posts and THEN argue that nom du jours or anonymous posts are beneficial in that they preclude PRECISELY that behavor and force readers to examine messages based upon the arguments they contain.

You nicknames and insults don't denote the sort of strong words, flaming, or namecalling that come in response to a particular post at a particular time, but your response to a particular person and your impression of the personality you've perceived from their history here.

Frankly, that's why you're here. If it were only blogs from Bob, Johnny, and Brandon, and then anonymous or inconsistent name posters your appetite for this board would be nil. We regulars and you're perception of our individual personalities that you can only make by our signing off with one name, is THE draw for you.

I agree that you do not change names or post anonymously because you don't wish to be accountable for logical consistency in thought. You do it in qn attempt to convey that you aren't here because individual you is drawn here by particular individuals and to convince yourself that you some separate sharp shooting maverick rather than being a regular like the rest of the old regular to whom you are drawn.

Grammie-

You took something I wrote and combined it with something someone else wrote in which I quoted.

The resulting combination, contained within a single set of quotes constitutes a misquote.

Certainly you can see that through your veil of senility.

But, that you want to argue about who said what in an effort to avoid the original debate is very typical of you and your debating style.

Dishonest, but fortunately simple and transparent...

Looks like the unfortunate Ms. Hawkins is going to be playing her suck-up-to-Cox gotcha games all night. I think I'll sign off and go watch bread rise.

JohnDoll, I think these two, Nom Du Jour and Clucker (and his probable other personas) should be banned from the site for sheer hubris and stupidity. :)

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 19, 2007 8:15 PM

No way! Not before Clucker gets Mrs. Philby back from England! I'm dying for her next installment!

Nom du Jour, you must be a past master of "who do you believe? Your lying eyes or me"?

I quoted you with properly used ellipsis and then copied and pasted your entire comment that proves I quoted you correctly.

You not only don't stand by your own words but you deny them.

If I were as intellectually dishonest and cowardly as you are I think I would use multiple names too.

I told SLOB on another thread that not only did I not have 'balls' but I never had had 'balls'.

I am going to have to track him down and apologize for my mistake.

Compared to you not only do I have 'balls' but mine are made of brass.

LMAO,

Grammie

>You're doing poor Hunter a disservice here. He would far rather address each post based upon it's merits. He doesn't want to hear about particular personalities or the patterns that connote the natural inclinations of personalities such as mine or Planet Squawkins....

He finds the sort of natural expectation of consistency of mind that a Consistent Name poster would expect from say... Brandon... or of anyone.... in this sort of forum to be entirely unnecessary. Each message is to be evaluated upon its own merits and not weighted with any constructions from past arguments.

Get with the message, not the messenger, anonyloon!

Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 7:58 PM

Again, Cecelia mischaracterizes my views.

I have NO problem addressing the MESSAGE and THE MESSENGER.

It's when someone just decides to focus on the name and NOT the message that they aren't being intellectually honest.

Just like when Cecelia likes to wrap herself in the minutia of what is being said instead of the 'meat' of the discussion.

BTW Cecelia-I'm not the one making demands on other people. Your actions speak for themselves. I want everyone here to just keep on doing exactly what they are doing.

I get a pretty big kick out of it, in case you hadn't noticed. :D

H.O.N., (not to be confused with "hon")

And how is changing names 'somewhat arrogant.' I personally think it shows an appropriate level of irreverance, brilliant sense of humor and unparalleled creativity.

Oh, I'm sorry, did that sound arrogant?
***
I think that comment shows the crux of who you are (or at least who you believe you are). I noticed that you are not addressing people by their moniker's (by a quick check from above). If I change my moniker to "My Queen", will you address me as such?

Janet, don't waste your intelligence on the nazi lover/lamo. He is only here to try to keep the subject off of Olbermahn, someone he supposedly doesn't like.

Cecelia, Rod Serling must be alive and well.

I feel like I wandered into The Twilight Zone.

Grammie

Okay Grammie-Here's a swift kick to your balls:

Here is someone else's post:

Wonder how much responsibility they took for these young boys souls when they took them out of their Catholic School classroom, brought them over the rectory and made them lay down and forced their cocks down their throats ?
( All documented many times over)

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 18, 2007 8:50 PM

Here is my post quoting that person and adding my own post script to it:

>Wonder how much responsibility they took for these young boys souls when they took them out of their Catholic School classroom, brought them over the rectory and made them lay down and forced their cocks down their throats ?
( All documented many times over)

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 18, 2007 8:50 PM

If you watch and like O'Reilly you probably believe they 'enjoyed' it.

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 3:24 PM

And lastly here is you combining what someone else wrote (that I quoted) and something I wrote, and enclosing both in a single set of quotations, thus indicating they were written by the same person.

Nom du jour, I think that is an excellent idea:

"......In fact, perhaps I should start reposting all the posts I've ever made just to illustrate how they all could all have been made on the exact same day without an ounce of ideological conflict.....made them lay down and forced their cocks down their throats ?....

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 18, 2007 8:50 PM"

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 19, 2007 4:25 PM

You might want to reconsider declaring yourself as 'having balls' because I intend on kicking them hard and often.

BTW-Did I mention you were both intellectually dishonest and senile lately?

>H.O.N., (not to be confused with "hon")

And how is changing names 'somewhat arrogant.' I personally think it shows an appropriate level of irreverance, brilliant sense of humor and unparalleled creativity.

Oh, I'm sorry, did that sound arrogant?
***
I think that comment shows the crux of who you are (or at least who you believe you are). I noticed that you are not addressing people by their moniker's (by a quick check from above). If I change my moniker to "My Queen", will you address me as such?

Posted by: Sharon at July 19, 2007 8:57 PM

My Queen-

And what is the 'crux' of who I am?

Funny, Confident, with a well developed Sense of Irony and the Ability to Poke Fun at Myself?

If that's what you are supposing, you might just be right. But something tells me that's not what you were getting at.

I'll call you whatever you like....

(Until you insult me, then I will call you something you will defintely NOT like)

"And what is the 'crux' of who I am?"

I would have to say there is no 'crux'. To put it bluntly, there is no soul there. Or to update it, there is no there there.

If you can live with yourself I guess the rest of us will manage somehow to get by.

Kick away, dear.

Grammie

>Janet, don't waste your intelligence on the nazi lover/lamo. He is only here to try to keep the subject off of Olbermahn, someone he supposedly doesn't like.

Posted by: royalking at July 19, 2007 9:00 PM

My Queen, er I mean, Royal Douche-

Why would Janet's intelligence be 'wasted'? Is there only so much to go around? Is it like sands through an hourglass and when it runs out, it runs out, so she needs to save it for the really good stuff like criticizing a TV personality for obviously partisan reasons?

Why is it you think I like Olbermann and want you guys to not talk about him. Talk about him all you want.

Here, I'll help out:

Olbermann is biased.

Olbermann is liberal-minded even though he doesn't admit it.

Olbermann has a very awkward way of asking questions. He asks questions in a long-winded circuitous fashion and the result ends up just being a 'yes' or 'no' question anyway. You never never ask a yes or no question when interviewing someone. One of these days I think it would be funny as hell if someone just said 'yes' or 'no' to a question he took three minutes to ask.

Olbermann has poor ratings.

Olbermann, on occasion, shows poor judgment.

Olbermann does poor research and will run with stories that might not be entirely true.

Olbermann is dating someone young enough to be his daughter.

Olbermann wears some really awful clothes (not to mention the glasses).

Olbermann's show would be more interesting if he had opposing points of view.

Olbermann's fued with O'Reilly gets tiresome and makes for bad TV.

Olbermann spends too much time on stupid stuff on Countdown.

Olbermann should retire some of the same old guests and get some new ones.

Olbermann's guest Michael Musto is sort of creepy.

Okay.....

