That little poem was quite cute :)

And how many f---ing days off does this guy get?

Why would he even want a day off? What does he do, sit home and not get an erection?

Democrats/Liberals would be far more convincing if they weren't such creepy, hateful, lying bastards.

Another great gibby clip. Put his show repeats against oralomutt. Long live the Gib!

Anyone know if Keith's ratings beat the Logo gay debate on Thursday?

He's grown irrelevant, like Charlie Kane....

Keith Olbermahn, he must resign
He'd be fired if Countdown were mine
He's way overpaid
Uses fans to get laid
His ratings have hit the flat line

I love the clip! RESIGN!!

I'm curious..why does Olbermann seem to go AWOL every couple of weeks?

I smell an ESPN type meltdown coming.

MSNBC hangs by the countdown it's well known.
Olby's new contract GE surely does groan.
Danny Abrams in the mop closet the staff heard a big moan
Olby's chin had the evidence that a higer up had surely been blown.

Good Night and Good Luck!

Why is John Gibson on the still on the air? Well he get higher rating than anyone, including Olbermann on MSDNC. Shouldn't the question be, why are you still on the air Olbermann? Since you get beat nightly by Nancy Grace and sometimes by whatever they are showing now on CNN.

The night that Dan Abrams was on-air whining about ratings and beating CNN for the month of July...

O'Reilly Factor - 2,286,000 viewers (521,000)
Out in the Open - 454,000 viewers (104,000)
Countdown w/ Olbermann - 447,000 viewers (112,000)
Fast Money - 184,000 viewers (64,000)
Nancy Grace - 490,000 viewers (185,000)

Countdown gets beat by Rick Sanchez and "Out In The Open" AND Nancy Grace.

What a freakin' hoot!

So why did they allow Alison Stewart to return as a host since the last time she was on she referred to a woman as a "Ho" on the air which then later required an apology from the Olbermeister himself?

10:18, the answer is that NBC News has no class and credibility whatsoever. They might assume that everyone forgot about that little incident because the target of the slur was a GOP wife. And you know that at NBC News it is perfectly acceptable (and seemingly encouraged) to slander and hurl epithets at non-Democrats who don't adhere to the Peacock's socialist beliefs.

Olbermann has a long history of insulting remarks to women. Notice he only apologized when a comment was made by someone other than himself.

He'll be dating this girl in another 10 years.

The woman Olbermann will marry is currently 5 years old.

Still the #1 Keith Olbermann Blog in the World...

In Keithies Award (and the winner is...)buy generic viagra wrote: cheap@viagra.com... [more](56)

In Keith Olbermann Pays Tribute to OlbyWatch "Great Moments" seriesbuy generic viagra wrote: cheap@viagra.com... [more](53)

In Another Dose of Ratings Reality...buy generic viagra wrote: cheap@viagra.com... [more](77)

In COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - FEBRUARY 21, 2007buy generic viagra wrote: cheap@viagra.com... [more](252)

In Countdown with Keith Olbermann - April 5, 2007buy generic viagra wrote: cheap@viagra.com... [more](231)

LMFAO!

You're the one posting all this viagra crap in the hopes that you'll get this site delisted from Google. That's how desperate Keith's fanatical fans are and the lengths to which they will go to.

which is why Gibson despises him. Anyone who works with him or knows him DOES despise him. And with good reason. It's only the sheeple who THINK they know him who believe for one second he's who he pretends to be.

Olbermann's fans can't win any other way, so they have to act childish like their hero. Because of their fragile mental states, Olbermann is afraid of them.

Liberals, Olbyloons, etc. America's imminent victory in Iraq and safety from terrorist attacks at home is driving them all crazy!

"It's only the sheeple who THINK they know him who believe for one second he's is who he pretends to be."

So tell us all knowing one, who is he 'pretending' to be and how does that differ from who he really is?

"Liberals, Olbyloons, etc. America's imminent victory in Iraq and safety from terrorist attacks at home is driving them all crazy!"

A prime example of muddy thinking at it's murkiest from someone who probably considers themselves a "clear thinker"!

They why doesn't he invite Pelosi & Company over to eat? They are FAR more unpopular than he is.

the low approval ratings also do not translate into automatic votes for Democrats. And those poll numbers are very correct and have been repeated in polls where people were specifically asked about the DEMOCRATIC leaders. Keep trying to tell yourself that it's for congress as a whole but you know better. Dems are very angry and frustrated by the lack of leadership that Pelosi & Co. have shown. Your stupidity is showing Name.

If you're referring ti Congress' low approval ratings, you (conveniently ) forget that Congress is made up of almost equal amount of republicans as democrats.
Plus the main reason for the low rating is b/c Congress has not pulled the plug on this war.

Posted by: at August 11, 2007 10:27 PM

How would you spin the news, if by chance it happened, congress approval ratings of 70 or 80%? That's a rhetorical question, don't bother. "It's because of the (d)'s, it's because of the (d)'d!" patsy and the rest of the spolbyloons would be spewing. I can hear it now, pathetic.

"Also, if you remember, these reich wingers never discussed the "positive" legislation of their GOP Congress. Not surprising why.
THERE WASN'T ANY!"

Come on now!.....You must have forgotten how the GOP came riding to the rescue of the predatory Credit Card Companies by passing the Bankruptcy Bill as their first major order of business after the 2004 election.....Something they were mysteriously quiet about during the campaigne.

Clucker, I heard there were at least several wealthy GOP constituants who could have used that bridge! Are you so heartless that you would condemn them to using a ferry forever?

I guess thats one conservative MP Jeff won't be throwing a party for...yuck, yuck!

Oh, once again I see the sheep on the left here citing violence in Iraq like it is their political manna.....

More of our troops are trying to help the Iraqis stop it all, help them reach a political resolution to their sectarian anger while stopping Al Queda and other radical, anti-freedom islamists from making the country into a totalitarian state.....

Yet the sheep, Clucker, Mike, Why, Professor Honeydew et al continue to complain and demean the valiant mission the brave men and women of America. The mission to enable freedom and democracy to take root in a country oppressed by a sadistic and murderous man who was taken down by the same brave and couragous force......

Yet, I read an article in the leftist rag, The New York Times....

"Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html?ei=5065&en=0281d59a4ddca8e0&ex=1187496000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

###
And it confirms what I believed at the conclusion of the 2006 elections.....The democrats are political cowards...they scream a rhetoric that weakens a resolve needed to encourage millions of people struggling in Iraq to overcome the legions of death and oppression, yet these same leftist elite will NOT act on their rhetoric to accomplish their stated aims....the withdrawl of American forces from Iraq....This is the worst any leader can offer any population....hypocrisy, lies, hidden intent, indecision, poltical expediency, political self-preservation, unprinicpled foreign policy, commitment only to attainment of political power at the expense of the lives of Americans and Iraqis.....This is what the left has to offer America.

Hillary Clinton
Barrack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden

So guys, what do you say? Are you still supporting the candidates your ruling elite are offerring or are you going to at least be truthful and begin supporting those true to your ideology (I give gredit to Loin for stating as much!).....

Get the troops out NOW!!

And when those anemic anti-war protests occur next month and some say they support whoever the democrat party puts forth, I will shake my head again and remember the heated rhetoric in 2006 and my prediction on this very board....No, the ruling leftist elite does not have the intent to stop the war, they just want it as an issue to attain poltical power in the worlds greatest country.....then pursue their true agenda while people die (because of the left's rhetoric) trying to establish a democracy against the enemies of freedom and democracy.

Just like Vietnam.....the American left is the same self-serving, power-hungry, anti-freedom group of cowards that will never choose to lead on principle. Oh boy, is it going to be an interesting 15 months!

Democrat party synchophant Keith Olbermann, where is your voice of protest now?

Stop the criminals!.....Impeach Bush and Cheney!

Stop the war...get the troops home....cut the funds NOW!

And this is my post today, the 1,565th 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

There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

Cee, you are a liar!

You have NEVER seen ME cite daily or weekly violence in Iraq as an argument to support my position.

"Good news" and "bad news" in Iraq is a cyclic thing and I have NEVER considered or argued that a single series of good or bad events changed the overall picture in any significant way.

Contrary to your dark and cynical beliefs, I'd like things to end up with that elusive fairy tale ending in Iraq every bit as much as you would. However, no matter WHAT occurs from this point forward, it will NOT change the FACT that invading and occupying Iraq for already proven contrived reasons was one of the worst ideas in American History....and will not have been worth the cost in lives, injuries, International stature, and borrowed treasure - no matter what happens from this point forward.

We on the so called 'left' are NOT monolithic in our beliefs, attitudes, and reasoning, as much as you yearn to believe otherwise, so kindly stop using MY name to imply otherwise.

Another thing Cee, you continue to TAUNT anti war people who post on this site as if we someohow have control over what these people do to try end this war.

WHY.............?

Yes, I would have preferred that the democrats would have tackled the problem differently, but the FACT remains that the stonewallers are mostly the republicans, and there is simply not enough of a majority (yet) to achieve real change. You know that as well as I do.

Also, the FACT remains that your boy and his little cabal are the ones who created this fiasco by cynically playing on the nationalistic patriotic fever that gripped the nation following 911, therebye making it difficult for even those who harbored legitimate doubts to resist.

I will never forgive them for that.

What appalls me is that there so many Americans who apparently do know the facts by now (finally), yet are so willing to overlook all of that.....and that is something I never would have predicted....Hooray for 'your' side!

The Democrats voted for the war authorization. The Democrats were all for the war until the public opinion polls began to turn around and then they decided to distance themselves from the war as if they had nothing to do with it when in truth, they had almost everything to do with it. I will never forgive them for THAT.

We agree on one thing Anon....MOST (not all) democrats displayed weakness along with a profound lack of good judgment during the 2002 run up to the war....and that is why I cannot for the life of me understand why Hillary is the front runner.

Mike Huckabee is appearing on Face the Nation this morning. He's doing a great job during the interview.

Mike, hillary is the front runner for the d's because of people like you, why/patsy/anon and your buddy, the fraud, no integrity or loyalty, whatsoever.

There are examples in every single one of your posts, why/patsy/anon.

I think it's great when cee throws the liberal quotes in your faces. Ilinke throwing mike's in his face once in a while, too.

"I'm leaving and never coming back!"
"I don't defend olbermann!" over and over.
"I was driven to defend him by you guys!"

Mike Huckabee is appearing on Face the Nation this morning. He's doing a great job during the interview.

Posted by: at August 12, 2007 11:30 AM

Huckabee is the one threat the Republicans could muster against a Democratic win in 2008. Happilly, this aspiring theocrat just can't get the corporate money to make a play. Instead, national joke Romney spends 1000 per each straw-poll vote that put him "over the top".

Anyone see Kucinich on Stephanopoulos? The man is sharp, unique, and highly credible. ABC used to never mention him (just as NBC and MSNBC continues to boycott the only honest candidate in the entire race). Perhaps things are looking up.

Kos was facing off against DLC head Harold Ford on Meet the Press, and kicked ass on this closet Republican and his elitist organization. Not a word was mentioned about O'Reilly and Fox's cartoon attacks on Kos - they are irrelevant.

Democrats are going to win in 2008, and whoever the candidate is will have been dragged far to the left by the common sense of these voices.

One question I would like to see put to the Dem candidates in a debate:

"How would you deal with the rash of domestic terrorism that is certain to be instigated against our country by drowning rat right-wing fascist freak-jobs (i.e. Bush's base) when Democrats control the executive and the legislative branches of governent?"

WDYC,

Thanks for the article. Bring on the draft! cee and royalking will be marching in the streets to end the conflict.

- but we must be on guard for a cynical and murderous move frm the administration to capitalize on such a decision. I believe these rotten war-mongers would not hesitate to blow up a subway or poison an American town somewhere and blame Emmanuel Goldstein - er, I mean "Osama bin Laden" -in order to rally the dipshits in this country into an attack on Iran or Venezuela or Cuba or Pakistan ....with a freshly drafted and media-brainwashed force.

We must be very alert.

If Cee really is a doctor, I'd like to see him dealing directly with all the trauma caused by the war he cheers so rabidly.

I don't have a clue what we could use Jeff for though? I doubt if too many would want a moron like him who just happens to also be a lunatic watching their backs.

Nice to See Mike Huckabee take 2nd in the Straw Poll. He only spent about $100K compared to Romney's millions.

I think Huckabee will break out of the pack.
He's a guy that needs to be looked at.

Little Feechie

Bush actually sounded good on Thursday at the press conference. It's a shame the left wing media is so jaded, they can't print one positive thing about the preseident or the recent activity with the war.

"The British seem to be poised to pull out, and Basra, the one success story in Iraq, until now, is hurling into anarchy and uncontrolled violence."

but remember, the southern region as a whole has been as unstable and violent as anywere in Iraq - the British "success" was limited to the tiny specific areas in which they have remained holed-up, and lagely innactive; such as the airport.

It's amazing how many people want to hand Al Queda a victory in Iraq through redeployment.

Bush actually sounded good on Thursday at the press conference. It's a shame the left wing media is so jaded, they can't print one positive thing about the preseident or the recent activity with the war.

Posted by: Little Feechie at August 12, 2007 1:24 PM

You are a lunatic. Bush was pathetic and barely articulate. Did you hear him refer to the 9/11 hijackers as impressionable "kids" who had been lured into terrorism? Mohammed Atta was a victim? Preposterous.

"Left Wing media"? Chris Matthews was back on his knees fetishizing Bush as a great philosopher after that performance, falling even further into negative credibility.

Freechie, did you even bother to read the article posted at 12:22?

If so, did you skip right over the parts about how some of the troops were admonishing the media for painting too rosy of a picture of the war?

Keep it up with your "left wing media" bias crap, but most Americans have finally figured out how bogus that claim is - finally!

It's amazing how many people want to hand Al Queda a victory in Iraq through redeployment.

Posted by: Little Feechie at August 12, 2007 1:29 PM

According to everyone with any credibility, "AlQeada in Iraq" will be bobbing headless in the Tigris when we leave. The Saudi terrorists' only asset is that patriotic Iraqis do not want to support our cynical occupation, and so do nothing.

You and Me
Will Go Down in History
With a Sad Statue of Liberty
and a Generation that didn't Agree....

system of a down.....

Beef...

Do you really think that as resourceful and smart as Al Queda has been, that they will magically be overrun?

