four eyes is nothing more than a moron paranoid Clinton wipe. Hey KO, it's because of Bill Clinton that 9-11 occured.

Maybe Keiths' teenage girlfriend can explain the difference to him between an Ipod and an Iphone. Idiot.

********** FOX NEWS ALERT********
Super hot Christin Powers is filling in for Allen Combs.
Why is Sharpten on every station every time Imus' name is brought up? Please stop putting this fraud, con-man, race baiting buffoon on the air.
I guess if MSDNC has buffoons on every night, Fox and Headline can have the buffoon Sharpten on once every 6 months.

Ah but it is Olbermann who never wastes an opportunity to tell interviewers about his recent college-grad girlfriend and how much more mature than he is, not me.

i only saw the last segment, which was entertaining at least. I might check out that guys book. (I'm a bit of a philosophy buff)

But why that last swipe at intelligent design Kieth? Was it really necessary?

and I mean if you just have to do something like that, at least be funny about it. The correct way to do it would have been to ask the guy "sooo, does God know about all this?"

now THAT would have been funny.

But why that last swipe at intelligent design Kieth? Was it really necessary?

Posted by: hawkeye guy at August 15, 2007 10:14 PM

You're now on dr. 'mikey' phduh's shit list. You misspelled a word. Bad Hawkeye, bad.

I was wondering when Keith would start attacking Obammanation. How dare he claim that he would be a better president than her thighness. Her thighness already had to be traumatized by having to suck up to the ham and eggers at the Iowa state fair. We know how you liberals hate people from the Midwest and the south. Mike and his buddy Clucker already attacked people from the south. Maybe her thighness can just be crowned on the votes of people form Berkley and Maine. Zombies march in support of her thighness. Your head zombie Olbermann commands you.

Factor: "Mike and his buddy Clucker already attacked people from the south."

Have you now turned into a liar out of sheer frustration Factor?

When exactly did I attack people from the south?

Keith's "Newshole" refused to post my message. I will post here, where they don't censor you because they don't like your opinion. Here's the post that the "Newshole" doesn't want you to see:

"Keith, you shouldn't be throwing stones from your glass house. It looks very foolish of you to label people "right wing water carriers" and "right wing shills" when you only invite Democrats to your show and your "Worst Person in the World" list only consists of Republicans."

Forgive me Mike. I thought since you and Clucker share a brain that you would have nodded your zombie head when Clucker went into his racist rant.

hey 12:42,

good, so its too late then. Debate over. hehehehehe

I see patsy/why is on one of his "anon" lunatic cut and paste frenzies. Great.

What, nothing on Mastermind Karl Rove today? I would have thought that since Karl single handedly destroyed all of the civility that remained in our political culture, Keith would be commenting on him the whole week. KO is really getting boring.

I I I I um j-j-just wanted to say um um um great thanks to um um um (wheeze) Keith Keith Olbermann for keeping me me um um on the um air all the um the time. (wheeze) He's He He's a um um really great interviewer. He is is the next um Murrow. (wheeze) He um um really um um is.

The national suicide rate is about 20 per 100,000. So the Army suicide rate isn't exactly out of whack. But Lefty Water Carrier Olby will certainly make it seem so.

Nice Factor: You're not even capable of making an apology without an accompaning insult. You've chosen your handle well.

Rumsfeld Resignation Letter Omits 'Iraq'
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON - The word "Iraq" doesn't appear in former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation letter. Neither does the word "war." In fact, the deadly and much-criticized conflict that eventually drummed him out of office, comes up only in vague references, such as "a critical time in our history" and "challenging time for our country," in the four-paragraph, 148-word letter he wrote to President Bush a day before the Nov. 7, 2006 election.

According to a stamp on the letter, Bush's office acknowledged receipt the next day, as voters were going to the polls. Bush announced Rumsfeld's departure a day later, after the massive anti-war vote that swept Democrats into control of the House and Senate.

The elusive letter _ which the Pentagon denied existed as recently as April _ surfaced this week in response to multiple Freedom of Information Act requests by The Associated Press.