There's a whole lot of criticism of Olbermann all in one post. And it's from a guy that catches maybe 20 minutes of Countdown a week. In fact, it's on right now, and I'm not watching it.

Hey, BTW, Cecelia- if you are reading this,

What happened to Scarborough Country? Did it get taken off because of Joe or because of Dan? I ask you because you are on record as saying you sort of dig MSNBC except for the Olbmeister.

I liked SC, a lot more than that Abrams thing they got going now...

And Royal Douche-

Even though I don't bust your balls much anymore, you're still priceless!

Just like when Cecelia likes to wrap herself in the minutia of what is being said instead of the 'meat' of the discussion.

BTW Cecelia-I'm not the one making demands on other people. Your actions speak for themselves. I want everyone here to just keep on doing exactly what they are doing.

I get a pretty big kick out of it, in case you hadn't noticed. :D

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 8:49 PM

You wish us to know that you're here because you enjoy the quirks of the regulars here. No argument!

I have no doubt if we were all posting anonymous and no-name OWers that you had to address you'd be long gone.

With your well-developed sense of irony, you must be chortling like hell at your own... :D

The Olbyloons who come here and proclaim that they don't really like Olbermann and don't watch the show are my favorites. They never really seem to be able to supply an exact answer as to how they ever wandered over to a site called Olbermannwatch do they?

>I would have to say there is no 'crux'. To put it bluntly, there is no soul there. Or to update it, there is no there there.

If you can live with yourself I guess the rest of us will manage somehow to get by.

Kick away, dear.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at July 19, 2007 9:39 PM

Wow, I've never been accused of not having a soul by someone who has admitted here to NOT believing in god.

Remember that little discussion Grammie...

When I asserted the notion that Bush supporters would by and large describe themselves as religious.

And you took exception to that, going on to say when you and your late chubby hubby were visiting a church that god would 'strike you dead' because you weren't a believer. But that you held fast to typical Judeo-Christian values anyway.

I realize I am paraphrasing, but that's pretty accurate. I can find, copy, and paste the discussion if you are going to play the 'denial' card like with your misquote of me.

Personally I admire your stance...

All the bigotry with none of the salvation.

Now that does take Balls!

>The Olbyloons who come here and proclaim that they don't really like Olbermann and don't watch the show are my favorites. They never really seem to be able to supply an exact answer as to how they ever wandered over to a site called Olbermannwatch do they?

Posted by: Brandon at July 19, 2007 10:00 PM

Because I'm interested in politics. That's easy enough for you to understand, isn't it Brandon?

I never said I don't watch Olbermann.

Typical of the Cox Nazi Choir...

Singing the hymns of exaggeration, distortion, and lies.

It's okay, it's all in the name of criticizing someone who does the same thing, Right?

Thanks Brandocrit-

I was hoping you would chime in with your stunning intellect. You made my evening.

BTW-Where's your big secret project you were going to unleash on the loons a few months back? They're still waiting.

Did it happen and they missed it, or did you have second thoughts about unveiling your masterpeice?

>You wish us to know that you're here because you enjoy the quirks of the regulars here. No argument!

I have no doubt if we were all posting anonymous and no-name OWers that you had to address you'd be long gone.

With your well-developed sense of irony, you must be chortling like hell at your own... :D

Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 9:59 PM

I still think you are wrong. In fact, I've addressed anonynous posters before and taken them to task for their hypocrisy.

There are plenty more posters who use names than no-names, so it would seem likely I'd be exposing the hypocrisy of those who use names more often.

Why would it surprise you that I would be exposing the hypocrisy of the people who post here the most, the most. Doesn't that just kind of make goddamn sense? Even to you?

BTW-Where's your big secret project you were going to unleash on the loons a few months back? They're still waiting.

Did it happen and they missed it, or did you have second thoughts about unveiling your masterpeice?

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 10:16 PM

The dog ate it.

They never really seem to be able to supply an exact answer as to how they ever wandered over to a site called Olbermannwatch do they?

Posted by: Brandon at July 19, 2007 10:00 PM

I was thinking the exact same thing while reading his spew. Another point worth noting, lamo only criticizes anti-olbermahn posters and never criticizes olbyloons. Ironic? Coincidence?

Hey Cecelia-

I was reading an article on the phenomenon of sleep in a science journal and it said researchers believe that sleep allows us to forget unimportant details that we amass during our daily lives that don't matter and properly store more profound experiences that help shape who and what we are.

You are on record as saying you are an insomniac right?

That explains everything...

Hey Cecelia-

I was reading an article on the phenomenon of sleep in a science journal and it said researchers believe that sleep allows us to forget unimportant details that we amass during our daily lives that don't matter and properly store more profound experiences that help shape who and what we are.

You are on record as saying you are an insomniac right?

That explains everything...

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 10:30 PM

It sure does... :D

>They never really seem to be able to supply an exact answer as to how they ever wandered over to a site called Olbermannwatch do they?

Posted by: Brandon at July 19, 2007 10:00 PM

>I was thinking the exact same thing while reading his spew. Another point worth noting, lamo only criticizes anti-olbermahn posters and never criticizes olbyloons. Ironic? Coincidence?

Posted by: royalking at July 19, 2007 10:24 PM

Really Royal Douche? You were thinking the same thing? Wow, that is a coincidence. That is, if you weren't all part of the same Cox Nazi Choir. Not much of a coincidence, now is it?

Perhaps if you weren't too busy 'thinking' you would have noticed I answered Brandon's question 8 minutes before your post.

I know it's tough for you RD, but I AM the one that's debating like five people at once, not you.

>It sure does... :D

Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 10:36 PM

Hey, seriously, do you know what happened to Scarborough Country?

Hey, seriously, do you know what happened to Scarborough Country?

Posted by: Hunter of Nazis at July 19, 2007 10:40 PM

(He's mere seconds from a name change)

Goodnight...

>(He's mere seconds from a name change)

Goodnight...

Posted by: Cecelia at July 19, 2007 10:47 PM

I take that as an 'I don't know.'

Does anyone else know what happened to Scarborough Country?

I found this not very enlightening nugget:

Sources at MSNBC say that Scarborough Country is on hiatus. The 9 PM time slot is currently being filled by Live with Dan Abrams.

Apparently that's all they are saying...

The Matt Dillon / Kevin Dillon thing remains a mystery...

lamo, trying to find out what happened to Scarborough is "debating?" Avoiding half of a post is "debating?" Yep, you're an olbyloon.

But Jeff, when have YOU ever 'debated' anything or anybody??

I don't even think you know what the word means!

All you ever do is troll and call people 'hypocrites' & 'liars' without any basis nor do you ever present thoughtful counter arguments.

No basis? Really? You must have a short memory or are in denial.

Make no mistake, clinton c**k smoker is YOU, patsy.

>lamo, trying to find out what happened to Scarborough is "debating?" Avoiding half of a post is "debating?" Yep, you're an olbyloon.

Posted by: royalking at July 20, 2007 12:25 AM

Is this what you are referring to:?:

>lamo only criticizes anti-olbermahn posters and never criticizes olbyloons. Ironic? Coincidence?

Posted by: royalking at July 19, 2007 10:24 PM

Actually I only criticize Bush supporters, not anti-Olbermann posters. According to Cecelia, Grammie, and Hank there's a big difference. And since you have already branded me with the term (you parrot from others) used to describe people who fawn over Olbermann, write glowing tributes to him, and count themselves among the ranks of his biggest fans, how can I honestly expect YOU to be objective about my answer? Oh yeah, you can't be.

But let's go ahead and pretend your question has merit and contionue:

If my definition of the made up term you use is correct, I have yet to actually see a single post from one of these people here at OW.

Please do me a favor and copy and paste a post that you think a.) props Keith up on a pedestal and b.) was written by someone who either describes themself as a big fan or where it is plainly obvious they are a big fan to an objective reader by things they say.