I'm really trying to understand how this can be accomplished. Do the experts really expect Al Queda to be jettisoned from the #1 terrorist stronghold that they currently hold on to?

L.F.

Mike:

There are many in the media that want the US to lose in Iraq. They have pinned their journalistic futures, mortgages, and financial success on us losing.

They make less money and become less of a "thought leader" in the cocktail circuit and the Hamptons scene if we win.

Surely, you can't truly believe that NBC News and Keith Olbermann want a victory.

NBC News is Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.

Thet have Richard Engel interviewing and propping up terrorists.

L.F.

Beef...

Do you really think that as resourceful and smart as Al Queda has been, that they will magically be overrun?

I'm really trying to understand how this can be accomplished. Do the experts really expect Al Queda to be jettisoned from the #1 terrorist stronghold that they currently hold on to?

L.F.

Posted by: Little Feechie at August 12, 2007 1:47 PM

We are not talking about the FATA in Pakistan, Feechie; we are talking about Iraq. If the following describes the "#1 terrorist stronghold" then we have nothing to worry about in the first place:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070724/24surge.htm

"I can count them [foreign fighters] as a total I have engaged, dead or alive, in the 10 months I've been here on one hand," says Col. David Sutherland, the U.S. commander of coalition forces in the hotly contested area of Diyala province, an insurgent stronghold region some 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. There, Sutherland says, those involved in al Qaeda are largely dispossessed locals, not jihadists who have come from elsewhere. "The recruiting program is [that] al Qaeda may send five or eight individuals into a village. They recruit from those who have no power base, no place in society," including, he adds, former male prostitutes and the mentally ill."

So beef, we leave and all the fighting stops?

Is this really your point of view?

Freechie, I don't really have a clue what you are talking about when you say "victory in Iraq"?

Our army easily defeated (and then unwisely disbanded) the Iraqi army over 4 years ago. In other words....WE WON!

What is happening now is a tangled mess of counter-insurgency, religious sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, corruption, and a general hatred by the locals of who they see as unwelcome nonbelieving invaders (us).

What is victory? To me it seems like nothing more than an attempt by the Neocons to try to salvage some sort of remnant of a moral victory, and nothing more.

And yes, I also believe that it is very unlikely that Al Qeada could "take over" and create a base in which to attack us from. The Iraqi people themselves have shown that they probably would not allow that to happen. That is just more scare talk to try to keep enough public support to keep the war dragging on.

Why don't you go back and read Clucker's post at 10:55 AM for more on this.

Keep it up with your "left wing media" bias crap, but most Americans have finally figured out how bogus that claim is - finally!

Posted by: Mike at August 12, 2007 1:38 PM

Any proof? Oh, just your opinion, again. Any one with half a brain knows the msm is powered by the dnc. Only a biased hack would think otherwise.

"Surely, you can't truly believe that NBC News and Keith Olbermann want a victory."

I think the onus for "victory" is heavily on the President and his party, who held the executive branch and both houses of congress for five years of this "war". Yet they have failed to "beat" the scruffy cluster of misfits described by colonel Sutherland in my post above? They have failed to catch bin Laden, despite knowing exactly where he is?

Face it, Feechie - the neocons don't want victory - they want and depend on endless war. They will, and have, kill Americans to get it.

Jeff: "anyone with half a brain knows the msm is driven by the dnc."

Yeah, but anyone with a COMPLETE brain knows that you're a moron.

So Cheney wants a war without end?
Why is that Beef?

So beef, we leave and all the fighting stops?

Is this really your point of view?

Posted by: Little Feechie at August 12, 2007 2:09 PM

No. We have destabilized a region; exponentially raising its violent death rate for nearly six years - we have destroyed their civic infrastructure and propped up a puppet government that will be violently dismantled upon our exit, whether that may occur in 2007, 2017, or 2027.

Many experts have asserted that a multi-national (primarilly Muslim, and primarilly regional) autority needs to be formed (and funded by US, the guilty parties!) to try to keep the lid on when we leave, and it may be that this strategy would result in a rapid amelioration of conditions in Iraq.

But you can't pretend that we are in any demonstrable way improving matters by our presence. Those who may die after we leave - just as all those who have already died in this misbegotten adventure - need to be heaped at the feet of the American war mongers who started the occupation and who carefully ochestrated the prevailing chaos in that country. Shipping Bush, CHeny, and Rumsfeld to the Hague would go a long way towards demonstrating good faith on the part of the American people to the Islamic world.

So Cheney wants a war without end?
Why is that Beef?

Posted by: Little Feechie at August 12, 2007 2:20 PM

Are you truly this naive? Because war in our "free-market" system generates vast wealth for the powerful; because war is a powerful propaganda tool in itself, causing even intelligent patriots to rally behind their leaders, extending to them benefits of the the doubt that are unwarranted.

As one of Prescott Bush's old pals once said:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering, Nuremburg, 1945

Keep it up with your "left wing media" bias crap, but most Americans have finally figured out how bogus that claim is - finally!

Posted by: Mike at August 12, 2007 1:38 PM

Jeff: "anyone with half a brain knows the msm is driven by the dnc."

Yeah, but anyone with a COMPLETE brain knows that you're a moron.

Posted by: Mike at August 12, 2007 2:20 PM

Since there was not a substanative discussion of the actual article I was commenting on.....an exerpt.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5058&en=5237316a2ec8c668&ex=1187582400&partner=IWON

"To accomplish [ending the war], [the Democratic presidential candidates] all discuss a mix of vigorous diplomacy in the region, intensified pressure on the Iraqi government and a phased withdrawal of troops to begin as soon as possible. But their statements in campaign settings are often silent on the problems of how to disengage and what tradeoffs might be necessary.

"'It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe,' Mr. Obama said to a throng of supporters, cheering wildly despite the pouring rain, at a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month.

"Mrs. Clinton has been equally vocal in making 'bringing the troops home' a central theme. In February, she said her message to the Iraqi government would be simple: 'I would say ‘I’m sorry, it’s over. We are not going to baby-sit a civil war.’"

###
Nice rhetoric from the ruling class....but yet their actions show a different tact.....and those sychophants responding this morning did not even address it.....especially you, Why.....

Why? Afraid to realize that your party is no more than a buch of "yes" people telling their crowds what their polls told them the particular group wanted to hear?

The reality is the country needs an honest and brave leader willing to do what their principles dictate.....if it is to pull the troops out then do it.

Oh, but people like Why just want a political issue from a war, nevermind the lives it involves and that radical terrorists will prevail.

Democrat party synchophant Keith Olbermann, where is your voice of protest now?

Stop the criminals!.....Impeach Bush and Cheney!

Stop the war...get the troops home....cut the funds NOW!

And this is my post today, the 1,565th 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

There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

Yeah, but anyone with a COMPLETE brain knows that you're a moron.

Posted by: Mike at August 12, 2007 2:20 PM

Posted by: royalking at August 12, 2007 2:32 PM

Mike, I can't believe RK wanted everyone to see you kick his ass so bad by replay, but there it is.

Keep it up with your "left wing media" bias crap, but most Americans have finally figured out how bogus that claim is - finally!

Posted by: Mike at August 12, 2007 1:38 PM

Jeff: "anyone with half a brain knows the msm is driven by the dnc."

Yeah,(foot in mouth) but anyone with a COMPLETE brain knows that you're a moron.

Posted by: Mike at August 12, 2007 2:20 PM

Cee, you need to add this classy comment to your list of liberal comments.

"Screw them"
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who runs the Angry Left Daily Kos blog, had this to say in a post yesterday about the murders of four American contractors who were helping to deliver food in Fallujah, Iraq:

Every death should be on the front page

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

Zuniga has taken down the original post, but in a new post he acknowledges it and offers a partial retraction, which essentially amounts to saying he didn't actually "feel nothing"; in fact, he was angry at the victims. Blogger Michael Friedman has a screen shot of the original post.

It's worth noting that the Daily Kos is popular among Democratic leaders. Zuniga is a principal in the Armstrong Zuniga political consulting firm, which touts the Daily Kos as "the most popular political weblog with over 3 million monthly visits." Friedman has a list of congressional candidates who advertise on the site, and in a February posting Zuniga reported that Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, "asked if I would post" a "Message to Blog Community."

About Zuniga's comments, "we have nothing to say."

Has anyone figured out what drives this moron (Jeff)?

He just reposted in it's entirety an exchange that makes HIM look exactly like the moron that I just called him.

It's true Jeff, you really do have only HALF a brain!...............LOL

Mike, I can't believe RK wanted everyone to see you kick his ass so bad by replay, but there it is.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 12, 2007 2:36 PM

This coming from someone who thinks that the US bombed the golden mosque! Cuckooooooo!

cee,

Kucinich just this morning proposed the answer; a multinational force from the region (Syria and Iran, primarilly) to take over in our absence. Kucinich says GTFO NOW; Let the stable regional powerbokers help their respective proxies in Iraq reach accommodation.

It only makes sense: Americans like you don't care if there is peace in Iraq; people like me have n real stake in it beyond the empathetic; but the Iranians and Syrians truly do not want chaos on their borders.

Jeff: "Cuckoooooooo!"

This coming from someone dumb enough to actually admit he admires Michael 'Wiener' Savage!

Dream on chicken. That's the same 500 people clicking on that website 1000 times a day. It's an extreme leftist website which holds positions that most candidates won't get near.

"Michael:

You have a strong Federal Civil Rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the City of San Francisco.

You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired.

Historically, the people of this country have never allowed the government to quash free speech. The civil rights lawsuit is one way that we keep the government off our backs. I have no problem with Sandoval voicing his opinions. He can disagree with you all that he wants. What he cannot do is to harness the power of the state and use it to try and crush an individual citizen.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.

After the civil war we passed the fourteenth amendment which made the First Amendment and all of the amendments in the bill of rights, apply to the states.

When the Board of Supervisors passes a resolution against you that is government action abridging the freedom of speech.

When Sandoval in his role as a supervisor, organizes a mob to try and take away your top rated national radio show, he is using the power of the state to crush freedom of speech.

This is against the law. This same type of terrorism by government officials has been used in the past.

The civil rights of our African American brethren were regularly violated by police and government officials. In fact, it was John Kennedy who had to send federal troops to Mississippi to protect the Freedom Riders from mobs which were often organized by the politicians.

If you file a federal civil rights lawsuit is like holding the constitution in your hand and waving it in the face of those who think that they can violate your constitutional rights just because they are powerful.

The federal civil rights lawsuit that you can bring against Representative Sandoval was created by Congress on April 20, 1871 as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

It is also known as the "Ku Klux Klan Act" because one of its primary purposes was to provide a civil remedy against the abuses that were being committed in the southern states, especially by the Ku Klux Klan.

You are protected by this civil rights act because you are the victim of the same type of mob terror that Klan used to inflict. This terror is being organized against you simply because people do not like what you say. Translated into legal language, you are being attacked by a type of terrorist because you have exercised your First Amendment rights.

The Klansman in your case is wearing a suit and not a white robe. He is doing his dirty work under the hood of his elected position instead of under the coward's hood of the Klan.

I am very aware of the hateful things that Sandoval has said in the past.

I know he has tried to incite mobs to go to the homes of people he does not like. I know that he has tried getting mobs to interrupt religious ceremonies involving thirteen year olds. He seems to be a very malicious man.

I wish that you would remind your listeners that even as you oppose illegal immigration, you have always stood strongly against discrimination.

I don’t think people like Sandoval have read your books or even listened too many of your shows. I have.

You are the kind of person who will stand up against the government when comes down unfairly against any group. I notice that Sandoval claims that you slander immigrants. Of course, he is really the one who slanders immigrants because he groups illegal immigrants who you criticize with legal immigrants who you support. To him, they are just one big group. This Sandoval fellow accused you of using "defamatory language ... against immigrants". Of course, this is statement by Sandoval is slander. I have listened to your show.

You are very complimentary of immigrants. In fact, you frequently mention that your parents were immigrants. The slander by Sandoval arises because he claims that your opposition to illegal entry into this country is somehow a stand against Hispanics. That is like saying that every border patrol agent and every Congress person is anti-immigrant because they don’t condone illegal border crossing.

When Sandoval purposely accuses you of being against immigrants when you are in fact in favor of legal immigrants and against the criminal conduct of illegal entry, Sandoval slanders you. But then he goes even further in his wrongful conduct.

Sandoval’s use of the mob to try to terrorize you is reminiscent of the tactics of Hitler, Stalin, Hugo Chavez and any other fascist who uses the power of the state and mob to silence speech.

When you stand up to Sandoval, you are standing up not only for your free speech but even for the free speech of those hunger strike students with whom you so fundamentally disagree. If they can silence you I guarantee that those four students will be next ... and then me.

I will back you Michael and file this lawsuit is you wish."

August 13, 2007

Daniel Horowitz

Kucinich started out with an admirable pro-life stance, especially as a democrat.

1) In the Ohio state Senate, he voted to ban partial-birth abortions.

2) In 1996, while running for U.S. House, he said, "I believe that life begins at conception."

3) When Kucinich was coming to Washington, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy counted the former mayor as one of a handful of "anti-choice" Democratic newcomers.

4) In the 105th Congress, Kucinich earned a 90 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. (only criticism was support of the Shays-Meehan campaign-finance bill.)

5)He voted with the National Right to Life Committee on every single abortion vote in his first two years, including support for a ban on partial-birth abortion and voting to thwart President Clinton's plan to give foreign aid to overseas agencies that perform and counsel abortion.

6) Kucinich voted again to ban partial-birth abortion, block aid to International Planned Parenthood, and prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions in federal prisons. His score in the 106th Congress with the National Right to Life Committee was 95 percent. (still supported Shays-Meehan campaign-finance bill.)

7) In April during the first year of Bush term, Kucinich supported the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which criminalized harming a fetus in a crime, and he opposed the Democratic substitute that would have defused the fetus-is-a-life parts of the bill.

8) In May, 2001, Kucinich again voted against funding International Planned Parenthood. Two months later he voted to block federal funding of prison abortions. On the cloning ban, the congressman voted the straight pro-life line, supporting the bill and opposing his party's efforts to soften the ban.

9) On September 25, 2001, Kucinich helped kill a measure by California Democrat Loretta Sanchez that would have allowed for federal funding of abortions in overseas U.S. military bases.