But it sheds no light on why Rumsfeld believed he should leave his post after directing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly five years.

Instead Rumsfeld, in his last paragraph, says only, "It is time to conclude my service."

The former secretary _ who took on the job at Bush's request in early 2001 _ talks more about the honor Rumsfeld felt in serving.

"It has been the highest honor of my long life to have been able to serve our country at such a critical time on our history and to have had the privilege of working so closely with the truly amazing young men and women in uniform," Rumsfeld wrote.

A request for the resignation letter, submitted last Nov. 13, was finally answered in April. At that time, Will Kammer, chief of the Pentagon's Office of Information, said that a thorough search of the records "revealed no records responsive to your request." A second request was submitted.

The Pentagon had no answer for why the letter suddenly surfaced this week.

Asked why Bush decided to wait until after the election to announce the resignation, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday that Bush wanted to avoid "the appearance of trying to make this a political decision."

Army Suicides Highest in 26 Years
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
41 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Army soldiers committed suicide last year at the highest rate in 26 years, and more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new military report.

Yeah, you're right 'perspective'....

I doubt Iraq and Afghanistan has anything to do with it...

But the Evil Keith Olbermann will try to make it seem like that.

That bastard!

Why does he hate the troops?

On Countdown it's all "lift and read"
Do research? There's never a need!
Research is a waste
He'll just cut and paste
From blue blogs cuz that's Countdown's creed

"I'm not politically biased" - Keith Olbernann on Dan Patrick's radio show

Later...

"I'm a liberal" - Keith Olbermann on Dan Patrick's radio show

Like Lawrence O'Donnell spewed: "Liar... creepy liar"

What do all of the posts containing copy and paste, left-wing lunatic talking points about "global warming" -- er, "climate change" have to do with Keith Kronkite?

I thought this site was named "Olbermann Watch," not "Left Wing Loon Talking Points Watch."

Olby, along with his nightly cast of lefty losers, dishes up MORE than enough material to keep us occupied; there is no need to copy and paste liberal talking points in a vain attempt to look intelligent and well-read and just to consume bandwidth on this site.

Why not try staying on-topic?

You know...

America's newsman...

Edward R. Olbermann.

True story. I can't make this great stuff up!

"During the President's State of the Union address in 2003, I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end."- quoted from a pundit at a cable news network.

Guess which 'news network' has this outward bias within its chambers? Maybe it'll help you understand why KO has a job.

And Mike, care to tell me there isn't a liberal bias in the news?

How about the brashness of the bias of the MSNBC staff. Just shows you the uphill battle republicans face when the liberals control the daily slant in the news. It was 2003 for gods sake, when it wasn't as polarized in politics.

Kids...kids!

You say that there is a liberal bias in the news? Prove it. Prove that they have lied in reporting the news...CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC...

Go ahead! I can show you that FOX lies...

Kids...kids!

You say that there is a liberal bias in the news? Prove it. Prove that they have lied in reporting the news...CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC...

Go ahead! I can show you that FOX lies...

Here we go again WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH FOX NEWS WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BOO HOO WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SNIF WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH FOX NEWS LIES WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH IM AN IDIOT I CANT THINK FOR MYSELF I NEED LIBERAL DAIL YTALKING POINTS TO DO IT FOR ME WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SNIFFF WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH OH EVIL FOX NEWS WHY DO YOU TORTURE US ALL WAH

Pussies stop with the FNC bashing, you cant stop it because theres enough of us in the world who can think for ourselves, unlike idiots in here who lift talking points worse than olberdouche' does

wah wah wah fox news

As usual, no examples...

Just neocon whining...

Easy blindrat.....just this week.....

The journalist is supposed to present evidence when an accusation is made. In all of the broadcast network's reporting on Rove's departure, they all stated he was behind the campaign ads by The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth regarding John Kerry.

No evidence has ever been presented that Karl Rove had any influence, connection or say in the independent ads run by the organization.

Look it up, blindrat. The media presents unsubstantiated claims by whining democrats as fact, without evidence. I would be very interested in your leftist (socialist/communist/whatever) interpretation of such behavior.