In your vain attempt to win arguments and criticize people who are more liberal than you, you have personally expanded the definition of Olbyloon to include:

1.) Liberals
2.) People that disagree with you
3.) People that are smarter than you, and
4.) People that don't like you

...And mostly it's all four at once, except in my case I believe it is just the last three.

So, if you want to talk specifics (which you never seem to want to do) how about you go ahead and copy and paste anything you think, according to any post I've made today, I should be criticizing and why.

And, in turn, I will explain why I feel the post doesn't deserve criticism, or I will go ahead a criticize the post, apologize for having missed it originally and try not to make the same mistake again.

But before you embark on your fool's errand you should know three things that may aid you in your quest:

1.) I don't criticize the Cox Nazi Choir for being conservative, I criticize them for being hypocrites.

2.) I describe myself as independent. I'm certainly much more conservative than most liberal posters here. I am not a moderate. I'm not wishy washy on issues. I have strong views on the controversial issues, I just don't lockstep to either party. Some of my positions fall to the liberal side, and some to the conservative side.

3.) If you want me to criticize someone for just being liberal, don't hold your breath. I will debate the issues with both Libs and Cons and will argue with both, but I reserve my 'criticism' for people who are either intellectually dishonest or hypocrites. Sometimes just good old fashioned ignorance earns my criticism too, but only if I'm subjected to it over a long period of time, like with you for instance.

There, you have your mission, may godspeed be with you.

I will be waiting with bated breath for your return so I may see first hand the musings of these rare animals called 'Olbyloons.'

BTW-Cecelia dodged my question when I asked her if she thought someone's level of partisanship has any relationship to their level of objectivity.

I guess by your definition of Olbyloon as applied to me, Cecelia must be an Olbyloon as well.

And as soon as you get back to me with the posts you think I should be criticizing, I can complete the mission and rescue myself from the nefarious label.

Jeff's own words always do him in.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 20, 2007 2:26 AM

Nope, my words did you in....

nazi, If you are truly "objective" you should be able to shred any one of "mikes" or slobs posts with ease. "Bush was behind 9/11" should be a starter. "We bombed the golden mosque" is another good one. Have fun.

>nazi, If you are truly "objective" you should be able to shred any one of "mikes" or slobs posts with ease.

According to little old UN-objective you.

>"Bush was behind 9/11" should be a starter. "We bombed the golden mosque" is another good one. Have fun.

Posted by: royalking at July 20, 2007 2:56 AM

Just posting quotes without citations doesn't quite do it for me Royal Douche. If you'd like to attribute those quotes to someone specific (with evidence), then I will certainly give my opinion on the matter.

But, as standard operating procedure, you've once again changed the argument.

You wanted me to criticize 'Olbyloons.'

Now, you just want me to pick apart arguments made (apparently) by some people on the left.

Those are two different things. I realize they aren't in YOUR mind, but to any objective person, they indeed are.

You see, RD, when you play the shell game you do, constantly changing the argument, constantly changing what you mean, constantly exaggerating and distorting people's words, you'd better not play it against people who have a quicker eye than you.

Because when you do, you always end up losing. But what else is new....?

Just another day at OlbermannWatch!

I'll restate my challenge you've backed down from:

Show me a post from someone who fawns over Olbermann, and I will react to whatever argument they are presenting.

Is that too hard for you?

nazi, both of those comments were made by slob in the last few days, not too observant, are you? Or, do you just read the posts of people you don't like, "mr. objective?" You've not once criticised an olbyloon and you never will. You've defended "mike" several times in the past when he has made asinine comments as well as several other olbyloons.

Proof of anything you've asserted above?

I know you know how to copy and paste...

What are you waiting for?

"It's in the archives!" to quote one of your cohorts. The same one you've defended on numerous occasions.

And as soon as you get back to me with the posts you think I should be criticizing, I can complete the mission and rescue myself from the nefarious label.

Posted by: Nazi at July 20, 2007 2:34 AM

"Bush was behind 9/11" should be a starter. "We bombed the golden mosque" is another good one. Have fun.

Posted by: royalking at July 20, 2007 2:56 AM

How is this changing the argument? Looks like a"diversion" on your part. A common olbyloon tactic.

Nazi Hunter: I guess you are probably starting to figure out that arguing with Jeff (RoyalKing) is a lot like arguing with a 5 year old.

I'd advise you not to waste your time. That idiot is as dense as anyone I have EVER communicated with.

What was it Bob called you? A third grader? I think so. He was giving you the benefit of the doubt, too!

FROM THE ARCHIVES (SLOB'S ACCUSATION)

A point that I have made several times and still hold to concerns the timing of the destruction of the Golden Mosque. Millions voted in December of 2005. (I asked why they would do that but never got an answer). There was limited violence, even somewhat of a truce. Al Qaida blew up the mosque in February of 2006. I have no doubt of that. That target could have been hit at any time prior.

Posted by: Sharon at July 19, 2007 1:43 PM

It would have been great timing as well for a neocon coalition desiring profitable chaos in Iraq. They had already delayed elections to the point at which tey were mere pantomimes of democracy, destroyed the physical and civic infrastructure through precision incompetence, and made sure that all the jobs in the country went to Americans, British, Indonesian, Mexican,....citizens rather than Iraqis.

What was left for them to do but set various ethnicities against one another? The bullshit you hear from both sides of the aisle about "1000 years of Sunni/Shiite violence" is only as true as saying that there has been "600 years of Catholic/Protestant violence" in the west.

The British have admitted to having surreptitiously blown up civilians in northern Ireland in their designs to divide their rebellious subjects there, and they are known to have used similar colonial tactics in India. In the fall of 2004 two British SAS agents - dressed as "Arabs" - were caught by Iraqi police in Basra in possession of a Toyota Cressida packed with explosives wired todetonate via remote control. The Britsh agents killed several of their allied Iraqi policement and a few innocent bystanders during the arrest, but were eventually aprehended. While the Iraqi police were still saying "WTF?", the British army sprung the two from jail in an armored assault.

Similarly, between 1954 and 1956 the US has been implicated in numerous car-bombings in the cities of the artificial "South Vietnam", blaming the communists, in order to stop the antional reunification elections set for 1956. It worked;we were there for nearly 20 more yesrs, and 57,000 Americans and million's of Vietnamese died. Then, as now, our military was shattered and our national prestige was tarnished, but a lot of money was made.

I am convinced that we and/or the British blew up the mosque because things appeared to be settling down.
Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at July 19, 2007 2:02 PM

Thanks Sharon for doing what Royal Douche could not or would not do.

I'll give my opinion on SLOB's belief that coalition forces were responsible for destroying the dome of the mosque but whether or not this will 'prove' anything to RD is doubtful. Jeff likes to use the term 'proven' and 'debunked' in a very loose fashion. In other words, he has fairly self-serving standards for both.

Now, what Jeff asserted is that he believes I will never criticize an 'Olbyloon.' What he REALLY means is that he thinks I will never criticize someone who is liberal. Now, from the very start, Mr. Douche has failed to acknowledge that I don't criticize conservatives for being conservative and I don't criticize liberals for being liberal. I might take issue with them for selling themselves out, because I think the only person you should agree with 100% of the time is yourself.

I will debate anyone anytime and anywhere on any issue they like. I will make my position known and I will defend it. I hold very deep seated liberal views and very deep seated conservative views without the slightest bit of conflict because I am not beholden to a political party, an ideology, or a religious base. Disagree with me or not, that DOES make me more objective than most, if not all, of the rabid partisan posters here, including SLOB.

I take issue with what the Cox Nazi Choir posts more because a.) There is a lot more of it than opposition posts, b.) They, in their bitter hatred of Olbermann engage in hypocrisy in an effort to smear him and especially those who they think are liberals.

My example of the second point is when Johnny, Bob, and others use derogatory terms to insult KO and say it's okay because they are only using the term because KO has in the past. And when they do this daily, yes, they become bigger offenders than KO.