*****************

THE NATION PUBLISHES AN ARTICLE IN MAY 2002:

Regressive Progressive? (Dennis J. Kucinich) (Brief Article)

. . ."One thing you won't find on Kucinich's website, though, is any mention of his opposition to abortion rights. ..."

*****

Kucinich sells out on a deeply held belief after THE NATION takes him to task. No different than Romney flip-flopping. Neither of them deserve to be president. Here is what he ultimately says by his actions: "I personally believe that life begins at conception, but I will let others take that life away because progressives won't support me." Romney, "Now that I was able to obtain the governorship with choice voters, I need to abandon that position to win the republican ticket."

Clinton talks out of both sides of her mouth. Obama should hire Dick Morris to head his campaign. Talk about ugly!

Gore must be too scared of the Clintons to run. He opposes the war, promotes global warming theory, presents credible foreign policy experience as former vp. Why wouldn't it be the prime time to run? How can the climate be better for a run at the presidency? I wouldn't vote for him, but why didn't he get pressured to run as Fred Thompson was?

Humanity is warlike. Does the school yard bully prevail or the kid who never instigates trouble? Men make money from it but isn't it more about power?

I don't know which candidate will get my vote. You didn't address my question at all. Gore also used to be pro-life and sold out. I expressed a number of times that in 2000, I initially supported Buchanan but he dropped out. I also considered McCain as well. Besides taking the same wimpy position that Kucinich ultimately took, I considered Kerry an extremely lazy senator. He actually showed more humanity when he lost.

Finding personal fulfillment is important. I agree; however, I wouldn't be surprised if Gore became a candidate even yet. Obama was persuaded by a strong push and now Thompson has been.

I think it was shown that Bush received better grades than Kerry. Kerry said that his biggest mistake in losing the election was a weak response to the bin Laden tape just before the elections.

Even if Kerry had won the election, or even Gore in the previous one, I wouldn't so much energy hating someone.

wouldn't waste

Al Gore has involved himself in the most important and pressing issue of our times.
He's doing a hell of a job with it too.

Posted by: at August 12, 2007 5:23 PM

Lets see here. Terrorism=actual threat. Global warming=no threat. Which one is more important? How many people has global warming killed, dropped in wood shredders, gassed, beheaded, burned alive, thrown off buildings or mutilated? Has global warming tried to blow up any airports lately? I can hear the fort dix 6 right now.

"Habbib, we need to hurry up and kill all of these soldiers before that damned global warming beats us to them, allah, allah!

You are right wing to the core.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 12, 2007 5:17 PM

You have the nerve to criticize Sharon for being "right wing to the core" while you are the poster boy for a far leftist? Liberal hypocrisy, indeed.

It's an extreme leftist website which holds positions that most candidates won't get near.
------
So, in other words, you are completely contradicting Pea Brain's assertion . Good for you. Thanks.

Of course, I doubt we have that many multiple clickers around. But I am happy with the gift, anyway. Thanks, again.

Posted by: Mrs. Philby at August 12, 2007 3:12 PM

You need some serious comprehension schooling. That's exactly what the poster wasn't doing, nice shot at desperation, though.

"Humanity is warlike. Does the school yard bully prevail or the kid who never instigates trouble? Men make money from it but isn't it more about power?"

I don't know what kind of barbaric school you send your kids to, Sharon, but the ideal for a funtional educational instituton is to severely sanction the schoolyard bully, so that the "kid who never instigates trouble" can and will prevail.

Of course, our terms may not be comparable, so let's clarify: "schoolyard bullies" in my lexicon are those who attempt to use greater strength and numbers against the weak and marginalized in order to assuage their own egos and to improve their status among those we might call "followers". I think your use of this term to classify the aggressive stance of George W. Bush is spot on.

Your use of "instigating trouble" in this context suggests to me that you are talking about pushing smaller, weaker entities around; although someone like, say...Jesus Christ, for instance, could definitely be classified as a trouble-maker. But his type of trouble went upward, and at great personal risk and cost.

A system that sanctions the latter, jesus-type of trouble maker while encouaging and actually engaging in the school-yard bully type is what we are living under right now - apparently with your full acknowlegment and support. Shame on you.

Here's a little more information for the ROYALKING:
(what a screwy name !)

He has arrogantly assumed the title he and his shrinking band of couch-potato cadres mentally extend to their fetish/president. When the lefty rabble is finally dealt with, the Bushies will come to deal with rk's seditious hubris.

A system that sanctions the latter, jesus-type of trouble maker while encouaging and actually engaging in the school-yard bully type is what we are living under right now - apparently with your full acknowlegment and support. Shame on you.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 12, 2007 6:47 PM

..of course I meant "negatively sanctions"

Is Olby going to be at the update desk for Sunday Night Football tonight?

"A mind really is a terrible thing to waste and you Jeff, really are the poster child for that slogan."

Do you REALLY think Jeff has a mind 'Why'?

I've become convinced this boy has already maxed out his limited cranial capacity and is doing the best he can do.

Just more hypocrisy from the most hypocritical person on the internet. I posted someone else's post, Sharon's, to reiterate a point. Mike chimed in to call me a moron claiming I had to use Sharon's point because I couldn't come up with my own. What does he do? The EXACT same thing less than 2 weeks later! Am I surprised? Not a bit.

Question: how do we maximize the amount of iraqis that will die?

headline: Americans struggle to make allies in Iraq.

30 years earlier: Americans pull out of Vietnam. Allies killed.

2 years from now: Americans withdrawel from Iraq. Many Allies killed.

5 years from now: Americans struggle to make allies in Darfur.

8 years from now: Americans abandon Darfur. Allies Killed.

18 years from now: Americans struggle to make allies in __________.

"Mike chimed in to call me a moron claiming I had to use Sharon's point because I couldn't come up with my own."

No, no, no Jeff....you got it all wrong....again! My post had nothing to do with Sharon or any single specific post you made.

All I did was ask someone else who suggested that you MIGHT actually have a mind to waste if they REALLY thought you had one?....Because personally, I don't believe you do.

I call you a moron because, well....darn it Jeff....because you are a moron!

You don't see me calling anyone else that for one simple reason...Everybody else on this site is smarter than you are Jeff....bar none!

stop fighting with mike you facist repukes.

me and mike are the only ones who get it. Iraqis are dark skinned and deserve everything thats happened to them. What they dont deserve is our help.

mike, if you are like me, you are gonna be so pissed by this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html?ei=5065&en=0281d59a4ddca8e0&ex=1187496000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

What the hell are they doing? Why are they offering help to those dark skinned arabs? We need to get out! We need those terrorists to pay for killing our mercs!!

just watching the company on tnt. God i love how we put those darkie cuban defectors on that beach and then watched em get torn up by fidel's boys. Sorry fellas, no air support here! HAHAHA.
You ruled Kennedy!!!!

ya know in a lot ways, bay of pigs was the ultimate Iraq. We told those darkies we were there to help, made them absolutly dependant upon us, then pulled out the rug and left em to burn. AWESOME!!!!!

Barrack IS the next Kennedy!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

what a jonk movie. remember the cubans? pfft. let em die just like iraqis. thats what americans do. if the event is unpopular and your skin is dark, you are expendable.

Go Kennedy!!!

GO DEMS!!!!

Rudy wasn't at ground zero after 9/11, but my husband was. At least the result of his foriegn policy was.

SLOB,

I hope you have the intellectual integrity to read my response here:

**Humanity is warlike. Does the school yard bully prevail or the kid who never instigates trouble? Men make money from it but isn't it more about power?

I didn't deserve the response you gave.

I homeschool my kids for a variety of reasons, not for the bullying issue which is more prevalent in junior high/high school. My children are 8, 6 and 3. I used the analogy of the school yard in terms of power hungry people. (Even though school officials are supposed to protect, it doesn't happen as it should, but that was not the larger point. I think you knew that.)

Concerning Bush, follow the history.

First, the only reason why I vote is this:

"We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue–or lack thereof–is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest."

[Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics 34, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 1998]

War was not on the horizon in the 2000 election. This is what I had to keep in mind as a Catholic voter:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. ... In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Gospel of Life 73, Pope John Paul II]

I wanted to vote for Buchanan. (If Kucinich had not sold out, he may have gotten my attention because he was so courageous in his voting record as a democrat). Buchanan then dropped out and was not a viable choice. Although Bush was not going to overturn Roe v. Wade, he was going to lessen its effects, or at least not promote legislation furthering abortion rights. I voted for what I believed was the only choice I could make, given my obligation to vote.

Then the war occurred. We had another election in 2004. The decision to go to war was already done. Which presidential candidate could I vote for, keeping in mind my moral obligation to vote. I actually never even voted when I was younger; it was only when I converted to Catholicism that I took an interest in politics. My parents were democrats. My father worked over 45 years in the steel mill.

Kerry was not in good standing with the Church for his abortion position.
Cardinal Ratzinger Orders Kerry Communion Ban http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/6/152916.shtml

The Church did not provide an answer about the war issue with regard to voting. If it were as clear as the abortion issue, I would not have gone against that. The teaching on abortion is infallible. That was the headline for Catholic voters in 2004. I have already stated my position that I didn't believe Bush lied us into war. So, vote for Kerry, who was not by name condemned (the title of the previous link is misleading but clearly Ratzinger's statements implicated him)? Or vote for Bush? Not voting was not an option, although I wish it were sometimes.

You accuse me of not caring about Iraqis who suffer effects of war. I cannot empathize but only sympathize; the same is true of soldiers and their families. You may find my view wrong, but I certainly don't get satisfaction from others' suffering, the kind of satisfaction you state you would get over a republican getting sexually assaulted in jail. You won't find any statement from me taking a cavalier attitude about innocent people suffering. I may challenge the number of people killed or stories that I believe may have been exaggerated, fabricated. You won't find satisfaction from me that our country is at war.

I don't get humanism, I guess.

who was for the war before she was against it?

yeah, mits sons and the sons of all politicians should HAVE to serve in the military. THey have no right to make decisions about their own lives. Once we get our dems in the white house again, we can finally get rid of all this self-reliant, make your own choices nonsense and pass laws that allow the government to make decisions for them. Or as i call it, the PROMISELAND!!!

America lost thousands of guns in iraq. SWEEEEEEET!!!! that means a whole lot more of them will be dead when we pull out. Of iraqis are to blame for us losing those guns.

Sharon must hate when fetuses die, but not so much concern for little fully grown children dying in Iraq.
..............................................................

yeah, not to mention the not-so-full grown iraqi children that are gonna get whats coming to them very soon. But thats cool, cause their skin is dark, so we dont have to try and save em or anything.

i will personally write a 100$ check to anyone who will help me come of with ways to see iraqis die. I hope NBC news comes in clear on my HD tv. i wanna see it all live!!!

I was a public school teacher for seven years in a school comprised of 85% at risk children, mostly African American. Why don't you check my comment on Kucinich today?

I'll refresh you:

In April during the first year of Bush term, Kucinich supported the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which criminalized harming a fetus in a crime, and he opposed the Democratic substitute that would have defused the fetus-is-a-life parts of the bill.

You can care about Iraqis and unborn children.

"Question: How do we maximize the amount of Iraqis that will die."

Uh...Go back and look over the history of Iraq over the last 6 years for a textbook answer to your question.

Lets break it down for you in steps:

1) - (early 2001): Have sneaky secret meetings planning an invasion of a pesky country with a nasty dictator but is otherwise unthreatening. Look for excuses to attack because he once tried to assasinate daddy.

2) - (later in 2001): We get attacked by someone other than the above mentioned pesky country. Oh boy....NOW we can sell the invasion of that pesky country we've been wanting so badly.

3) - (still later in 2001): Start falsely implying that the dictator of said pesky country is a danger to the world and that he probably even had a hand in the attack on us. Say that he has WMD because it is known that he USED to have them. Go a step further and imply that he might have or be close to having nuclear weapons.

4) - (early 2002): Do a search for 'evidence' of #3 above but cherry pick out all the supoorting 'evidence' and throw out the much larger preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

5) - Relentlessly use the media, including the 'liberal' NY Times to plant cherry picked 'evidence' supporting your 'asserion' in #3 above.

6) - Send all your Neocon breathren around to all the Sunday morning political talk shows so they can point at the aforementioned NY Times planted 'evidence' to 'support' your assertions.

7) - Now start Pressuring Congress to support a resolution for use of force against said pesky target country (Iraq) to use as leverage while falsely claiming you really don't want war, just a stronger position in which to use to pressure the aforementioned pesky dictator.

8) - Unsuccessfully try to convince the UN that their own resolutions have been broken and they need to use force to enforce them.

9) - When that doesn't work, unilaterally decide that it is up to you to 'enforce' said UN resolutions for the same UN that has already refused to enforce them themselves....due to lack of evidence.

10) - Cynically allow the UN inspectors back in when Iraq relents, but only for a short while just to make a pretension that you are 'trying' to get said dictator to 'comply'.

12) - Cynically remove those same weapons inspectors who then leave under protest, saying that they don't believe said dictator has those claimed WMDs anymore.

13) - Fire the General who dares to suggest that you don't have nearly enough troops to do the job, even though it was common sense that we didn't. Make sure your team has nothing but 'yes' men.

14) - Invade!

15) - Easily overrun and defeat the Iraqi army as expected.

16) - Allow the country to fall into virtual chaos beginning with massive looting. Make sure you protect the oil ministries though.

17) - Quickly fire the highly qualified Garner, who had just begun to get some things going on the right track...and replace him with Brennon, a political. hack.

18) - Completely Disband the existing Iraqi army, whom Garner had already created a plan to retain and pay, therebye creating a huge source of recruitment for the new insurgency, which was just beginning to form.

19) - Now do nothing but play "whack a mole" with the budding insurgency for the next 3 years using the limited amount of troops that the General had dared to warn you was not sufficient to do the job.

20) - Create ambiguous torture policies eminating from the very top that finally boils over with some of it being publicized worldwide.

21) - Blame ordinary low level soldiers for proven torture at said prison while disavowing the Geneva Convention at the highest levels.

22) - Expect America and the world to continue buying all of your hypocrisy and incompetence.

23) - (2006): When it finally becomes clear that your humongous game of "whack a mole" isn't working, assemple a prestigious team of respected to experts who once worked for your daddy to figure the best way out of your mess.

24) - (early 2007): Ignor this same team of highly respected experts because they didn't say what you wanted to hear.