You have to be kidding me blindrat?
70% of newscasters are registered democrats.

The seattle times staff cheered when it came acroos the wire that Rove is retiring. They were reprimanded by their lead editor. But you hold true to your blind name.

Blah-blah-blah- i can't hear you... you are crazy-- blah,blah,blah-

ANd since blindrat is such a fan of polls, I think the latest poll regarding the public's judgement should be cited for blindrat's digestion.....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_york_times_washington_post_and_local_newspapers_seen_as_having_liberal_bias

"A Rasmussen Reports survey on perceptions of media bias found that Americans tend to believe that the New York Times, Washington Post, and their local newspaper all show a bias in favor of liberals. A plurality believes that the Wall Street Journal delivers the news without bias.

" By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias."

###
The wisdom of the American viewer/reader....we'll see if blindrat agrees with their assessment...

its useless, anyone that thinks there isn't a bias in media doesn't merit talking to. Even my liberal freinds admit it... but don't see anything wrong with it. The people that DON'T see it are hopeless and blind.

cee,

It is YOUR assessment that I don't agree with, son...

The polls show that seventy percent of Americans DON'T think that their print media has a liberal bias...

Funny that they didn't include the Washington Times and the New York Post, eh?

And, I'm STILL waiting for that proof that the so-called liberal media lies or even doesn't report stories...

Proof? You watch Olbermann. That's proof enough.

Brandon,

Another impotent remark. You girls have to get your balls cut off to become neocons, child?...

If you had no proof, why respond, son?

mr. blindrrat
you are a certifiable asshole...
i bet your wife beats you daily.

blindrat, you are dumb if you think read that from the poll he posted. Read it again and try to rephrase the 70% statement. It was wrong.

"The polls show that seventy percent of Americans DON'T think that their print media has a liberal bias..."

###
?

"Among the print publications in the survey, the New York Times is perceived as being furthest to the left. Forty percent (40%) of Americans believe the Times has a bias in favor of liberals. Just 11% believe it has a conservative bias while 20% believe it reports news without bias.

"One of the more startling details concerns the perceptions of liberals towards the New York Times. Liberals tend to see all broadcast outlets and most print publications as having a bias in favor of conservatives. A plurality of liberals (40%) believes the Times delivers news without bias. However, 25% of liberals see a liberal bias at the New York Times while only 17% see a conservative bias. This makes the New York Times the only media outlet that liberals are more likely to see as having a liberal bias than a conservative bias."

###
So when it is an approval rating for congress of 40%, blindrat sees success....But when a plurality of respondents at the same level see the leftwing bias of an elitist media blindrat recoils at the result.....

Blindrat you are as bad as Rush Limbaugh....you know that both sides of the argument thingy someone brought up?

But being intellectually dishonest comes easily to people like blindrat.

rephrase
"you are dumb if you read that from the poll he posted"

a little slower now...

39% believe its liberal
20% believe its conservative

Meaning at best 41% see no bias
Where do you get 70%?

cee,

Those were a lot of words to say nothing. If you don't have examples, why use the "appeal to the majority" tactic, and in a flawed manner, yet...

Perhaps you could show me where I felt that forty-six percent (congress' actual approval rating for democratic congresspersons) was a "success". It's just better than Bush is doing...

Ah, the Olbyloon mentality in all its self-deluded glory. You post proof and they still demand more. Typical.

I gave you an example of a lie.....an unsubstantiated statement presented as fact just this week, blindrat.....on every major TV network in their biography of the dear and talented Karl Rove.

You leftists claim Bush lied, I claim the major networks lie, they all lie! You even lied just now by saying I did not give you an example!

Lie, lie, lie......blindrat Limbaugh

I'm sorry, cee. Such a specific remark..."THEY all stated..."

You really have no idea what facts and proof are, do you, son?

The anchors or correspondents said Rove was behind the Swift Boat ads, blindrat. It is not true....Do you understand?

They....the liberal media

all....refer to the post....I reference the broadcast networks

stated....the words they spoke

Anything else? You wanted an example, you got one and now you try to say it does not match your criteria?

blindrat Limbaugh is a fraud.