(...and if you are curious I use the term Nazi to describe the choir here-just started doing that yesterday-because over the last several months the choir has feebly tried to hang the 'loon' label on me. Using the term Nazi might be offensive to victims of the holocaust, but being called a loon doesn't exactly make the untold millions of people worldwide who suffer from mental illness feel all warm and fuzzy inside either. Besides, there is actually more evidence to support the notion that cox and his minions have fascist tendencies than there is evidence to support the fact that I or any other 'opponent' here are actually insane.)

If this site merely fact-checked Olbermann and debated liberal ideology, I would most likely be on Cox's side, doing the same thing. But we all know that's not what's going on here. The Bush Derangement Syndrome that Bush supporters like to accuse people of could easily be called Olbermann Derangement Syndrome to describe the Choir members here and their flailing efforts to smear Olbermann. I could very easily write a daily recap to the daily recap and show the same type of propanganda is being employed in reverse on this site.

What if KO referred to a Democrat illegally screwing a prostitute as merely 'cheating on his spouse.' Yes, that would get a mention in the recap dontcha think? Yet that same type of spin to paint a slightly rosier picture of what Vitter did was done in a recap. Yes, the spin can spin both ways, and usually does.

I mean, come on. Someone who happens to be a Fox News Whore (Like J$) criticizes Olbermann and wants us to believe it's NOT for partisan reasons. Give me a break!

Now, let me be clear. I have no problem with insulting people (duh, look at my posts). But to pretend you find something offensive at the same time you are doing it is the very definition of hypocrisy. What I do is attack back. Defending yourself is not being hypocritical. Someone who punches somone back after being attacked is not guilty of the same offense as the one who started it. So I ask Cox, did Keith start insulting YOU or did you start insulting HIM first?

And thus, you will find me here either a.) calling out the hypocrites, or b.) debating the issues with libs and cons alike. I will always fling the insults in kind to those who fling them at me. I always try to do it with a little more flare, though. I like to give people their money's worth. Must be the capitalist in me.

RD thinks SLOB's actions, words, and views should be criticized because he's an 'Olbyloon.' I have yet to read a post of his that seems hypocritical.

I may disagree with him on certain things, but I save 'criticism' for people who are a.) intellectually dishonest, b.) a hypocrite, or c.) so ignorant that they make each and every one of us suffer tiny deaths every time we read their posts.

I don't believe SLOB's posts meet that standard. At least not the ones I have read, and I admit I have not read all of them.

So, while I agree with SLOB that the president is an idiot (a view shared by a majority of Americans), the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mistake (a view shared by a majority of Americans), and we could be fighting terrorism in a much more effective way....

After doing my own extensive research on the Golden Mosque I disagree with his assertion that coalition forces were responsible. Although, it is interesting that Al-Qaeda (as in Al-Qaeda in Iraq) almost always takes credit for the terror they unleash (wouldn't be much point in doing it otherwise, would there?), they have curiously NOT taken credit for that attack.

The attack, according to Eye Witness accounts was carried out by folks in Iraqi Police uniforms.

So, who did it? I don't know for sure. But, I don't think it was us.

I doubt that will satisfy Royal Douche in his quest to see me 'criticize' an 'Olbyloon.'

The difference between say Jeff and SLOB and why one deserve criticism and one doesn't is that if Jeff read a post where I refuted something he said he would personally attack me and call me an 'olbyloon' just for disagreeing with him. If SLOB criticized me just for disagreeing with him, I would criticize back, and that would be the type of exchange that Jeff so desperately wants to see from me.

And, again, just to be clear, I have no problem with personal attacks. I will always wage such attacks in response to the same.
However, such attacks, unprovoked, followed by or preceded by NO SUCH DEBATE on the issues is not very productive.

I would actually prefer to debate the issues without all the silly name calling, but you've seen how many times I've been called an 'Olbyloon' just for not being conservative enough for Jeff on this thread alone.

Speaking of Jeff, remember when you claimed that all the prisoners in Gitmo were caught red handed making bombs or shooting at our troops and not merely 'rounded up.' And then, after about 30 seconds of research I provided you government documents to prove you wrong.

No, I don't suppose you do...

Jeff, Remember when you tried to echo the sentiment that the Fire near Susanville was caused by lititgation that prevented the thinning of the forests and I posted the opinion of the forest service themselves that show no such evidence that thinning the forest would have prevented anything?

No, I don't suppose you do...

So, moving forward...

Whether you are an 'olbyloon'...

Whether you are a 'cox nazi choir member'...

Whether you are a 'liberal'...

or

Whether you are a 'conservative'..

Engage in hypocrisy, dishonesty, ignorance, or simply criticize me and you will be thoroughly criticized back (and I will also do you the service of picking apart your argument whether you've done so with me or not)

Enage in a debate, and debate is what you shall get.

Any questions?

...And if someone is going to ask me why my posts are always so goddamn long...

It's because the Truth is rarely found in a soundbite, contained within a headline, or communicated through the crawl at the bottom of the screen.

And NEVER in Jeff's one or two line posts!

LMFAO

If you don't want to read my long post at 7:17 here's the condensed version:

I may only distrust the government about half as much as SLOB, but that will ALWAYS be half too much for Royal Douche.

Jeff, Remember when you tried to echo the sentiment that the Fire near Susanville was caused by lititgation that prevented the thinning of the forests and I posted the opinion of the forest service themselves that show no such evidence that thinning the forest would have prevented anything?

posted by lamo

Any proof to this assertion? I don't have time, right now, to shred the rest of your crap. I will check back later on and I expect to see proof of your SUSANVILLE fire post proving me wrong that thinning does't work, ok?

I am making a Mount Rushmore out of chopped chicken liver (an odd thing with my moniker, to be sure), with the visages of Presidents Coolidge, Hoover, Nixon and Bush the Lesser. I would like to send it to Mr. Cox. What address please? It cannot be shipped to a post office box.

"The number of trees killed in the Biscuit Fire was highest in the thinned areas we studied, most likely due to slash left after the thinning treatment," Raymond explains.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060312211341.htm

There are dozens of non-partisan sources on the web that post studies that show that thinning forests in the way Bush prescribes at best has no effect on minimizing fires and at worst makes them more destructive.

Jeff's gonna 'check back later' even though the proof he requires came a mere 9 minutes after he requested it.

Of course Jeff can always say that the science journals are all controlled by the mainstream media and they, in turn, are controlled by the Leftist Underground Movement.

Sounds all so terribly partisan to me...

Here's the original posts Mr. Douche has conveniently 'forgotten.' It was a few weeks ago, I understand if that's going 'Waaaaay Back' for him. That must be ages ago if he can't even remember what he wrote on this very thread.

>SOUTH LAKE TAHOE — The mood of the crowd jammed into the meeting room was angry.

Many had lost their homes to the forest fire that swept through the Sierra Nevada just south of Lake Tahoe.

They said they were angry at liberals and environmentalists who made cutting of trees and clearing of land difficult. There was always too much red tape, they said, and now it was too late. They weren't even allowed to cut down trees that were dead! Liberalism hard at work......

Posted by: royalking at June 27, 2007 2:32 PM

Thanks Royal Douche for providing more evidence that you:

1.) Don't keep up with science

2.) Believe everything the Gov't tells you
and

3.) Are afraid of the Liberal Boogyman, the source of all YOUR problems

U.S. Forest Fire Policies Get Flamed
Paul D. Thacker

Sometime this summer or maybe late fall, news programs will fill with images of catastrophic wildfires ravaging forests in the American West. And if the trend holds from the past two fire seasons, hundreds of homes will burn to the ground, causing billions of dollars in property damage. Next year will likely yield the same results, because the underlying issues are not going away. The western states are experiencing the worst drought in 500 years, and a combination of past timber-cutting practices and fire suppression in the United States has allowed the forests to become thick and overgrown. When fires come through these dry, overgrown forests, they burn at much higher temperatures and are more difficult to control.