25) - (early 2007): Plan your own 'surge', against the common sense and good advice of most experts. Now you can play a bigger game of "whack a mole". Say you'll review results in September.

26) - (September 2007): Cynically claim 'the surge' is working by pointing to the predictable drop in violence in Baghdad while ignoring negative signs elsewhere. You planned this in advance of course - you never had any intention of pulling back after September...Oops, am I getting ahead of ourselves here?

27) - On and on....................

28) - On and on some more.................

29) - And so on........................


There you have it 10:16 PM anon. All you have to do is look at recent history and the current events playing out right in front of your eyes for a textbook answer your question about how to maximize the amount of Iraqis that will die.

Any questions?

http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070727.htm
Congressman Ron Paul on Home Schooling

Dr. Ron Paul has been a consistent supporter of home schooling and educational freedom while serving in Congress. He has introduced several pieces of legislation which would return to parents the freedom to teach their children at home and in the manner they think best. Additionally, he has introduced bills that would provide tax credits for American families to help pay for education expenses. As President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the rights of parents to provide their children with the knowledge and values they believe are most important.

Uh...Go back and look over the history of Iraq over the last 6 years for a textbook answer to your question.

Lets break it down for you in steps:

1) - (early 2001): Have sneaky secret meetings planning an invasion of a pesky country with a nasty dictator but is otherwise unthreatening. Look for excuses to attack because he once tried to assasinate daddy.

2) - (later in 2001): We get attacked by someone other than the above mentioned pesky country. Oh boy....NOW we can sell the invasion of that pesky country we've been wanting so badly.

3) - (still later in 2001): Start falsely implying that the dictator of said pesky country is a danger to the world and that he probably even had a hand in the attack on us. Say that he has WMD because it is known that he USED to have them. Go a step further and imply that he might have or be close to having nuclear weapons.

4) - (early 2002): Do a search for 'evidence' of #3 above but cherry pick out all the supoorting 'evidence' and throw out the much larger preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

5) - Relentlessly use the media, including the 'liberal' NY Times to plant cherry picked 'evidence' supporting your 'asserion' in #3 above.

6) - Send all your Neocon breathren around to all the Sunday morning political talk shows so they can point at the aforementioned NY Times planted 'evidence' to 'support' your assertions.

7) - Now start Pressuring Congress to support a resolution for use of force against said pesky target country (Iraq) to use as leverage while falsely claiming you really don't want war, just a stronger position in which to use to pressure the aforementioned pesky dictator.

8) - Unsuccessfully try to convince the UN that their own resolutions have been broken and they need to use force to enforce them.

9) - When that doesn't work, unilaterally decide that it is up to you to 'enforce' said UN resolutions for the same UN that has already refused to enforce them themselves....due to lack of evidence.

10) - Cynically allow the UN inspectors back in when Iraq relents, but only for a short while just to make a pretension that you are 'trying' to get said dictator to 'comply'.

12) - Cynically remove those same weapons inspectors who then leave under protest, saying that they don't believe said dictator has those claimed WMDs anymore.

13) - Fire the General who dares to suggest that you don't have nearly enough troops to do the job, even though it was common sense that we didn't. Make sure your team has nothing but 'yes' men.

14) - Invade!

15) - Easily overrun and defeat the Iraqi army as expected.

16) - Allow the country to fall into virtual chaos beginning with massive looting. Make sure you protect the oil ministries though.

17) - Quickly fire the highly qualified Garner, who had just begun to get some things going on the right track...and replace him with Brennon, a political. hack.

18) - Completely Disband the existing Iraqi army, whom Garner had already created a plan to retain and pay, therebye creating a huge source of recruitment for the new insurgency, which was just beginning to form.

19) - Now do nothing but play "whack a mole" with the budding insurgency for the next 3 years using the limited amount of troops that the General had dared to warn you was not sufficient to do the job.

20) - Create ambiguous torture policies eminating from the very top that finally boils over with some of it being publicized worldwide.

21) - Blame ordinary low level soldiers for proven torture at said prison while disavowing the Geneva Convention at the highest levels.

22) - Expect America and the world to continue buying all of your hypocrisy and incompetence.

23) - (2006): When it finally becomes clear that your humongous game of "whack a mole" isn't working, assemple a prestigious team of respected to experts who once worked for your daddy to figure the best way out of your mess.

24) - (early 2007): Ignor this same team of highly respected experts because they didn't say what you wanted to hear.

25) - (early 2007): Plan your own 'surge', against the common sense and good advice of most experts. Now you can play a bigger game of "whack a mole". Say you'll review results in September.

26) - (September 2007): Cynically claim 'the surge' is working by pointing to the predictable drop in violence in Baghdad while ignoring negative signs elsewhere. You planned this in advance of course - you never had any intention of pulling back after September...Oops, am I getting ahead of ourselves here?

27) - On and on....................

28) - On and on some more.................

29) - And so on........................

............................................................

You missed the last few.

27. after evil war that destroyed iraqi government and infastructure, begin pulling troops out.

28. Blame everything on Bush, but make iraqis pay for his mistakes.

29. Condemn Iraqis for not stepping up. Blame all problems with security and politics on them.

30. Conclude that you owe them nothing even after years of mishandeling and neglect, so you pull everyone out and then watch them die.

i love the way you think. Can i get your number?

i just want everyone to know that mike and i will be making gay love while thinking up new ways to kill irqais and raising money for Barrack Obama.

"i love the way you think. Can i get your number?"

Actually, it's pretty clear that you hate the way I think because you seem to believe you can silence the morally correct opposition by trying to shame them into accepting your unprovable assertion that leaving will cause mass casualties.

The oldest of my two children go to an after school program with public school kids. My son plays soccer, my daughter is signed up for cheerleading and they participate in many community activities. People don't even know they are home-schooled until I tell them. They have neighborhood friends who seem to like to come here. I don't isolate them.

all home schooling is bad, cause ya know they aren't ever the smartest kids you meet.

I are a home-schooled student t-shirts already available. You is hell-bound if you don't home-school in production!

Actually, it's pretty clear that you hate the way I think because you seem to believe you can silence the morally correct opposition by trying to shame them into accepting your unprovable assertion that leaving will cause mass casualties.
--------------------------------------------------

shame? We should be proud.

Bush fucks up----we blame iraqi politicans!

Bush invades-------not our war!

Bush destablizes government----let em kill eachother!

i'm with you. the only lives that matter are american soldiers. Those dark iraqis are all terrorists. every last one of them are intolerant, uneducated, religious maniacs.

P.S. I love you.

believe you can silence the morally correct opposition by trying to shame them into accepting your unprovable assertion
_______________________________________

you mean like Americans are dying for nothing.

dying = guilt.

for nothing = iraqis future.

I WANNA HAVE MIKES BABY AND I DONT CARE WHO KNOWS IT!!!

please come back mike.

and i mean that in the gross way too.

Actually, it's pretty clear that you hate the way I think because you seem to believe you can silence the morally correct opposition by trying to shame them into accepting your unprovable assertion that leaving will cause mass casualties.

Posted by: Mike at August 12, 2007 11:35 PM

Can you prove leaving won't cause mass casualties?

The ABCs of home-schooling: African-Americans join the circle of parents who choose to teach their children at home

. . .

Although home-schooling is becoming more and more popular in the African-American community, the concept is not without controversy. There are parents, educators and various other experts who say traditional schooling is best for a number of reasons, but primarily because it allows children the opportunity to constantly interact with their peers and teachers, and gain necessary sociological skills.

Even so, some parents still believe home-schooling is better. In the book Morning by Morning: How We Home-Schooled our African-American Sons to the Ivy League, Paula Penn-Nabrit shares the experiences that she and her husband, C. Madison Nabrit, had while they home-schooled their three sons. According to Paula Nabrit, there were many factors involved in the decision to take their sons, twins Damon and Charles, who were 11 at the time, and Evan, then 9, out of what she calls "a good, reputable private school."

The Ohio-based couple was told by their sons' teachers that Damon needed to be on Ritalin for hyperactivity and that Charles, his twin brother, was too arrogant. They were also told that their youngest son, Evan, had a learning disability. Another incident, recounts Nabrit, was when one of her sons did a family tree for school and included in his project information about their father's uncle, James Nabrit, who along with Thurgood Marshall had argued (and won) the historic Brown v. Board of Education case. His teacher assumed that Nabrit's son had fabricated the information.

"That brought it to a head" says Paula Nabrit, who graduated from Wellesley College and whose husband graduated from Dartmouth. "It was inconceivable to them that a Black family would even be intact enough to go to college." The couple, both of whom worked from home at the time, took on the responsibility to home-school their sons.

. . .

Them white home-schooled children social outcasts, amount to nothing.

no he cant. its one of those wonderful assertions where the only way to prove it is to let it happen, at which point it doesn't matter if he is proven wrong, cause we will be out of iraq and it will be too late to go back in.

its a win win senario that we super smart liberals can come up with, while you trailor parkers and repukes are being so gay.

now how bout that kiss mike?

Jaff: "Can you prove leaving won't cause mass casualties?'

I can prove you are a moron!

Can you prove leaving won't cause mass casualties?
.......................................................

no he cant. its one of those wonderful assertions where the only way to prove it is to let it happen, at which point it doesn't matter if he is proven wrong, cause we will be out of iraq and it will be too late to go back in.

its a win win senario that we super smart liberals can come up with, while you trailor parkers and repukes are being so gay.

now how bout that kiss mike?

From the Times article in Cee's comment from earlier today.

Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem to be resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And what to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html?ei=5065&en=0281d59a4ddca8e0&ex=1187496000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

If the republicans are long shots now for the White House in 08', just TALK about reinstating the draft will make them Dead Men Walking !

Posted by: get to know the Repukes at August 12, 2007 11:22 PM

Guess you haven't heard of Charlie Rangel.

Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft
Rumsfeld says he sees no need for military draft
Wednesday, January 8, 2003 Posted: 4:28 AM EST (0928 GMT)

Rangel: 'For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance.'

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., wants to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation. CNNfn's Peter Viles reports (January 8)







WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.

the state department has no interest in the draft, so thats the end of that.

the fact that mike wont talk to me says something.

He's playing hard to get.

I guess home-schooling tesches you how to astutely avoid the relevant aspects of any issue.

Sharon, I could give a rip about where you school your kids - I was just pointing out that your vague rationalization of Bush's endless wars ("Humanity is warlike. Does the school yard bully prevail or the kid who never instigates trouble? Men make money from it but isn't it more about power?") was dangerous and barbaric in its vapid fatalism.

..and yes, it did warrant the harshness of my response; Jesus would be ashamed for you.

a mr. blower left you two tickets for Romeo and Juliet.

It starts with Eisenhower's dire warnings of the MIC and explains why each president has fed this machine.Our weapons industry needs war to survive. Our presidents from Ike to the Dumb one have been more than willing to keep it in business. (SLOB)

Humanity is warlike. Does the school yard bully prevail or the kid who never instigates trouble? Men make money from it but isn't it more about power? (Me)

Sharon, I could give a rip about where you school your kids (SLOB)

I don't know what kind of barbaric school you send your kids to, Sharon, but the ideal for a funtional educational instituton (SLOB earlier)

I had a reason to respond about home-schooling.

I don't think you read my full response.

Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem to be resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And what to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12dems.html?ei=5065&en=0281d59a4ddca8e0&ex=1187496000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Posted by: Sharon at August 13, 2007 12:01 AM

Kucinich, among others, presents the obvious best answer to all three of these questons: Get the American forces out of Iraq as soon as possible and replace them with a Syrian/Iranian international force funded by the US (because "we broke it", but we can't fix it).

I guess home-schooling tesches you how to astutely avoid the relevant aspects of any issue.
(SLOB)

I wasn't home-schooled.

SLOB,

That quotation was for Mike, who thinks the aftermath of withdrawal are hyped and only the fringe have those concerns. Too bad Kucinich is a sell out. Sell out on one issue, not trustworthy in others.

aftermath is hyped

I don't think you read my full response.

Posted by: Sharon at August 13, 2007 12:14 AM

Sharon, I have tried, but perhaps you are unaware that your responses make no sense. You acknowledge the existence of the MIC, I think, and that that the Law of the Jungle (or schoolyard) prevails in Bush's America - and good for you on those!

- but you appear to propose that we accept these conditions as the natural order, and that maybe the people dying are dying for a good reason, and that maybe Bush's lies are, against all odds and logic, not lies at all. ...and that maybe some good will come of all this murder and death and theivery on a global scale...

Am I close to what you have been saying?

God preserve me from a epistemology like yours, that leaves you a morally rudderless beanbag in the face of horrid events that you actually would have some power to influence should you choose to act.

"no he can't. It's one of those wonderful assertions where the only way to prove it is to let it happen, at which point it doesn't matter if he is proven wrong, cause we will be out of Iraq and it will be too late to go back in."

My, my....sounds SO much like the logic your side keeps using to defend the one who created this mess. It goes something like this:

"Yes, we went in under false pretentions....yes, it was a big mistake....and oh yes, it WAS handled incompetently....and yes sir, Bush failed to listen to proper council, both before and after the invasion.....But now we have to stay now that the mistake has been made....but heavens to betsy!....Don't you dare BLAME Bush!....just trust in this proven screw-up to eventually get us out of the mess he got us in, even though he continues to lead like a blind idiot. And don't question him either!"

"And another thing....Don't you dare say or even imply that some OTHER issue my be suffering because of the war, or we'll accuse you of blaming Bush for that too."

"In other words.....just shut up!"

Too bad Kucinich is a sell out. Sell out on one issue, not trustworthy in others.

Posted by: Sharon at August 13, 2007 12:18 AM

So Bush's pre-2000 statements that "We do not nation-build" draw what reaction from you?

"- but you appear to propose that we accept these conditions as the natural order, and that maybe the people dying are dying for a good reason, and that maybe Bush's lies are, against all odds and logic, not lies at all. ...and that maybe some good will come of all this murder and death and thievery on a global scale..."

I think you nailed it Beef! And I believe that line of reasoning also applies to many on the right...and many of the fence sitters.

mike, i dont think bush has done a good job. and i think that your sides hatred of him is making tham overlook the potential cost on iraqis.

as i have said, iraqis are the ones paying the price for bushs mistakes, but at the very least, the idiot is still trying to fix it. THe left seems more than willing to just let them die, and i truly do believe that race plays a much bigger role in that than they would care to let on. If the U.S. had fucked up Belgium this badly, we wouldnt leave until it was fixed. period.

as for the guy who wants to pay iran and syria to invade Iraq, WTF is wrong with you?