Man, it's going to be fun over the next five months watching Keith start treating Obama like a de facto Republican if he continues his attacks on Hillary, and watching the left try to decide if they are angry with Keith, or love his attacks on actual Republicans so much they are willing to rationalize his behavior the way the parents of a undisciplined child will overlook their kid's troublesome actions (and anyone who watched last week's Chicago debate and couldn't figure out who Olbermann was going to spin for during the primary season by the questions he asked the missus versus what he tossed Barak's way just wasn't paying attention).

cee,

If "they all" said it, show me three examples, son...

And, then tell me how this:

"...A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election..."

and this:

"...Yesterday's big political story, of course, was the resignation of Benjamin L. Ginsberg as chief outside counsel to President Bush's campaign, after acknowledging he had provided legal advice to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization..."

Jibe with your assertion that there is no truth to the assertion...

Al Queda kills hundreds of Kurds in the bomb blast on Tuesday...But HEY, this ain't the front of the war on terror.

How stupid are the democrats?
They pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

I wish Olbermann during the "WPW" segment had actually played the John Gibson clip where Gibsn and some anonymous cock-bite were ridiculing Jon Stewart's reaction following the 9/11 attacks. Have any of you actually heard this clip?

Those pieces of shit played Stewart's stunned and emotonal statements while mocking every word with derisive fake crying and boo-hooing, throwing in at one point "yeah; but then you criticize Bush for the next six years" - which is, in fact, their only point.

These pricks are Nazis in every qualitative sense - albeit not in the particulars of their cult. They fetishize their leader, and hate hate hate anyone who questions him.

Gibson thoroughly believes that the only disaster to stem from 9/11 is the fact that Bush's subsequent actions are almost universally criticized and ridiculed. In fact, he has on several occasions expressed his wish for a 9/11 "Mulligan" - another attack that would magically revive his fetish/president's image.

These people are anti-American to the core, and need to be rooted out.

Feech,

A few suicide bombers aren't the front to the war on terror, you are correct, son. The vast majority of them aren't in Iraq. Your logic states that we should've fought the Vietnam war in Thailand because some Vietnamese were over there...

Not bright, child...

Rat...

Can you name me another place in the world where they are currently doing more damage then the latest body count?

I'm just trying to understand why you want to hand Al Queda a victory in iraq.

Feech.

Al Queda kills hundreds of Kurds in the bomb blast on Tuesday...But HEY, this ain't the front of the war on terror.

How stupid are the democrats?
They pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

Posted by: Little Feechie at August 16, 2007 11:58 AM

The invasion MADE IT, and PERPETUATES IT as a front on terror, Bumblefuck. Why can't YOU understand THAT?

How many suicide bombings had Iraq experienced prior to 2003? NONE! EVER!

..and why do they continue after nearly FIVE YEARS of occupation by the most powerful military the world has ever known? Because of the Democrats? - who were an impotent minority in all three branches of our government until only recently? No; its because chaos has been the Neoco war-plan all along.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 16, 2007 12:08 PM

I didn't hear Gibson but I am guessing that he was making fun of Stewarts phony tears because a month after 9/11 Stewart was calling Bush a moron and complaining that Bush had not attacked anyone yet. I think it took Olbermann a week.You call Gibson un-American and then you say he should be silenced because you don't like what he says. Now that’s American. If America was run by Hugo Chaves, but that’s who you want to run America.

"I'm a liberal" - Keith Olbermann

Yes it does blindrat, because no where does it show Karl Rove was behind the ads....."guilt by association" does not prove the allegation and allow one to state it as fact, blindrat......

You should know better, blindrat Limbaugh....

ABC news....

"WRIGHT: [Rove's] signature move, what some have called "political ju-jitzu": turning opponents' strengths against them. In 2000, many saw his fingerprints in the attack on John McCain's character. 2004 witnessed a similar sustained attack on John Kerry's war record.

"LIEUTENANT COMMANDER GEORGE ELLIOTT, VIETNAM WAR, IN SWIFT BOAT VETERANS FOR TRUTH AD: John Kerry has not been honest.