To handle this problem, President Bush has put forth a host of policy changes called the Healthy Forest Initiative, which culminated last December in the passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). When the President signed the act, he remarked, “[W]e will help to prevent catastrophic wildfires, we’ll help save lives and property, and we’ll help protect our forests from sudden and needless destruction.” Specifically, the Bush agenda calls for more thinning of the national forests and a streamlining of appeals, public involvement, and environmental analysis to speed the process.

While many experts agree that the national forests have become tinderboxes, there is strong disagreement even within the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on how to handle the issue. Officially, the USFS prefers to thin trees mechanically and remove the wood instead of using prescribed fire.
The chief of the USFS has authority over the agency, but the man who really maintains control is Mark Rey, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Deputy Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment. Prior to joining USFS, Rey served as vice president for the American Forest and Paper Association, a timber industry lobbying group that supported passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

Rey told ES&T that the USFS has solid research that shows thinning can control western wildfires. He added that reducing fuels on that national forest will save both lives and property. “It’s not going to save every home, but it will mitigate the issue,” he says.

But scientists, both inside and outside the USFS, say the research on the effectiveness of thinning is itself quite thin. “The Forest Service doesn’t have a clue about how to thin the forest to control fire,” says former USFS chief Jack Ward Thomas. “We’ve done thinning for silviculture enhancement and pest control. So we do have a lot of research on thinning, just not related to fire.”

An assistant professor of Fire Science at the University of California, Berkeley, Scott Stephens agrees and says that any research to mitigate forest fires is maybe six years old at best. “I’m afraid the Forest Service thinks solutions are already known, and they are now going to implement them on a large scale,” he says.
One of the first projects to provide good quantitative data on fire mitigation is the federally funded Fire and Fire Surrogate Project. The project encompasses 13 different forest types across the nation, and each site has four different plots of land to examine different fire control strategies, including prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and mechanical thinning followed by prescribed fire. Other plots remain untreated to serve as controls.
Stephens heads up the project site at Berkeley’s Blodgett experimental forest three hours east of San Francisco in the foothills of the Sierra Mountains. Now in its fourth year, the Blodgett study has found that the most effective means to reduce fires is not thinning trees but removing surface fuels such as brush. The second-most important component to remove is the “ladder fuels” such as small trees and tall shrubs, and the final component is crown fuel in the tree canopy.
While the ecosystem in Berkeley is different from places recently scorched by catastrophic fires, such as Los Alamos, N.M., and southern California, Stephens says treating the surface fuels through prescribed burns would still be the best strategy to mitigate fire.

Critics also fault the USFS for failing to concentrate fire reduction programs in the wildland–urban interface—areas close to forests where people live and own property. The HFRA calls for $476 million to be spent this year on hazardous fuels reduction, but according to Rey, less than half the acreage thinned will be in the wildland–urban interface.

In fact, the expert on protecting property from forest fires is USFS researcher Jack Cohen. His studies found that the best way to save homes from wildfires is to treat all vegetation within 100 feet of buildings, an area he terms the “home ignition zone”.
Critics also charge that Rey is focusing too many thinning projects in old-growth forest and roadless wilderness. They see this as a sign that the USFS is reversing a recent trend toward environmentally sound management and reverting back to policies that favor industry. As an example, the environmentalists point to a recent operation on the northeast rim of the Grand Canyon on the Kaibab National Forest. One of the last few stands of old growth in the Southwest, the logging was stopped after litigation by environmental groups. The closest home was 48 miles away.

These types of logging operations raise warning flags that the HFRA is less a means to protect homes and property than a policy to open up the forests to business exploitation.

According to Ward, “[Rey] makes no bones about it. He wants to bring the Forest Service more in line with production of commodities.”

To help orchestrate commodities production, the first thing Rey did early in the Bush Administration was streamline the process for USFS projects. Streamlining was needed, he claims, because incessant appeals and litigation by environmental groups has slowed the USFS’s ability to protect the forests by thinning trees and has resulted in “analysis paralysis”.
But a 2003 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that only 3% of USFS thinning projects was actually litigated by environmental groups. Further, the report also discovered that the USFS did not even have a database to back up its claim that litigation was impeding thinning projects.

“The Forest Service is a case study in spin,” says one author of the GAO report.
A recent study by Hanna Cortner, associate director of the Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona University, found that a broad spectrum of groups appealed USFS projects, including individuals, tribes, business interests, and environmental groups [J. For. 2004, 102 (2)]. She also questions the USFS’s claims about litigation, by environmental groups since she found that the agency lacks a national database of appeals and litigation. From her point of view, the USFS is just playing political games.

“I think the Bush Administration has done a wonderful job of turning those who we think of as saviors of the environment into those we now think of as threats to the environment,” she says.

Former chief of the USFS, Mike Dombeck, says that streamlining the process for thinning projects has left environmentalists feeling locked out of the process, which will probably lead to even more litigation. “Ultimately, if you don’t let people play in the game, the next time you’ll see them is in court,” he says.
This article first appeared in the Online News section of Environmental Science & Technology.

Posted by: Commisson Accomplished! at June 27, 2007 5:54 PM

The condensed easyreader version for the Neocons who are allergic to reading:

The misconception:

They said they were angry at liberals and environmentalists who made cutting of trees and clearing of land difficult. There was always too much red tape, they said, and now it was too late. They weren't even allowed to cut down trees that were dead! Liberalism hard at work......

The facts:

But a 2003 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that only 3% of USFS thinning projects was actually litigated by environmental groups. Further, the report also discovered that the USFS did not even have a database to back up its claim that litigation was impeding thinning projects.

So, the forest fires burn while Royal Douche plays on his Sit N Spin. Nice!

Posted by: Commission Accomplished! at June 27, 2007 6:01 PM

H.O.N.,

In defense of RK, it is a pain in the neck to find a particular comment. I was the person who initiated the comment so it was easier for me to find it than someone else. We won't get into the issue of whether it really was your burden to find it. SLOB never answered the essence of my question: why did so many Iraqis vote? (I can g o back to my original comment if needed). The bombing of that
particular mosque was a sure bet to have the consequences that ensued. It could have been targeted at other points. Why after the election, when there was a kind of truce to allow for the election? Al qaida not taking responsibility for something could have many reasons. I could be wrong about it being al Qaeda. I would have to research it more also.

Keep in mind that we all use this board for our own purposes. I find it incredibly admirable that Cox and Dollar put up with the insults of some here. If these commenters were banned (or even any one off thread topic) it would be deserved. Losing a few people would not affect his numbers and may even draw more people who are reticent to get involved in these kind of debates.

Poster of many so many names he can't keep track of them himself: The post from me was from THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED WHERE THE FIRE WAS, DIRCTLY AFFECTED> The shit you posted was from the gov trying to cover their ass. I think first hand knowledge trumps your "cover up" article any day of the week. Furthermore, how do you know that the "3%" didn't directly affect the area that burned? Thinning works, the valley in the mountains where I live survived from any dwellings burning because we are required to have a 100' "defensible space" around all dwellings on our land. Barns, homes, etc. Direct proof you are wrong, tree hugger.

More,

I would like to hear an elaboration of the timing. I understand that SLOB believed that the U.S. and/or Britain wanted the factions to engage in war for nefarious purposes because thing were going "well." (In the context he described). I still wonder why the timing happened to coincide so close to the voting.

"The number of trees killed in the Biscuit Fire was highest in the thinned areas we studied, most likely due to slash left after the thinning treatment," Raymond explains.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060312211341.htm

There are dozens of non-partisan sources on the web that post studies that show that thinning forests in the way Bush prescribes at best has no effect on minimizing fires and at worst makes them more destructive.

Posted by: Nazi at July 20, 2007 7:50 PM

When you thin trees you have to clean up the mess, that's a no brainer. How does that "prove" that thinning doesn't work of it was done half assed by gov't workers? Answer: It doesn't.