SLOB,

A few points here. First, my first response to you is from 5:13 p.m. That is where I detail Kucinich's sell-out, that is clearly abandoning a deeply held belief for political aspirations.

Secondly, this is your comment to me: Sharon, I could give a rip about where you school your kids - I was just pointing out that your vague rationalization of Bush's endless wars.

I made my comment (about warlike humanity and the school yard), in response to this comment of yours:

It starts with Eisenhower's dire warnings of the MIC and explains why each president has fed this machine.Our weapons industry needs war to survive. Our presidents from Ike to the Dumb one have been more than willing to keep it in business. (SLOB)

Men have always engaged in war throughout history. You take every comment I make and assume it is in validation of the war. Then you throw in Jesus for good measure, out of context. I gave an accounting of my vote as a Catholic. I recall you and "Jennifer" discussing Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and his opposition to the war. When the 2004 election rolled around, the headlines concerning the Catholic vote did not concern war but this:
Cardinal Ratzinger Orders Kerry Communion Ban http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/6/152916.shtml

You may not agree with my epistemology, but I have a right to it, as do you to yours.

Jaff: "Can you prove leaving won't cause mass casualties?'

I can prove you are a moron!

Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2007 12:01 AM

That's what I thought, all spew all the time. Just another comment he can't back up. Add it to the list.

All you need is a smidgeon of reasoning power to understand that the Earth couldn' t have been built in 7 days.

Well, if you read Genesis, the world was created before the institution of time. Numbers are symbolic; seven is a perfect number. Actually, the kids grew some vegetables and flowers. My son attended a weekly science class offered for free by a retired physics professor where the cost of the class was to bring a question. The kids also go to free shows presented by college students at the planetarium.

Posted by: Get to know Sharon at August 13, 2007 12:29 AM

Morning by Morning: How We Home-Schooled our African-American Sons to the Ivy League, Paula Penn-Nabrit shares the experiences that she and her husband, C. Madison Nabrit, had while they home-schooled their three sons.

(from my comment)

Real losers, the Nabrits.

but you appear to propose that we accept these conditions as the natural order, and that maybe the people dying are dying for a good reason, and that maybe Bush's lies are, against all odds and logic, not lies at all. ...and that maybe some good will come of all this murder and death and thievery on a global scale..." (SLOB, with Mike's agreement that this is how I and others think)

No, I never proposed acceptance as the natural order. Will withdrawal now lead to more Iraqi deaths? There should be impeachment proceedings. There won't be. Not because Democrats can't get the votes but because many can't justify their own actions.

just for the record, i am a libertarian, and i really do hate Bush and his launching of this foolish war. I advocate non-interventionism, but in the case of Iraq, we are already intervened (something Ron Paul doesn't get.) The mistake was made and must be fixed. I dont care if its Bush, Clinton, Obama or whatever. It must be fixed by us at all costs. That sucks but too bad. The US fucked up.

as for why i target the left far more with my assholish antics, as matt stone said in his description of libertarian ideology "i hate conservatives, but i really fucking hate liberals."

A colossal mistake is a different argument than lying. It is an honest debate as to whether to withdraw now or at a later point. There are people who were against the war from the start who believe that immediate withdrawal will lead to more tragedy. There are those who don't.

12:39, I applaud you for at least dropping your dripping sarcasm.

If more on your side would simply SAY the obvious - that Bush HAS gotten us into this mess and stop lavishing praise on him for doing it, we could probably come together with a workable solution.

Our sides "hatred" of him is for a good reason, and not because he is a republican. He has created one hell of a mess that our nation now has to somehow climb out of. He refuses to even acknowledge this collosal mistake that is as plain as the nose on his face....and yet we're supposed to respect him?

HOW can we do that?

I know I'm living in the past, but we SHOULD have fired him in 2004 for his mistake, which was obvious even then....and then maybe, just maybe, we could have come together with a reasonable solution.

It seems that the presidency is the ONLY entity in American life that is somehow insulated from the consequences of it's own mistakes. Any business owner screwing up this badly would be out of business. Any CEO this incompetent would have been eased out the door long ago. Any coach who's team performed this badly would have been long gone.

Yet we are supposed to simply forgive, forget, and risk letting this president continue to screw things up even worse....and do it quietly.

I just can't get my mind around that!

as for the guy who wants to pay iran and syria to invade Iraq, WTF is wrong with you?

Posted by: let em die at August 13, 2007 12:39 AM

You say about Bush: "but at the very least, the idiot is still trying to fix it." Well, "fixing it" is clearly no longer within our power - it should be clear to any honest observer that conditions in Iraq are only worsening the longer we stay.

There has been, I believe, always a core of proud and patriotic Iraqis who truly want a peaceful, free soceity; but they are immobilized from taking any action linked to American initiatives by their clear-headed distrust of the motives of our occupation, and from taking any action not recognized and initiated by Americans from fear of being killed as "militia" by occupation forces. So they sit there in impotence.

Iran has strong influence among the Iraqi Shia, and Syria is influential among the Sunni. Both are stable nations not at war with one another, although with distinct regional interests, who clearly would benefit from stability across their borders. Both have previously worked with and cooperated with the United States in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the middle east, and both appear to be making foundations of good relations with the Iraqi government.

They clearly are the best hope of quelling the turmoil and allowing Iraq to regain some degree of stability and to stop the run-away death rate - albeit not under American control.

...but of course, that is your real issue. You could care less about the looming "blood-baths" and genocide your neocon pundits wring their hands over - its all about your version of American pride and what asking Iran and Syria for help would do to it.

whether he lied or its a mistake doesnt matter. at least not in terms of how many iraqis are dying. Prove he's lying and send him to jail, cant prove it and nothing happens, either way nothing changes. He was our elected leader and he majorly fucked things up, but because he was our elected leader we must bear the responsibility of his fuck ups.

iraq has to be given all of our efforts. Lie or mistake only matters to the politicians and the history books, and both will have time to sort it out down the road. people are dying now. Lets worry about that shall we?

So which Ivy League school are your kids going to?

I'll ask them tomorrow.

I can't wait until they are old enough to tell you all the religious indoctrination you put them thru was bullshit.

You really are a kind person. I don't recall telling you how to raise your children (if you even have any), nor would I.

I've seen more fucked up kids in my day that were home schooled than ones that went to an Ivy League School.

You'll always find poor examples of anything. The statistics don't bear out your point. Now, what group would have a stake in being against home-schooling? Would it be the NEA? Teachers' unions? I pay school taxes for my local teachers and fund their pensions with my tax dollars.

but of course, that is your real issue. You could care less about the looming "blood-baths" and genocide your neocon pundits wring their hands over - its all about your version of American pride and what asking Iran and Syria for help would do to it.
.............................................................

A. i love being called a neocon btw. yikes.

and B. you are right about Iran having interests in the region, like Iraq not recognizing Israel for instance. And how long did it take Syria to leave Lebanon? Or did they actually ever leave?

But the biggest underlying point, as if either of them would WANT to activly get involved in this mess. And Iranian troops in Iraq would be met with the same anger that American have been met with from Sunnis. No amount of Syrians would change that.

A colossal mistake is a different argument than lying. It is an honest debate as to whether to withdraw now or at a later point. There are people who were against the war from the start who believe that immediate withdrawal will lead to more tragedy. There are those who don't.

Posted by: Sharon at August 13, 2007 12:56 AM

There are people who like their steak well-done; others prefer it quite rare. This chick proabably can't even decide between these two clear-cut choices, or at least refuses to admit a preference.

Where I eat if you waffle long enough you end up getting it the way they feel like serving it.

Let em Die needs some serious therapy...preferably in a locked down facility.
...........................................................

WHy do you Care?

get what i did there?

yeah...you're a friggin genius, and you'll find much company of other delusional people in your local state facility.
.............................................................

its actually adorable that you put yeah before saying that.

i think somebody had their feelings hurt. wanna talk about it?

But the biggest underlying point, as if either of them would WANT to activly get involved in this mess. And Iranian troops in Iraq would be met with the same anger that American have been met with from Sunnis. No amount of Syrians would change that.

Posted by: let em die at August 13, 2007 1:06 AM

You have some good points here - but not good enough to avoid trying at all.

And what is your alternative? Let the Napoleon-inmates continue to have their unencumbered way with Iraq and the American treasury? That's just fucking stupid.

And what about acountibility? Along with my belief that an international regional authority could help to calm the chaos; I think America's holding to meaningful account the criminals and/or incompetents (depending on your particular perspective) responsible for this debacle would go a long way to improving our public relatons in the Islamic world.

Clucker,

I didn't see your comment until now. I appreciate your approach. This will probably be somewhat out of order (it is late and I am tired). First, the Catechism had an addendum placed in it about the issue of capital punishment. There is scriptural authority for it (St Paul's teachings). The teaching is (paraphrased) that in places where it is too difficult to contain a dangerous person (murderer), capital punishment may be necessary. You could argue that in our system, we have had murders escape (or even paroled) who have gone on to kill others. Capital punishment is not one of those infallible issues.

I explained that my vote for Bush was really a second choice in 2000 (Buchanan first) but Gore did not hold the pro-life position. The only criminalization that Bush has supported is the ban on partial-birth abortion, with which most of the country agreed. When 2004 came around, it was very clear what the Church's position on Kerry was. Just to keep it short, it is my hope that legalized abortion will be irrelevant because women will make better choices because they will have better choices available. There is so much more to be done.

Catholic Universities are not what they used to be although they are on the upward swing.

The pioneers of homeschooling have made it much easier for people like me, just starting out. There are many resources, co-ops available now. It is becoming more popular so a homeschooling family is not alone, at least in my community. Cyber-school is also an alternative. As far as the socilaization? I worried about it until I actually started home-schooling. It is a non-issue,, at least for me.

the alternative, is that american forces can do the job far better than Iranian or Syrian forces or any other force for that matter, (despite thier anger towards americans and the cultural differences).

It disturbs me that the UN will not get involved. They are being just as big of assholes as Bush when he didnt seek their permission the first time. Now they act like scorned children, who let people die just to piss off Dad (Bush). It doesnt suprise me though, these are the same people who let Darfur burn without any major reason not to get involved (scorn or otherwise).

This week they (UN) authorized to go into Iraq and talk, which is at least a start.

As for holding Bush accountable, start the process today and it would still take years. Iraqis dont have it. There will be time for that, but lets not let it distract us from fixing the problem that falls on OUR shoulders, and sadly, our soldiers. Many believe we cant fix it, and if so, so be it. But to give up or not try is absurd. WE fucked up, so we better give it everything we got.

Keeping your kids out of PS just keeps their class sizes smaller which makes for a better teaching situation, which makes them happier.
Posted by: Why Do you care at August 13, 2007 1:09 AM

Then we are all happy. Seriously, you are wrong. Homeschoolers are often targeted by educators. (My community is mostly immune from that) Governor Rendell, to his credit, signed a law allowing home=schoolers to participate in extracurricular activities.

"When 2004 cam around, it was very clear what the Church's position on Kerry was."

Yes, I know. My wife is Catholic. It served only make it somewhat traumatic for her to vote for Kerry while losing much respect for the church at the same time.

That said, it is almost criminal and very troubling the way organized religion has taken it upon itself to pressure members to vote a specific way in recent years.

A psychologist you are not. But where you're going, you'll see a lot of them.

Hope your stay is helpful to you... and if and when you get out, you'll be on the road to a full recovery and accepting a persona that you can live with.
--------------------------------------------------

when do i leave? will you hold my hand? Can i borrow your pocket vagina?
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
wierd how i can switch on and off from being reasonable to being an asshole huh?, but i find it hilarious.

let' em die,

Curious for your take. Why do Iraqis cooperate with us when their lives are at stake for doing so and they hate us? People have to be cooperating to some extent. Off topic, we have Iraqi neighbors whose emigration here was financed by a local church. A male relative was killed by Saddam's regime. We have never had a conversation. Our neighbors did a couple of interesting things: they nailed a clothesline onto our fence and diverted rainwater so that our property gets flooded. But, we just keep the peace.

That said, it is almost criminal and very troubling the way organized religion has taken it upon itself to pressure members to vote a specific way in recent years. (Mike)

The position of the Church on abortion has been constant. People lost sight of that.

didnt really understand your question, but the reason many cooperate is cause they are not all terrorists who want jihad on America as they are often portrayed. Now, the sizeable portion of them that do not cooperate is out of fear of the very minority driven insurgencies, militias, al queda etc... and not because they hate us. If we Provide the security we failed to provide years ago they will begin to cooperate. We need to break this idea that they are all suicide bombers incapable of peace and democracy. Most are no different than you and i, but they have been dealt much shittier cards.

let' em,

You got the point of my question.

now to further my point however, the goal must not be some perfect american style democracy. Many have said what if their domcratic leaders come to hate us in the future, to me thats their choice. We need only fix the problem we caused. Restore the government, restore the military, restore the order, or at least restore all three to a level where they can handle internal violence to a point where governmental collapse is not a likely result.

the future of the iraqis is up to them, but we have to get them there. That pisses off a lot of people i know, but we made our bed, now we have to lie in it.

.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.i cant believe i ended that with a lame cliche.

So Bush's pre-2000 statements that "We do not nation-build" draw what reaction from you?
Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 13, 2007 12:27 AM

Just saw this. A couple of reactions.

1) He did not plan the war;

2) Inexperience, making blanket statements

3) didn't run that statement by Cheney first
: )

There are people who like their steak well-done; others prefer it quite rare. This chick proabably can't even decide between these two clear-cut choices, or at least refuses to admit a preference. (SLOB)

Thanks for calling me a chick. It makes me feel young. I haven;t said anything different than I have been saying for a long time. You just haven't listened. I have argued that Bush did not lie us into war. Lying is different than mistake. I haven't seen any proof that he deliberately provided false information. For several months now, I have said that I want the best possible outcome. That is the crux of the argument: leave or stay. I pointed out several mistakes I thought were made, some of them 1) not enough troops initially 2) not firing Rumsfeld sooner 3) not communicating with the American people. I have said these things before. I don't think he set up Tillman's death. He used Tillman as propaganda and should not have. That places too much pressure on an individual. (The same with Lynch). It was too good for him to pass up when Tillman chose what he believed was duty and honor over an NFL career. (I did not say that before). I thought Katrina was a disaster. (I did say that before).