THE PEOPLE THAT [sic] LIVED WHERE THE FIRE WAS, DIRCTLY [sic] AFFECTED
-----------------------------------------------
Please let me come to your aid, Monsieur Royale. This is, in fact, something that Monsieur Royale would write. It has his writing "skills" all over it.

I am pleased I could help you.

Your friend,
Clucker

Thanks, Mrs. Philby, I was on the phone while typing. You never disappoint. "That" is spelled right, do they spell it differently on planet olby?

Clucker,Mrs. Philby, whoever you are, I have noticed you make typos and spelling errors all the time, yet, you have the nerve to criticise someone else? That's a little hypocritical, isn't it?

Sharon: I see that you are publicly advocating censorship on this board again, ..... and I can only suspect that you may still think I am one of the ones who 'deserves' to be banned? I find it utterly amazing that you would be so defensive of these two proven political hacks in light of the shabby way Robert Cox treated YOU that day you said you were not going to post here anymore.

Personally I could care less if I were banned or not. I am supremely self confident in beliefs that have been honed by 56 years of experience in many, many endeavors, both domestic and international. I have a very strong sense of what is right and what is wrong.....and unfortunately, the political 'right' is wrong about 90% of the time these days.

One thing is certain, if I or anyone else were 'banned' simply for insulting serial insulters like those two, it would prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they are only interested in preaching to the choir, and I think they know that.

and unfortunately, the political 'right' is wrong about 90% of the time these days.

Posted by: Mike at July 20, 2007 9:08 PM

So much for your "strong sense of what is right and wrong".......

How bout that Obama! "Genocide" is not worth stopping. Such a humanitarian he is.

As expected....I address Sharon and I get Jeff!

Jeff, are you Sharon? Are you Sharon's designated spokesperson?

> I find it incredibly admirable that Cox and Dollar put up with the insults of some here.

Interesting way of looking at it. If you go back to day 1 on the archives, that's the way it's always been, insults being flung in either direction.

I say they made their bed, now they lie in it.

Live by the poison pen, die by the poison pen.

But that's just my 'Take responsibility for your own actions' conservative side showing through.

Mike,

I don't know where you read my advocating a ban. I have always included myself as guilty of failure to follow the thread. I took a break from the board for personal reasons which I explained at the time. Cox got the ball rolling by his comments to me when he failed to perceive that I was being sarcastic and was actually supporting his viewpoint (for whatever that issue was). Neither Cox nor Dollar give a hoot what anyone says about them. They like the traffic. I merely suggested I would certainly understand banning people, which is much different than advocating. I have no control here.

I think several people here, if in control of the site, were on the receiving end of some of the comments to Cox and Dollar, there would have been numerous bans, in my opinion. I would tell them to use their freedom of speech elsewhere. I haven't been to many other boards but the ones that I do visit would not tolerate the stuff here. There are several people here who don't agree with Cox or $ that play fair, at least most of the time. I think Cox and $ enjoy the comments so they can return fire.

That whole part of the comment I should have placed in ( ) because it was meant as an aside. Not that it would have stopped anyone who felt offended from taking issue.

>Poster of many so many names he can't keep track of them himself:

Actually I've kept track of names perfectly-Even yours Royal Douche. It is YOU that's having a real hard time with it.

>The post from me was from THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED WHERE THE FIRE WAS, DIRCTLY AFFECTED

Are they experts or just scared shitless their house is going to burn down and want to blame someone about the fact that they live next to a potential hazard?

>The shit you posted was from the gov trying to cover their ass. I think first hand knowledge trumps your "cover up" article any day of the week.

The 'shit' that I posted was from a study that was done BEFORE the fire in question.

>Furthermore, how do you know that the "3%" didn't directly affect the area that burned?

I don't know that, but I don't need to to know you are full of your own shit. But to recap (you have a very hard time keeping up) you echoed the sentiment that the 'victims' needed someone to blame and so they blamed 'liberals' who don't agree that there is any evidence that thinning actually mitigates damage from forest fires. And you know what? Science is on the 'liberals' side. I know, I know, Global Warming is a hoax too.

>Thinning works, the valley in the mountains where I live survived from any dwellings burning because we are required to have a 100' "defensible space" around all dwellings on our land. Barns, homes, etc. Direct proof you are wrong, tree hugger.

There you go again with a self-serving definition of 'direct proof.' If you bothered to read the article, you would have read that yes, having a burn-proof barrier around your property is what saves houses and lives. How is that 'direct proof' that the entirely different measure of thinning works? Oh yeah, you live on Planet Cox, it all makes sense in your mind.

Isn't it funny that when Royal Douche loses a debate he always tries to characterize his opponent as being a 'leftist' with some slander like 'tree hugger.' I like when you try to call me names. It makes me think back to the several weeks you kept calling me Mike, and it reminds me how wrong you always are. Like anyone needs reminding.

I'm no tree hugger, but I would rather be a tree hugger than a Bull Milker like you!

PEOPLE THAT [sic] LIVED
----------------------------
Spelled correctly. Wrong word. You make that mistake regularly, Monsieur Royale.
TTFN.

>When you thin trees you have to clean up the mess, that's a no brainer. How does that "prove" that thinning doesn't work of it was done half assed by gov't workers? Answer: It doesn't.

Posted by: royalking at July 20, 2007 8:34 PM

Read the other article, sport. The one I originally posted and cited a few weeks ago. The one I added today had some additional information in it, but from an entirely different study.

Did you read the article, or just the headline?

Willfull ignorance is no excuse!

Sharon: To their credit, I think Cox and $ believe, as I do, that if everyone were forced to follow the subject line of every thread to the letter, traffic to this site would drastically decrease.

I am not talking about following threads to the letter. There are tangents here that are about 20 degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon : )

>Sharon: To their credit, I think Cox and $ believe, as I do, that if everyone were forced to follow the subject line of every thread to the letter, traffic to this site would drastically decrease.

Posted by: Mike at July 20, 2007 10:07 PM

I think Cox has his hands full and isn't really in control of this monster he's created.

Proof?

How about the thread where he asked everyone's input on language and what to do about it?

It's only gotten worse in my estimation, and none of the suggestions were even discussed further or partially implemented.

More Proof?

All this shit he seems powerless to stop. I’ve never seen that crap on other blogs.

cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: purchase viagra at July 18, 2007 11:02 AM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: viagra price at July 18, 2007 12:37 PM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: buy cheap viagra at July 18, 2007 2:32 PM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: buy viagra generic at July 18, 2007 4:04 PM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: online viagra at July 18, 2007 5:38 PM
cheap@viagra.com
Posted by: pharmacy viagra at July 18, 2007 7:14 PM

More Proof?

How about days when there is no recap.

How about when they forget to turn on the comments button.

How about when no one can post, like a couple weeks ago when everyone thought they were banned.

It's just not a very well run ship...

But, hey, I do give Cox credit for how 'liberal' he is on letting people post whatever they want.

I've complimented him on that and am on record as saying that's what I think draws people here.

Not the petty anti-KO stuff, but the no-holds-barred nature of the political debate.

nazi, defending his fav olbyloon.

lamo says, "I don't defend olbyloons!"
"mike" says, "I don't defend Olbermahn!"

Jeff sez nazi was "defending his fav olbyloon." I GUESS he was talking about me? .... But you never really know with that juvenile.

Frankly, I couldn't really see that Nazi was 'defending' anybody simply because he used my quote as a pretext to criticize OW. But Jeff looks at the world in some unique childish way that is rather difficult for an adult to decipher.

Nazi, am I your favorite 'olbyloon'. Jeff sez I am!

On second thought, I CAN'T be.....because we all know that Jeff is wrong about everything!

Jeff, how bout addressing Nazi's point about those weeks you kept calling him me?

The Founding Fathers Wouldn't Have Liked George Bush( or Cecelia, Grammie, Cee etc.

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 12:34 AM

Grammie and Cee, etc... you have to admit that this is a delight!

If there's ever a book similar to Kids Say the Darnest Things, along the lines of Blogboarders Say The Darnest Things... or Blogboard Culture Classics.... this representation has to be in it!

Jeff, how bout addressing Nazi's point about those weeks you kept calling him me?

Posted by: Mike at July 20, 2007 11:56 PM

I wouldn't expect you to address Obamas comments about genocide. Wouldn't be prudent.

Jeff sez: "I wouldn't expect you to address Obamas comments about genocide. Wouldn't be prudent."

Jeff won't ever address anything anyone ever asks him to elaborate on, but I'll address his question just the same, since he's taunted me with it twice as if he thinks I'm supposed to be ashamed of Obama's statements? .... Not hardly bro!

I agree with what Obama said 100%. You see, he said far more than the few little sound bites you quoted on the subject.

America is NOT, and CANNOT be the world's policeman. We simply do not have the resources. This is the hard lesson I thought we had learned after Vietnam, but because of Bush & Co., we have had to learn this painful lesson all over again.

I think that is all Obama was saying....and I agree!

I think that Cecelia is a unpatriotic coward who hides behind her ridiculous esoteric word spin.

But besides that, she's the cat's meow!
( more like the cat's litter box )

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 2:08 AM

And I KNOW you're an obtuse putz who hides behind anonymity.

Like using your first name only is somehow not being anonymous? For someone who feels the need to lecture to every poster here and label them all hypocrites if they don't do what you tell them to do you don't get how big of a hypocrite you are in your constant lecturing and then doing what you tell other people not to do. Cox really needs to add an ignore feature on this site but you being the hypocrite you are wouldn't use it to ignore people who tick you off. Then you couldn't complain about them and leave what you think are brilliant replies which actually are pretty dumb.

Like using your first name only is somehow not being anonymous? For someone who feels the need to lecture to every poster here and label them all hypocrites if they don't do what you tell them to do you don't get how big of a hypocrite you are in your constant lecturing and then doing what you tell other people not to do. Cox really needs to add an ignore feature on this site but you being the hypocrite you are wouldn't use it to ignore people who tick you off. Then you couldn't complain about them and leave what you think are brilliant replies which actually are pretty dumb.

Posted by: The Real Truth at July 21, 2007 9:43 AM

Actually, it's pretty dumb for you to intentionally disregard a point about calling someone a coward while posting anonymously (and therefore being untrackable for any judgements people make on the scope of a person's remarks) as contrasted with someone who does allow such scrutiny by consistently posting under one name.

Speaking of brilliant responses... it should occur to you that Cox doesn't need to install an "ignore" button. You should be quite capable of doing that on your own.

But then when you can read Brandon blogging that everyone who disagrees with him about Mrs. Vitter is a hypocrite, but then decide that my calling Brandon one or you one, constitutes the whole of the blogboard, it's no wonder you need help in monitoring your own reading habits.

Cox really needs to add an ignore feature on this site but you being the hypocrite you are wouldn't use it to ignore people who tick you off. Then you couldn't complain about them and leave what you think are brilliant replies which actually are pretty dumb.

Posted by: The Real Truth at July 21, 2007 9:43 AM

Btw...The Real Truth.... which seems obsessive to you?

Someone who reads and responds to what are publicly and repeated posted comments about a particular theme on a blogboard, or someone who pleads for an "ignore button" because they need help in preventing themselves from reading comments on a blogboard...

I report... you deride... :D

I see we're well on her way to a stimulating exchange of ideas between both sides of a split personality these morning. This has been turned into one of the most boring blogs in the blogosphere, wholly lacking in substance for hours and hours on end. All rather a waste of time.

I see we're well on her way to a stimulating exchange of ideas between both sides of a split personality these morning. This has been turned into one of the most boring blogs in the blogosphere, wholly lacking in substance for hours and hours on end. All rather a waste of time.

Posted by: Mrs Philby at July 21, 2007 11:09 AM

Mayb you should bring back "rudy ramirez" to bring some "substance" back.

For someone who feels the need to lecture to every poster here and label them all hypocrites if they don't do what you tell them to do you don't get how big of a hypocrite

Posted by: The Real Truth? at July 21, 2007 9:43 AM

Funny, Ive seen you do this on several ocassions. What does that make you?

America is NOT, and CANNOT be the world's policeman. We simply do not have the resources. This is the hard lesson I thought we had learned after Vietnam, but because of Bush & Co., we have had to learn this painful lesson all over again.

I think that is all Obama was saying....and I agree!

Posted by: Mike at July 21, 2007 3:50 AM

Now we know you're not the "humanitarian" you have claimed over and over to be. You are, esentially, condoning genocide. Such a good little liberal you are!

Just because I didn't cut and paste the whole article or speech he made doesn't change what he said. Downplay and spin away, BRO! It's what we have come to expect from you.

This is the hard lesson I thought we had learned after Vietnam, but because of Bush & Co., we have had to learn this painful lesson all over again.

I think that is all Obama was saying....and I agree!

Posted by: Mike at July 21, 2007 3:50 AM

Hey Mike, how many innocent people died after the dems pulled out of Nam?

Every body do Tony!
Pretty good, let's do Billy!
Very good, let's do Marsha!
A little trick with Nick!
The name game

Posted by: Cecelia's obsession at July 21, 2007 11:13 AM

Clucker Clucker Bobucker banana fanna fo...oops... :D

Cecelia it's not just Brandon who sees this shit about Olbermann. Read the links. Your hatred of Brandon has blinded you to the fact that the libs are even screaming about Olby's for this. That was the point that Brandon was trying to make. And even his fans are grumbling loudly about his young chickie-poo so stop acting like Brandon is the only person talking about her like this. You're the only one who seems to have a problem with it here.
Posted by: Both of you shut up now at July 9, 2007 11:23 PM

Cecelia it's not just Brandon who sees this shit about Olbermann. Read the links. Your hatred of Brandon has blinded you to the fact that the libs are even screaming about Olby's for this. That was the point that Brandon was trying to make. And even his fans are grumbling loudly about his young chickie-poo so stop acting like Brandon is the only person talking about her like this. You're the only one who seems to have a problem with it here.
Posted by: Both of you shut up now at July 9, 2007 11:23 PM

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 2:09 PM

If these other websites are criticising the relationship by trashing Katy Turic personally and then turning around and talking about Olbermann's mysogyny, they're full of b.s. too.

From what I've seen they've taken the stand that you shouldn't trash 2nd party in general-- including the wife of Republican pol.

I haven't seen in links to sites that have issued arguments that Vitter made his wife a public target or that her having made prior statements makes her one. Contrast THAT with Brandon's arguments about Tur.
Contrast THAT with Brandon calling folks hypocrites on this board when they used those same arguments against Vitter.

From what i've seen liberal blogs have behaved very well indeed towards Mrs. Vitter and therefore can criticise Olbermann without being hypocrites anyway.

So, Both of you shut up now, YOU shut up....

goodness, now she's yelling at OLD comments. Miss, would you like some more CIRCLE with your obsessive JERKING.

goodness, now she's yelling at OLD comments. Miss, would you like some more CIRCLE with your obsessive JERKING.

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 5:11 PM

I'd think you'd offer something to the person who took the time and effort to dig up and cut and paste old comments in order to avoid any work now.

At least a glass of water. That's taxing for an anonyloon, you know. :D

At least a glass of water....
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 5:23 PM

Considering you don't have to work and you spend so much time responding, I'd say YOU may need a "water" break.

Considering you don't have to work and you spend so much time responding, I'd say YOU may need a "water" break.

Posted by: at July 21, 2007 5:57 PM

Actually, I do work but I work when I wish. I'm in a field and personal situation where I can do that.