That said, it is almost criminal and very troubling the way organized religion has taken it upon itself to pressure members to vote a specific way in recent years.

Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2007 1:27 AM

Time to TAX!

"the alternative, is that american forces can do the job far better than Iranian or Syrian forces or any other force for that matter, (despite thier anger towards americans and the cultural differences)."

I disagree. American forces can fight better than than any other force in the world, but that has not been "the job" since Saddam fell. The only valid job for a foreign country in Iraq is to gain the trust of the Iraqis and give them their country back, and we really suck at that.

The UN remains aloof for the same reason that earnest Iraqis have not rallied to the occupation - they are aware that Bush et. al. have intentionally orchestrated the chaos in Iraq in their marketing role for the Military Industrial Complex. This is also what fuels the Iraqi insurgency.

...so you are saying that accountibilty is not portant because it will take years?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

Holy Crap! Where has this video been for the past six years?! Watch it over and over, and wonder when it was that Cheney lost part of his brain.

Dick Cheney, 1994:

A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right. "

SLOB- looking for company?

So- Ding-dong the witch is dead. You got your wish. Rove is leaving. Now you lefties think that Bush will fall apart, as Rove was half of the genius pulling Bushes puppet strings.

Bush has fallen apart, benson.

Hey, did you watch the 1994 Cheney video?

Sure did- he's a brilliant man isn't he?
Makes no sense to me.

Do any of you neocon geniuses know why we are giving out ak-47s to Iraqis in the first place...and WITHOUT serial numbers...

...besides to arm the enemy? You've had days to think up a good excuse. I'd LOVE to hear it, children...

I am confused what you think the video shows.

He obviously changed his mind. What would be his motivations be to the VP during a war that ended in a quagmire? Don't play the haliburton card, as he would have retired a rich man with or wothout the Iraq war.

Yes, the Dems know nothing about changing their minds do they? Like HRC or John Kerry who were FOR the war before they were against it?

brandon,

John Kerry was referring to two seperate bills, son. Don't you think that lie is kind of old, child?...

Benson,

Imagine, SLOB and Cheney on the same page at one point in time?

From the interview: Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? (Cheney)

Current answer: A government voted on by the Iraqi people.

My question, if we withdraw too early, what results?

Answer: with mt words in ( )

Cheney (from 1994): That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq (and withdraw before the new gov't is functioning), you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

I just can't understand why Cheney would allow the second invasion without rethinking his original position and reconsidering. To what end?

The New York Times (the most conservative paper out there) has finally come to realize that any premature withdrawal will create more mayhem and problems for the US. The just reported that the Brits are having issues in the areas they are pulling out of, which they conclude will have a ripple effect throughout the Middle East.

DailyKOs freak Markos, is pushing for an early withdrawal from Iraq, and is citing US polls as proof that it is the correct driection to take. As usual, when Markos is pressed to pick the best timeline for withdrawal OR what will happen if we leave in the near future, he has no answers. Just rhetoric. This short-sightedness is exactly why this pull-out-now movement is dangerous for the country.

This short-sightedness is exactly why this pull-out-now movement is dangerous for the country.

Posted by: benson at August 13, 2007 10:33 AM

Assuming you have a point here (which you don't - at least not one that outweighs the similarly wild-assed guess that everything would be jsut great if we left now): What about holding accountable the idiots and/or criminals that created this dilema?

Sweet- SLOB. There are very few experts and pundits outside of Iran who think that Iraq (and/or the U.S.) is better-off with our military outside their borders.

As far as the people who are accountable... just because every senator with a (d) next to their name who voted FOR the war is now against it. That doesn't mean the responsible action now is to withdrawal. The die was cast by Bush and a HUGE majority of the congress 6 years ago.

The war was waged- it is not over. Pulling out now is popular BUT NOT sensible. Otherwise Iran would not be agreeing with you.

"Sweet- SLOB. There are very few experts and pundits outside of Iran who think that Iraq (and/or the U.S.) is better-off with our military outside their borders. "

Pundits? - maybe - but who cares what this class of whores has to say; Experts? - you are wrong. And what about the troops on the ground? They are becoming almost monolithic in their delarations that they have no mission and are accomplishing nothing.

"As far as the people who are accountable... just because every senator with a (d) next to their name who voted FOR the war is now against it. That doesn't mean the responsible action now is to withdrawal. The die was cast by Bush and a HUGE majority of the congress 6 years ago."

This is a weasly dodge. Yes, it was foolish for the legislature to give Bush the latitude they did in regard to "fighting terrorism", and they should be held accountable for relinquishing their reaponsibilities in this regard: but that is all the vote did. It did not create the lies that convinced so much of the American public that Saddam was a nuclear-armed threat who had planned 9/11; it did not launch the invasion against a country that had not attacked us and who had no capacity to attack us. These crimes and others are clearly the responsbility of the administration; and a handful of henchmen in the press and think-tanks.

They need to be prosecuted and punished.

slob, keep thinking like rosie. Give all the (d)'s a pass for voting for the war (just foolishess on their part) and prosecute all the (R)'s. A classic example of liberal hypocrisy.

slob, keep thinking like rosie. Give all the (d)'s a pass for voting for the war (just foolishess on their part) and prosecute all the (R)'s. A classic example of liberal hypocrisy.

Posted by: royalking at August 13, 2007 11:53 AM

Where did anyone "vote for the war"? Please supply detailed primary-source links, and not just others repeating the same lie.

How can you defend this as not authorizing this war?

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002, authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War.

A Senate vote of 77-23 including many of your beoved Senators with a (d) next to thier name.

anon, the spolbyloons have wiped that from their memories. To some it never happened. The others never even knew it happened. They are the ones that claim Bush just woke up one morning and felt like starting a war to help his buddies over at Haliburton (ding!).

I have never seen a Democrat that wouldn't try to make excuses for or discount his/her own actions when it came to their own record on this war.

----I was lied to before the vote.
----I voted for, then against it.
----my favorite, I never read the intelligence report.

Come on!!!!!!

anon (12:02),

Read the text of the resolution, son. It stated for Bush to use military action IF Iraq was a threat (they were not) and IF they didn't comply with weapons inspections (U.N. inspectors were in Iraq at the eve of the invasion)...

Read for comprehension, child...

"authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War."

Your words - accurate, but misleading in terms of dorect criminal accountability. They authorized Bush to do what he thought best in regards to fighting terrorism; a horrible mistake. They are guilty of vapid naivete or gross negligence, but they did not say: "Yes; invade Iraq".

...but I notice that you seem to agree that the vote was wrong, and that the war is either idiotic or criminal...just what is your angle?

According to SLOB, "repeating the same lie" is citing the "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"?

And yes PK- Some democrats have admitted to not reading the intelligence before voting. WTF!

"The Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002, authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq war."

I for one, hoped and believed at the time that this vote was a method of giving the US 'teeth' in it's quest to force Iraq to fully comply with all UN resolutions.

Regardless of what is now being said about the vote in hindsight, it was never clear at the time that Bush was going to charge into Iraq come hell or high water.

Sharon @ 1:42 AM: "That said, it is almost criminal and very troubling the way organized religion has taken it upon itself to pressure members to vote a specific way in recent years. (Mike)"

"The position of the church on abortion has been constant. People lost sight of that."

The problem with one issue bloc voting is that we may well end up with something like the Iraq War as an unintended consequence!

First of all- the sementics behind you lefties running away from the vote is narrow at best... but regardless.

Without the vote, Bush could have still gone to war. It is one of his executive powers. That vote gave him cover, gift wrapped and delivered by the democrats. Now you wish you could have the vote back. Nah, this war is part your too. And I believe that the more than 70% of the americans who approved of going into Iraq in 2002 also don't have cover.

Bitch about the war's execution. That I don't disagree with. If it is botched, it's Bush and company's fault. But to try and blame the Iraq invasion decision on Bush is ridiculous. We all went for the ride. (Mike was adamantly against then as now, so he has cover)

But whats your problem today. I rejoiced when Scooter's sentence was commuted. Why so dour? Rove is gone. You should not be as weenie today.

By the way. The word is Rove is going to run the campaign of another Republican in 2008. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? He is poison. He has been demonized successfully for 8 years. He will add too much negative press into any campaign he joins. Quit while you are ahead big guy! Your disapproval rating make Hillary's look like those of a saint.

>>Why so dour? Rove is gone. You should not be as weenie today.

We are spending ourselves into bankruptcy and our economy is in a shit hole that has only just begun do stink...

All in favor of dour...

If you knew anything about economics you would not want the white house in 2008. Our economy is on a 8 to 10 year cycle with growth and decline. It has been swinging up for the last 5-6 years (you democrats may not know that as you have been bitching for that long) So we should be experiencing a downturn soon. No Democrat NOR Republican will be able to fix this immediately. the 2008 president will take the blame. (Although I expect the Dems to blame Bush)

If you knew anything about economics, you could know that deficit spending and keeping interest rates artificially low have doomed this country to a catastrophe that most people haven't even managed to get a handle on yet...

If you are claiming that there is a natural eight to ten year cycle that economic policies have no impact upon, I beg to differ...

ROVE may be gone, however: Democrats/Liberals would be far more convincing if they weren't such creepy, hateful, lying bastards.

*Zizwheel"....Are you a broken record?

Why do you insist on making your own side look so bad with the same stupid and jerky comments over and over again?

Ah...

So, every eight or so years, people come to their senses...

Interesting theory, clucker...

So, every eight or so years, people come to their senses...

Interesting theory, clucker...

Posted by: blindrat at August 13, 2007 1:12 PM

You 2 loons should stick to thinking for yourselves......

Why do you insist on making your own side look so bad with the same stupid and jerky comments over and over again?

Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2007 1:07 PM

As opposed to "bushwipes?" Just more hypocrisy from the queen o' the loons.

rk is just angry because he can't figure out why Bush would send unnumbered AK-47s to Iraq...if is wasn't for arming the enemy...

"As opposed to "bushwipes?" Just more hypocrisy from the queen o' the loons."

Are you calling ME a 'hypocrite' because someone ELSE (AAP) has used that moniker? (which, unlike *Zizwheel's, was meant to be humorous more than anything else).

Do I look like AAP? Do I write like AAP? Am I AAP?

Oh thats right...you used to regularly accuse me of actually BEING AAP, didn't you?

And you wonder why so many of us think you're a moron!

"Why do you insist on making your own side look so bad with the same stupid and jerky comments over and over again?

Mike, Mike, Mike,

Get your head out of your ass for a second I've got to explain something.

You see what zizwheel is doing is showing, or trying to talk to you on the 'tin foil hat loon level'.

Like they do on 'Meltdown'. You know use the same Stupid and Jerky comments every night.

The same people, the same parrots, the same talking points, night after night.

Wait Mike! What's that I see? Bush positive rating 35%. Congress 14%.

Blah! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

O'Reilly over 2 million

Olby host's a debate and can't even get a million?

Blah! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

The O'Malkin Factor beats the Allison (I'm leaving to go to N.P.R. oh wait I forgot, they get less ratings then MSDNC.) Stewart 'Meltdown?

BLAH! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Karl Rove is leaving. How much you want to bet Captain Moron is going to play the Conspiracy card tonight.

And how about a side bet he brings on the dis-barred felon?

Yeah Mike, the same thing over and over again. That's 'Meltdown'! That's you!

And just to expand a bit on the 'over and over'. Last week at Soldier Field all I saw, (when I could stand to watch) were Union people complaining 'over and over', like they have been for 'years and years' about how much their lives suck.

But Mike, they keep voting for the same people, over and over?

What's that thing about Jerky? How about just plain stupid!

Ya know I've never met a Union member that was happy. But I've met a few Union reps living on the members dimes in Condos down in Florida.

BLAH! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

You can now go back to putting your head up your ass, and take that bottle of whiskey with you.

"rk is just angry because he can't figure out why Bush would send unnumbered AK-47s to Iraq...if it wasn't for arming the enemy..."

Why would Jeff be angry about that?

After all, he doesn't support the troops and doesn't think enough of them have been killed yet.

Yes, you're a hypocrite, we already knew that, though. This time for ridiculing zizwheel while defending aap for doing the exact same thing, dope. I feel like a first grade teacher having to explain the simplest things to you......go get your blanky, time for your nap.

Mike- need the link for the AK-47 article. Thanks

Looky, Puck, the site's official lunatic has just entered the room .....singing ....."They're coming to take me away, haha, they're coming to take me away, haha."

BLAH! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Jeff, when did I "defend AAP"?

mikie, you are the one who claimed time and time again you supposedly supported our troops and when asked how, we got nothing, zilch. Just one more of your lie's made in desperation. Pathetic little olbyloon that you are.

Benson, why are you asking me for a 'link' regarding a story I didn't initiate?

Mike- my bad- i missed the original post of that story... just picked it up off your thread.

Jeff keeps expecting me to 'answer' his stupid rhetorical questions when he refuses to explain or apologize for his 3 month long binge of falsely accusing me (lying in other words) of posting as others...and others as posting as me.

Until you address, apologize, and own up to your many transgressions on this board Jeff, I'll continue to treat you like the 3rd grade level troll (moron in other words) you really are, and nothing more.

its obvious that you guys are all homosexuals. especially mike and royalking.

Oh darn, you got me anon 2:24...and yet I've managed to hide it so well from my wife for 22 years!

"WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has lost track of 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi forces in 2004 and 2005, raising fears they are in the hands of insurgents.

In all, a Government Accountability Office report indicates military officials do not know what happened to 30% of the weapons distributed since 2004.

The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion in equipment. The agency found weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures.

The worst time was 2004 and 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq. The Pentagon did not dispute the GAO findings, saying it has launched its own probe.

Although controls have been tightened since 2005, the inability to track weapons with tools such as serial numbers makes it hard to know whether the U.S. is battling an enemy equipped by American taxpayers.

"They really have no idea where they are," said Rachel Stohl, an analyst at the Center for Defense Information who has studied arms trade and received Pentagon briefings on the issue. "It likely means that the United States is unintentionally providing weapons to bad actors."

One senior Pentagon official acknowledged that some of the weapons probably were being used against U.S. forces.

He cited the Iraqi brigade created at Fallujah, Iraq, that quickly dissolved in September 2004 and turned its weapons against the Americans.

Stohl noted that the Bush administration frequently complains that Iran and Syria are supplying insurgents but has paid little attention to U.S. military errors inadvertently playing a role..."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/08/07/2007-08-07_uh_anyone_see_190000_weapons_we_lost_in_-2.html

So blindrat feels that-
"Bush would send unnumbered AK-47s to Iraq...if it wasn't for arming the enemy..."

"And feels that Bush would order the execution of a war hero like Tillman because the soldier disagreed with the war..."

What color is the sky in your twisted little world? Bush bad. Bush evil. Bush assasinates people! Bush arms the enemies on purpose! Bush blew up the leveees! Listen to yourself freak! Can you read?

pete,

Where did I make that remark about Tillman, son?...

Obviously, someone who sends money over to Iraq and loses it, doesn't guard munitions dumps until rebels have taken tons of explosives and loses weapons that cannot be traced back to the United States, has an agenda. If it was simply stupidity, he would've forgotten to breathe and died long ago...

so which is it? Is Bush a moron, or is he an evil genius?

I'd like you guys to at least be consistant.

That was always the funny thing about Rove and Liberals, they never quite could get themsevles around the Bush is a moron, or Bush is a diabolical genius thing. I do think there is some truth to that. At any rate, I do look forward to the great pumpkin tonight to come out as his butt buddy used to say "en fuego" tonight, a few days off, a major news story, and he will carry the DNC talking points on the issue all the way....and the dude who said the convicted felon will make an appearence tonight, i say i believe you to be ballls onya

Well Son, even you are still breathing and you have half the brain cells of Bush. Son! So it must be an evil plan.

You are a pathetic person who lives in a world of conspiracy and blame. No wonder you vote the party line every november. Vote democrat- we pander to the dumb who believe every conspiracy out there.

Here is a sample of the THEORIES your side propogates.

Bush knew about 911 prior, and chose to ignore it.

Bush llew up the 3rd tower.

The Pentagon was blown up by the Bush, not a third plane.

Bush blew up the levees in LA.

Bush had Tillman assasinated.

And the newest bull shit...
Bush is purposely arming the insurgents.

Can you hear yourself or is the hissing from your ears too deafening?

My guess blindrat is you subscribe to at least 4 of the 6 above.

I'LL BET BLANDRAT SAT ON THE OJ JURY! HE'D BUY ANY BULLSHIT HANDED TO HIM. LLLOOOOOONNNIEEE!

Obama Statement on Karl Rove Announcement

Chicago, IL | August 13, 2007

CHICAGO, IL -- U.S. Senator Barack Obama made the following statement in response to Karl Rove announcing his resignation as White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

"Karl Rove was an architect of a political strategy that has left the country more divided, the special interests more powerful, and the American people more shut out from their government than any time in memory. But to build a new kind of politics, it will take more than the departure of a man or even an Administration that constructed the old it will take a movement of everyday Americans committed to changing Washington and reclaiming their government."

Let us pray that Karl Rove suffers a massive stroke and is out of the political scene forever.

nice touch O'lielly. you sound like a radical islamist.

O'lies- you sound afraid that a balding mullet headed uncle will win another presidential election! chicken shits! BO- "If you can't beat'em... hope he retires!" pussy!

Bill O'lielly wishes death upon anyone that doesn't subscribe to his political point of view. The left doesn't like opposition. And, as you can see, they are most definitely the party of compassion.

And Liebermann should die for seeing the light

You can thank us and our support of Ned Lamont for handing Lieberman that victory.

Your wrong 'Peter King'.....I personally know two people well who are guilty of probogating most of the conspiracy theories that you just mentioned....and they are BOTH right wing conservative Christian fundamentalist.

No sir Peter....the 'left' does not own the conspiracy theorists by themselves!

And the newest bull shit...
Bush is purposely arming the insurgents.

Can you hear yourself or is the hissing from your ears too deafening?

My guess blindrat is you subscribe to at least 4 of the 6 above.

Posted by: Peter King at August 13, 2007 3:17 PM

PK, there are several posters (spolbyloons) that think the US was behind the bombing of the golden mosque, also.

Mike. Those theories are found on the left blogs... not the right blogs... so think again.

well, why wouldn't they the mosque. its all very logical.

Peter, I could care less what 'blogs' those theories are found on....the truth is that both extremes have their fair share of the nuts.

Until you address, apologize, and own up to your many transgressions on this board Jeff, I'll continue to treat you like the 3rd grade level troll (moron in other words) you really are, and nothing more.

Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2007 2:15 PM

Nice, a childish diversion. We alread know you don't support our troops. More importantly, you know it, as well.

Agreed...

So once again moron Jeff...it appears you are going to refuse to address your transgressions in which you LIED repeatedly while accusing me of posting as other posters, and vice versa?

You owe me an explanation, and an apology, and I will never respond civily to you unless you do.

You troop hating traitorous MORON!

"you can thank us and our support of Lamont for handing Lieberman that victory."

No, you can thank the cynical cross-over rebulican voters who abandoned their own candidate in conjunction with long time loyal Lieberman Democrats....for handing Lieberman that victory.

Jeff: "PK there are several posters (spolbyloons) that think the US was behind the bombing of the Golden Mosque, also"

OK Jeff, how about showing us more than one poster who has suggested this....otherwise you are lying again!

Moron!

Your wrong 'Peter King'.....I personally know two people well who are guilty of probogating most of the conspiracy theories that you just mentioned....and they are BOTH right wing conservative Christian fundamentalist.

No sir Peter....the 'left' does not own the conspiracy theorists by themselves!

Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2007 3:47 PM

One is you own sister, who is the other? Her husband?

OK Jeff, how about showing us more than one poster who has suggested this....otherwise you are lying again!

Moron!

Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2007 4:07 PM

Show me 1 spolbyloon that condemed or disagreed with the certain loon?

Jeff: "PK there are several posters (spolbyloons) that think the US was behind the bombing of the Golden Mosque, also"

OK Jeff, how about showing us more than one poster who has suggested this....otherwise you are lying again!

Moron!

Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2007 4:07 PM

Mike is correct. I have neer had anyone of any political camp agree with my highly credible theory that the Golden Mosque bombing was the keystone in the neocon plans to perpetuate endless chaos in Iraq.

Too bad, too; it certainly makes a lot more sense than suggesting that any decision-maker in the White House, Pentagon, or Green Zone has ever given "winning" or even "stabilizing" an honest shot.

Come on stroke... kill him... make his family feel the pain that 3,600 parents have been forced to feel because of the death inducing advice that Rove gave him,,, Now at least Rove is free to practice his love with Jeff Gannan outside of the white house.. let's go god.. give the world something to celebrate.. kill rove.

Mike is correct. I have neer had anyone of any political camp agree with my highly credible theory that the Golden Mosque bombing was the keystone in the neocon plans to perpetuate endless chaos in Iraq.

Too bad, too; it certainly makes a lot more sense than suggesting that any decision-maker in the White House, Pentagon, or Green Zone has ever given "winning" or even "stabilizing" an honest shot.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 13, 2007 5:14 PM

Have they disagreed with it?

8:01 anon: "Have they disagreed with it?"

And your point is.......??

The answer is irrelevant.

Or are you expousing such loony logic as to imply that anyone who has not actively disgreed with an assertion on this board must therefore be in agreement with it?

Karl rove blew up the bridge in Minneapolis.
It's Bush's fault!

"Purposely? No...by incompetence, YES.
A large arsenal of weasons have disappeared and now in the hands of the insurgents."

I disagree, WDYC. Creating a stong and resiliant insurgency was a primary goal of the neocon occupation leaders. The explosives and weapons from Saddam's caches at Al Qaqaa were intentionally left unguarded at the beginning of the occupation, and reportedly STILL contain such materials that are accessed to this day by insurgents. British SAS agents "dressed as Arabs" have been arrested by Iraqi police in possession of car bombs, only to be violently sprung from the Basra jail by British tanks.

Such "agents provocatuers" got the ethnic violence rolling, and the money keeps rolling in, and barbarians like royalking, cee, and Sharon get vicarious quivers in their loins from the dying infidels and the pathetic rush of home-front militarism.

People kill each other over $40. Why is the idea that a nasty little cabal, who are held to abslutley NO standards of appropriate conduct - would kill 100s of thousands for trillions of dollars so hard to entertain?

I know its an uncomfortable conclusion, but time will bear me out.

Does prisonplanet.com pay you, SLOB, or do you just get lines like "get vicarious quivers in their loins from the dying infidels and the pathetic rush of home-front militarism" for your generous support?

why, the fact that terrorists wound up with guns that were "passed out" by us is a serious matter. Do I give Bush a pass? No. Do I point the finger at Bush? No. The fact of the matter is Fox News reported this over a month ago. Not a peep from no one else. The blue blogs got a hold of it, blew it out of proportion. Now, it's the newest Bush bashing point. The US troops assigned the guns to Iraqi patrols, they were the ones that helped the terrorists wind up with them. Not Bush.There are so many crooked Iraqi servicemen and police it's nearly impossible to tell who's on our side anymore. But, Olbermahn and the rest of the far left hacks won't report this minor little detail. It's much easier to just blame Bush, it's better for the ratings and it incites more hate, which is #1 on the far left agenda these days.

disagree, WDYC. Creating a stong and resiliant insurgency was a primary goal of the neocon occupation leaders

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 13, 2007 8:48 PM

slob, is this what you ACTUALLY think? If you do, Rosie has NOTHING on you.

Or are you expousing such loony logic as to imply that anyone who has not actively disgreed with an assertion on this board must therefore be in agreement with it?
Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2007 8:14 PM

Mike,

That particular belief should have been taken on by anyone who disagrees with it. (It was actually in response to me). Much less significant points take up the board for hours. SLOB gets a pass on it; that is obvious. Just like Why APPEARS to be giving SLOB a pass as well when he was challenged. SLOB, being the humanist, did not invoke the usual coarse language that he would have. . . to me for instance. There is some kind of code of honor that applies to some, not others.

Clucker,

I will assume that you also agree with SLOB's assessment on the bombing of the Shiite mosque (it was either the U.S., Britain or both to ensure chaos) and the 8:48 point above, unless you respond in the detailed way that you do.

Clucker,

I think you know that you are giving SLOB a pass. Maybe you give them to me, too.

I understand that my perspective is a tough one to digest - what with cognitive dissonance and America being perfect and all.

But someone please spell out for me why we have not yet defeated the scruffy "deadenders" and "former male prostitutes and the mentally ill" (see excerpt at botom of post) that consitute our mortal enemies in the "war on terror", if not for the fact that our leaders don't want to win. America spends MORE THAN ALL OTHER COUNTRIES ON EARTH COMBINED on our military - more than half of our GNP, and we can't prevail against a Saudi Svengali and his band of dazed urchins (e.g Bush just called the 9/11 hijackers "19 kids...lured onto airplanes" in his press conf. on Friday)? Instead of catching them with forceful police-work and diplomatic leverage, we occupy a country and make more enemies out of a large number of its people - something that definitely could have been avoided. - in fact it had to be worked at vigoously for some time.

Someone tell me ONE THING that might create chaos and enemies that the administration has NOT done in Iraq.

I am not paranoid - you all just "can't handle the truth".

“I can count them [foreign fighters] as a total I have engaged, dead or alive, in the 10 months I’ve been here on one hand,” says Col. David Sutherland, the U.S. commander of coalition forces in the hotly contested area of Diyala province, an insurgent stronghold region some 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. There, Sutherland says, those involved in al Qaeda are largely dispossessed locals, not jihadists who have come from elsewhere. “The recruiting program is [that] al Qaeda may send five or eight individuals into a village. They recruit from those who have no power base, no place in society,” including, he adds, former male prostitutes and the mentally ill.

Sharon: "That particular belief should have been taken on by anyone who disagrees with it"

For the record Sharon, I think I DID actively disagree with SLOB on that very point on this board. I know for certain that I posted a response to him stating he was far more radical in his beliefs than I am. I didn't mention this before because I strongly believe it was totally irrelevent whether I, or anyone else had actually expressed disagreement or not on this board. Silence does NOT even begin to imply agreement.

By that logic, where were you when 'Joker' slimed Markos Maloutas, Chris Mathews, & Keith Olbermann by claiming Maloutas had been caught on "To catch a predator", and that Mathews and Olbermann had covered it up? I gave him hell for that piece of slander but not ONE person on your side spoke up about it.

While I have said, and I still believe you are a decent person, but it boggles my mind the way you continually come to the defense of Jeff...whom I don't believe for 1 minute that you actually believe is a decent human being yourself.

That said, I am personally dissapointed that the very intelligent and articulate SLOB believes this administration is THAT cynical and evil. However, he has shown a remarkable depth of knowledge about history and current events that makes it impossible to completely dismiss him as a nut over one extreme belief that I do not happen to share.

Finally, there has been nothing posted on this board that lends even one kernel of truth to Jeff's latest lie that "several" on our side believes it as well.

Get real Sharon! It is difficult for me to believe that YOU even made that post. I had to go back and read it several times to make sure you had said what I thought it said.

My goodness, it couldn't even come up with convincing lies to justify an Invasion for which the the American people were agitating.

Posted by: Clucker at August 13, 2007 9:53 PM

Look around, Clucker; our compatriots believe that WWF and "Survivor" are real, for Christ's sake. It does not take much to delude them in regard to military adventurism; particularly when they are bored to tears, overworked, and raised on John Wayne mythologies. People like cee and Sharon (and they are many) let their moral rudders be steered by charlatans preaching Free Market Fundamentalism and recommending innaction in the face of unust war. We are the "debased" society that Benjamin Franklin predicted would lose to despotism the government he had just helped to assemble after a "matter of years".

That guy sure was smart.

With the lack of oversight, the repeated "enabling acts" passed by the Republican and now the Democratic congress, with the fawning and fetishizing to power that are our media - why is it hard to believe a destructive, venal conspiracy might find it easy to operate? Worked for Hitler.

Someone tell me ONE THING that might create chaos and enemies that the administration has NOT done in Iraq. (SLOB).

Accusing the U.S. of bombing the mosque and then making the above statement is somewhat circular, isn't it?