But not to worry... I can take on your lot while I restore a fleamarket find...

Actually, I do work but I work when I wish. I'm in a field and personal situation where I can do that.
Posted by: Cecelia at July 21, 2007 6:15 PM

Is this another one of your "satirical" comments? Or is this one "true" and later you'll claim it "satire".

Like this one:

Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM

So she admits she's a golddiger than spends the next two months plus denying she's a golddigger? And she's calling Brandon the hypocrite?

Was there a point somewhere? Other than Kristol knows what he is talking about. I think that is what you call a "backfire" post.

Was there a point somewhere? Other than Kristol knows what he is talking about.
-------------------------------------------
Hard to dispute that, Kristol being so on target about WMD'd, the Iraqis granting us as liberators and virtually every other aspect of Iraq.

When does rudy ramirez get to come out, Mrs. Philby?

If you were in the least clever, Monsieur Royale your comment might be drole. As it is, you merely show you unwillingness and inability to address any substantive issue. It is a pattern of repetition that becomes boring. Monsieur Royale raises one of Dr. Wiener's inane points, it is "debunked" and Monsieur Royale throws out what he deems to be a personal insult. Any thoughts about a new shtick? You really are boring everyone.

Where was the personal insult? rudy ramirez was your "shtik," remember

And, that addressed the substantive issue just how, Monsieur Royale.

Let me mimic you in this regard, in the faint hope you will understand:

(Answer own questions).

It doesn't. Because you can't.

(Repeat moronic mantra.)

Divert. Divert. Divert.

I hope that helps, and I also hope your Sunday is going well for you and your family. We finally have some sun, here, so we are hoping for a bit of skiing this afternoon. Kills my aged knees, of course, but the young ones love it.

Mrs. Philby, you accused me of making a personal insult, yet, couldn't point out said insult. You are the one that brought up "shtiks" I just responed to your "issue" at hand. I don't see any diversion on my part, just yours.

The point was the Kristol Declaration, Monsieur Royale, not your senseless, on-going diversions to avoid issues on which you have failed to sustain your position.

You obvously don't care to support your position on the Kristol Declaration, and I can't say I blame you. It can be supported no more than the Declaration itself. Let's just score 1 point for the forces of Brightness and Goodness and 0 point for the forces of Darkness and Despair, and move on. Perhaps, your side will do better next round.

Should we be concerned that you have adequate blood flow to the brain? Do you a medical condition? We've all assumed that the problem was intellectual, developmental and emotional. Perhaps, the problem is even greater. Don't put off having this checked out. It can be very dangerous.

What's the matter, can't find the "personal insult" I made to you?

"Royale throws out what he deems to be a personal insult." Mrs. Philby

Remember this? I'm not surprised you are avoiding it, all the loons do it on a regular basis.

When one gets his "news" from tmz, one has to wonder. It answers a few questions, though. Thanks, Bob!

Nothing to say about the picture, eh, RoyalDouche? Take a peek, if you have balls.

We all know you can't read, so just look at the nice picture.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2007/07/0720_brookshire_obama.jpg

I don't care what Romney does or says, I don't support him. Cool pic, though. Scour the far left hate sites all you want, nobody gives a shit what your name is!

Could there be a more distasteful, ignorant, obnoxious poster with so little to offer...anywhere than wdycwmni? No, there couldn't, except for that O'Leilly guy. They're both losers.

The point was the PHOTOGRAPH of Romney holding a sign equating Bin Laden and Obama.

But of course the dumbfuck RK didn't go to the link and then complains about "news".

And why do you keep calling me "Bob" you simpleton ?

You must hoLd the world record for times being wrong, about EVERYTHING.

Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at July 22, 2007 6:26 PM

This is the kind of stuff that is so fraught with misperceptions, that I wouldn't give it two nanoseconds of thought if it were of anyone.

After his picture was taken with the supporter, Romney could have been in the process of holding up the sign in order to read it when the snap was shot.

It's tabloid stuff.

This is the kind of stuff that is so fraught with misperceptions
Posted by: Cecelia at July 22, 2007 6:39 PM

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2007/07/0720_brookshire_obama.jpg

Oh, goody! Look at the picture in the link once more. It contains actually two still pictures. In the left still, one can see a video camera and the mike boom behind Romney; in the right still, one can see the mike right above the sign held by Romney in front of his face.
So this was not a little accident. Romney participated with a great smile in it.

nobody gives a shit, If I didn't go to the link, why did I say "cool pic?" I saw the pic, Cecelia is right. Only a far left hater and an Osama Bin Ladin supporter would draw the conclusion you did.

Oh, goody! Look at the picture in the link once more. It contains actually two still pictures. In the left still, one can see a video camera and the mike boom behind Romney; in the right still, one can see the mike right above the sign held by Romney in front of his face.
So this was not a little accident. Romney participated with a great smile in it.

Posted by: at July 22, 2007 6:55 PM

How does that preclude my word of caution that Romney could be in the crowd shaking hands. THey ore the media want him to pose with a supporter. He does --smiling like a game show host... After the shot he reads the sign. picture taken by going into a throng of supporters....

It's just not conclusive. Don't hang your hat on something like that simply because you don't like the guy.

RoyalDouche's eloquence should be an inspiration to us all.

I don't care what Romney does or says, I don't support him. Cool pic, though. Scour the far left hate sites all you want,
Posted by: royalking at July 22, 2007 5:08 PM

Dumbfuck, if you really didn't care about Romney, you'd have started by keeping your trap shut. Second, since when is TMZ a far left hate site?
Any links to that one, RoyalDouche?

Dumbfuck, if you really didn't care about Romney, you'd have started by keeping your trap shut. Second, since when is TMZ a far left hate site?
Any links to that one, RoyalDouche?

Posted by: at July 22, 2007 7:07 PM

I'm not a Romney fan either but I think it's commonsense to say that you can't tell anything by that sort of pic. I wouldn't put much stock in no matter who was in it.

TMZ isn't a hate-site but it's certainly a tabloid site.

Cecelia, tell that to RoyalDouche.
You certainly used a suspicious, reasonable approach for your argument, unlike RD. Roll the tape!

When one gets his "news" from tmz, one has to wonder. It answers a few questions, though. Thanks, Bob!
Posted by: royalking at July 22, 2007 3:48 PM

I don't care what Romney does or says, I don't support him. Cool pic, though. Scour the far left hate sites all you want, nobody gives a shit what your name is!
Posted by: royalking at July 22, 2007 5:08 PM

nobody gives a shit, If I didn't go to the link, why did I say "cool pic?" I saw the pic, Cecelia is right. Only a far left hater and an Osama Bin Ladin supporter would draw the conclusion you did.
Posted by: royalking at July 22, 2007 6:58 PM

Cecelia, do you want to defend any of THAT?
Do you want to defend RoyalDouche?
Go ahead, have at it.

I didn't say tmz was a "far left" site. Slow down, take a deep breath, wipe the froth from your face, take your prozac and wash them down.

This is what I said:

"Scour the far left hate sites all you want,"

Does it say tmz anywhere? I say that because I know it's what you do most of the time.

Cecelia, do you want to defend any of THAT?
Do you want to defend RoyalDouche?
Go ahead, have at it.

Posted by: at July 22, 2007 7:22 PM

huh?

"you'd have started by keeping your trap shut."

If he would have kept his trap shut, you wouldn't have anyone to direct all of your hatred toward, would you? Maybe, your wife or kids could use a little slappin around?

Cecelia, do you want to defend any of THAT?
Do you want to defend RoyalDouche?
Go ahead, have at it.

Posted by: at July 22, 2007 7:22 PM

Wierdo, she wasn't defending me, she was saying she wouldn't put much stock on your tabliod pic. Apparently you bought it lock, stock and barrel. Have fun with that! Do you think Olbermahn will make Romney a wpitw for the pic? I highly doubt it.