I read something and can't find it quickly now, but I wondered if you believe this. I am poorly paraphrasing but the gist is this: for an occurrence to be a war, there has to be some chance of winning or at least causing some harm to the other side. The first Gulf War was not a war, only an exercise in military domination, because Iraq had no chance to win the war or even inflict any real damage. I was wondering how Al Gore (the intellectual) would respond, because he claims he broke ranks with the democrats to protect America.

As a follow up Sharon....it would be terrific if thia board were populated by a group who wished only to discuss issues openly and honestly without all the fire breathing partisanship.....but it is what it is, and J Dollar and R Cox have personally set the tone for this themselves.

I am trying to keep it real, Mike. And I do remember now your comment about SLOB's beliefs being more radical yet he should be givem deference because of his vast knowledge of history. I apologize for not remembering that, but I still find it a rather tepid response, given your usual passion.
***
By that logic, where were you when 'Joker' slimed Markos Maloutas, Chris Mathews, & Keith Olbermann by claiming Maloutas had been caught on "To catch a predator", and that Mathews and Olbermann had covered it up? I gave him hell for that piece of slander but not ONE person on your side spoke up about it.

I briefly saw that discussion, did no research on it, and didn't find it as compelling as other topics. Maybe others feel the same about SLOB's views.

***
What I heard you saying to R.K. today is that if he would apologize to you, you would treat him civilly. I try to be civil also, but I am only human and break my own civility rules often. Look above to R.K.'s response at 9:26 p.m. and tell me that he didn't make debatable points in a rational way. I think like many guys, he won't back down easily. He seems to be more respectful of women (who id themselves as such) on this site, maybe because we don't hold the same views as his opponents. Nonetheless, I don't have a problem with him. If you do, you'll have to conduct yourself in a way that you can live with.

Mike at 10:18

It sells, Mike. You don't want to hear it but they are very tolerant of behavior here that would not be elsewhere.

People like cee and Sharon (and they are many) let their moral rudders be steered by charlatans preaching Free Market Fundamentalism and recommending innaction in the face of unust war.

Do you see people as individuals or as categories?

Like any typical liberal, Mike sees people as he wishes to. If they are libs, then they are perfect. If they are conservative, then they are of course, to him, fatally flawed.

Brandon,

SLOB made the comment I referenced at 10:45. Shocking, isn't it?

Brandon: "Like any typical liberal, Mike sees people as he wishes to. If they are libs, then they are perfect. If they are conservative, then they are of course, to him, fatally flawed.

Yeah, yeah, yeah Brandon.....As, usual, you are 100% wrong.

The FACT is that most of my friends are and family are 'conservative', several of them VERY conservative. We get along just fine and respect each others views.

YOUR problem is that you are routinely so insulting and condescending that you can't even see your own flaws. Whenever you write a post or start a thread, you always begin by personally insulting everyone who might happen to disagree or have a different view. Routinely Calling those who like KO 'Olbyloons' doesn't help your credibility, likability, or hypocrisy quotent one bit. In short, you are a flame thrower. Therefore, you are routinely asking for a flame throwing response by the condescending tone you always use.

All the while you remain completely blind to your own hypocrisy....while regularly annoiting yourself as a "clear thinker".

Finally Brandon, ....Exactly WHAT made you label me a 'liberal' anyway?

Is it my anti-war stand? If so, why haven't you or anyone else ever responded to my challenge that being for or against this war has NOTHING whatsoever to do with liberalism or conservatism or that Bush is not really a conservative? If anything, radically invading and occupying a country that didn't attack us is more of a classic liberal concept than a conservative one.

That said, I have exactly one strongly held political stand that is actually liberal in nature. Can you name what it is Brandon?

I'll give you a hint....one of the pundits I admire the most is Patrick Buchanon, who himself has been adamnantly against the war himself from the beginning.

Is HE a liberal.....Brandon?

So exactly WHERE is my so called liberalism, you hypocrite?

I read something and can't find it quickly now, but I wondered if you believe this. I am poorly paraphrasing but the gist is this: for an occurrence to be a war, there has to be some chance of winning or at least causing some harm to the other side. The first Gulf War was not a war, only an exercise in military domination, because Iraq had no chance to win the war or even inflict any real damage. I was wondering how Al Gore (the intellectual) would respond, because he claims he broke ranks with the democrats to protect America.

Posted by: Sharon at August 13, 2007 10:17 PM

Call it a war or not; the Gulf war was over in two weeks.

Once again, you miss the clearly stated point:If Bush/Cheney were trying, bin Laden would have been dead in Tora Bora, and the Invasion of Iraq would not have happened. They wanted the invasion to happen, so they let their Emmanuel Goldstein get away.

Once the invasion happened, Saddam was toppled rapidly - a factor of actually trying, because a large conventional force actually poses a threat of defeat if not taken seriously. But once the statues were down, it became time to twiddle their thumbs, to destroy the civic infrastructure and social fabric of Iraq through: deBaathification; through postponing the elections planned by Garner in June of 2003; through firing Garner for his earnestness; through disbanding the Army; through arming the insipient insurgency via Al Qaqaa; through ensuring monumental unemployment by giving all the contracts to American and British companies who brought in Mexican, German, Indonesian, etc. labor; through keeping occupation forces ridiculously low relative to the task they were asked to perform; through intentionally alienating Moqtada al Sadr by arbitrarilly closing his newspaper - sparking the first Shi'ite insurgency; through torturing detainees for no concievable reason but the terror effect; ...

and through bombing and murdering civilians under the auspices of various ethnic enclaves.

SLOB,

I realize you don't find me an equal sparring partner, but the comment was in reference to the first Gulf War. I'll find the article and you can read it or not.

actually mike, many would argue that modern conservatism is more directly descended from classic liberalism than modern liberalism is. So to compare the forign policy of classic liberalism and conservatism is a bit difficult.

and as such, niether represents a particular mode of thought. You were right in you assertion that support for the war is niether liberal or conservative.

Jean Baudrillard, The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. I read an excerpt and there was more to it than I summarized.

I can't find exactly what I read but it is easy to find references to Baudrillard.

Finally, there has been nothing posted on this board that lends even one kernel of truth to Jeff's latest lie that "several" on our side believes it as well.

Get real Sharon! It is difficult for me to believe that YOU even made that post. I had to go back and read it several times to make sure you had said what I thought it said.

Posted by: Mike at August 13, 2007 10:13 PM

Where are these "kernels of truth" that I said that I "hate our troops," like you have claimed (repeating philby's lies) and "not enough of our troops have died?" Those are blatant lies and I don't take them lightly. You will probably claim the whole "name game" thing is as serious, but, it doesn't even come close. So, find those "kernels" or shut the hell up.

Jeff: "those are blatant lies and I don't take them lightly."

ROFLMAO.....!


Maybe, just maybe, you'll think about that the next time you are tempted to claim someone else is a 'traitor', .... or "doesn't support the troops" just because their opinion differs from yours.

Maybe, just maybe, you'll think about that the next time you are tempted to claim someone else is a 'traitor', .... or "doesn't support the troops" just because their opinion differs from yours.

Posted by: Mike at August 14, 2007 1:30 AM

So, you're admitting to lying, finally? No denial means admitting guilt. Secondly,I have never called someone a traitor or claimed they didn't support our troops for having a different opinion than mine. You claimed over and over again you supported our troops and I simply asked how, you never could come up with a single instance or example of how. Plain and simple. Lastly, anyone who defends our enemy is a traitor and I will expose them every chance I get.

No "kernels" ha mike? What a jerk.

Jeff: "I have never called someone a traitor or claimed they didn't support the troops for having a different opinion than mine."

You are one damned despostic pathetic LIAR....in addition to being a moron! You didn''t have a clue what you were talking about the many times you have been guilty of accusing someone of "Defending the enemy", ie. a "traitor"!

You have called ME a 'traitor', even though I am the one who has served in the military during wartime and you are obviously far too cowardly to have even considered doing such a thing. Yet you see no shame in that even as you denigrate others....mostly because you are just too damned stupid to understand your own biases and brainwashing.

So I ask you once again Jeff...what have YOU done for this misguided war effort you rage about so blindly?...........I already have the answer...not one damned thing but run your demented mouth! Hoever, my guess is that you probably do have one of those ridiculous little yellow stickers on your car.

You are one sad and sorry human being whi has no business whatsoever judging anyone else for any reason.

That said, I have no reason to disagree with Clucker's assertion that you claimed "not enough of them have died" regarding our troops. He used the EXACT SAME kind of logic you use ALL the time to call others 'traitors' and "enemy defenders" in order to derive that assertion.

So I ask you once again Jeff....Why do you hate our troops and country so much?

An example of Jeff's moronic logic: "no denial means admitting guilt"

Sure Jeff, anything you say Jeff.

I didn't bother to 'deny' it when some fool called me a homosexual the other day either, but that hardly meant I was 'admitting' to being one.

What a moron!

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003625107

In Iraq, 3% of American war-dead result from suicide. At home, the suicide rate of Iraq war veterans is twice the national average. What in God's name is Bush doing to our military?

"no denial means admitting guilt"

Not so fast, Clucker, lets consider what royalking's paradigm means or the string of "executive priviledge" and "I don't recall" claims made by administration officials in recent years. That would be one fuck-load of guilt being admitted to.

That said, I have no reason to disagree with philby/rudy assertion that you claimed "not enough of them have died" regarding our troops. He used the EXACT SAME kind of logic you use ALL the time to call others 'traitors' and "enemy defenders" in order to derive that assertion.

So I ask you once again Jeff....Why do you hate our troops and country so much?

Posted by: Mike at August 14, 2007 5:20 AM

No proof? No surprise. Keep lying.
P.S. Remember the muslim (in our service) that tossed the grenades into the officers tent and blew up his own men? So much for your theory of "I served so I'm not a traitor" theory. Of course you wouldn't disagree with philby/rudy/clucker, your a hypocritical spolbyloon with not a shred of integrity or morals, why would you disagree with someone who touts the same "attributes?"

Good ol' akbar. I'm pretty sure he falls in the "traitor" category. He served.

Sgt. Asan Akbar, 31, rolled live grenades under three command staff tents and shot an officer in the back while he donned his protective mask, according to a Los Angeles Times report based on eyewitness accounts. Akbar's sneak attack on his resting comrades left two dead, 14 wounded and many others wondering and speculating about motives.

Jeff, WHY is it that you hate our troops so much that you will only focus on the negative.... like you just did at 10:35?

To bad Clinton ended the Cold War. Royal King could work for the KGB very easily.

Posted by: Clucker at August 14, 2007 6:53 AM

Know your history.

How Reagan won the Cold War.
By Fred Kaplan

You have called ME a 'traitor', even though I am the one who has served in the military "during wartime"

Posted by: Mike at August 14, 2007 5:20 AM

Need a road map? That's why I posted the akbar piece. To prove you wrong, again. Just because you scrambled a few eggs, doesn't mean you can't be a traitor, too.

How Reagan won the Cold War.
By Fred Kaplan

Posted by: royalking at August 14, 2007 11:55 AM

HA HA HA HA HA..

Fred Kaplan - what a dipshit! Read any of the stuff he wrote about what a rapid success the Invasion of iraq was going to be? - or the stuff he's writing now about how successful it HAS been?

Gorbachev won the cold war, buddy - if anyone did - by quitting. We're still fighting it, and trying hard as we can to identify an enemy to rationalize it.

But Jeff, you're doing exactly what the ones you are calling "enemy defenders" by focusing on the bad apples in the military.

So Jeff, Why DO you hate our troops so much that you only focus on the negative and wish more of them would be killed?

Jeff: "Need a road map"

Yes Jeff, How about drawing me a road map.......LOL

This ought to be funny!

"To bad Clinton ended the Cold War."

Posted by: Clucker at August 14, 2007 6:53 AM

My point, Pea Brain, was not that Clinton won the Cold War, although he played as major a role as Reagan. Hell, my cat, Farouk played as big a role as Reagan. The American economy won the Cold War. We outspent the Soviets and drove them into bankruptcy. That's the best way to win a war, but we sure can't do that now. We are debtors, huge debtors, thanks to borrowing a Trillion Dollars to fight a war of choice.

Posted by: Clucker at August 14, 2007 1:14 PM

I find it hard to believe a man posting as a woman having "mangled and stubby" fingers. Paints an ugly overall picture, if it's true. Explains why mike likes you so much. Although, I don't picture mike being a metrosexual, like most olbyloons tend to be. He's more on the unkept side, I'm sure. Greasy hair, scraggly beard, sandals, etc.

"To bad Clinton ended the Cold War."

You guys, Nobody ended the Cold War. As I said above, and as CLucker pointed out, the Soviets threw in the towel because of the preposterous levels of waste represented by that conflict. We, however, continue to spend more and more - funnelling our grand-kid's furure credit into the pockets of firms that produce things who's only purpose is to be destroyed.

To justify this scam we started the terrorist factory in Iraq. Talk about your "command economies".

SLOB, you are quoting clucker, take it up with her, not "you guys."

SLOB, you are quoting clucker, take it up with her, not "you guys."

Posted by: at August 14, 2007 3:17 PM

Well, somebody said the Reagan "won" it, and I was diputing that as well.

Bunch of punks.

You want to know where Keith was? Huh? He was at Hal Fishman's funeral. No wonder he took a couple days off.

Shame....SHAME!

And no doubt to cruise L.A. for another underage girlfriend.

Why did Olbermann attend said funeral? So he could claim another dead man was a "huge fan" of his? Maybe that's why his ratings are so low, only dead people watch?

"Why did Olbermann attend said funeral? So he could claim another dead man was a "huge fan" of his?"

Damn Brandon, I knew you were an egomaniac after having endured your boorish bragging about your 'big' house, multiple "luxury cars", exuding a general attitude of arrogance that you clearly haven't earned.

BUT

I didn't know you were a ghoul until you made that statement!

You know Brandon, if you REALLY hate Olbermann, it's best that you just keep quiet about it...because the very fact that YOU dislike him is one of the best reasons for normal people to start liking him.

Mike, Olbermann has claimed any number of dead celebrities were "big fans" of his or has somehow found a way to interject himself into the death of a celebrity and self-promote himself in the process. Three recent examples have been Tom Snyder, Phil Rizutto and Fishman. Those are FACTS. I know that facts about Olbermann have no place in the world of the Olbyloons and you'll never admit I'm right on this but a quick check of the show recaps here from the last two or three weeks alone prove I'm right on this. So bite me.