"WRIGHT: An audacious move considering Bush's Vietnam War record was weak. Not only did Bush win that year, his party gained seats in Congress. The President singled Rove out for special thanks."

###
You can troll the NBC and CBS news archives if you want, blindrat, I have work to do. You, however, are wrong once again.

>>Can you name me another place in the world where they are currently doing more damage then the latest body count?

>>I'm just trying to understand why you want to hand Al Queda a victory in iraq.

I guess that you didn't read my answer yesterday, son. I would rather go after Al Qaeda. You simply want to pick at the few that are straggling into Iraq. They won't get a victory in Iraq. If we leave, they'll get stuck in the same quagmire that we are...

You DO understand that none of the factions in Iraq WANTS Al Qaeda?

"I didn't hear Gibson but I am guessing that he was making fun of Stewarts phony tears because a month after 9/11 Stewart was calling Bush a moron and complaining that Bush had not attacked anyone yet."

Quit making shit up, you fascist prick. I'm getting so sick of you assholes. "Phoney tears" beause they are not shed for the paternal pain of George W. Bush?

I can't wait till Chavez - with his tiny non-conventional military - conquers America and I get put in charge of a Republican Re-education camp. You won't have a good time there.

Oh there is the humanitarian Sir Loin of Milquetoast placing the blame of suicide bombers targeting religious minorities in a free society on the United States.....

Sure, a dictatorship that imposed the will of a maniacal and violent man on the population is also approved by Loin....

and now that he is gone and sane/moderate people are trying to form a society that allows freedom of speech, religion, democracy....Loin excuses radical muslim's behavior against innocent civilians....

and blames it on The United States.

What a humanitarian. Why don;t you just avoid the issue like your fellow travelers Mike and blindrat did yesterday, Loin....you leftists are anything but compassionate.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group was created by Vietnam veterans and funded by sources outside of the control of Rove or the campaign, mainly Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens. You can slander Rove with all the aqusations you want but it still does not make it true. You continue to attack Rove but you don't attack James Carville and his hit squads who went out and attacked the women spoke out about Clinton.

didn't hear Gibson but I am guessing that he was making fun of Stewarts phony tears because a month after 9/11 Stewart was calling Bush a moron and complaining that Bush had not attacked anyone yet.

Posted by: The Factor at August 16, 2007 12:19 PM

...and you make my point precisely, you Nazi fuck. You invent positions for Stewart to contectualize his criticisms of Bush as a moral flaw that caused him to cry "phoney tears" the day after his city was attacked. You people are dangerously insane.

Associated Press (AP) (2005). Fell for hoax and phony photo. The AP ran a story, with a photo, about a soldier held hostage in Iraq. The photo turned out to be that of an action figure doll; there was no such soldier.

Scott Beauchamp, The New Republic (2007). Lying. TNR hired this U.S. Army private and husband of one of its own reporters to write first-hand accounts from Iraq. One of his accounts, supposedly demonstrating the dehumanizing effects of the Iraq war on him and fellow soldiers, occurred in Kuwait before Beauchamp even entered Iraq. Other parts of his writing are likely false, and if not, constitute military crimes on his part. In fact, his anonymous writing from a war zone is likely against military rules. This story is currently unfolding.

Nada Behziz, The Bakersfield Californian (2005). Lying/fabricating and plagiarism. Writing mostly on health issues, she plagiarized from the New York Times and AP, made up sources, and got basic facts wrong. An investigation counted 29 fabricated or plagiarized articles. She also lied on her resume. She was fired.

Jayson Blair, The New York Times (2003). Lying/fabricating. He fabricated parts or all of at least 36 stories. He, along with his bosses Gerald Boyd and Howell Raines, resigned from the NYT.

The Boston Globe (2004). Fake photos, fake story. The Boston Globe published pictures alleging U.S. troops raped Iraqi women. The pictures turned out to be commercially available pornography.

Paul Bradley Richmond Times-Dispatch (2006). Lying/fabricating. Made up his story on reactions to President Bush's speech on immigration. He fabricated interviews. He reported on an event in the first person, yet he was not even in the same town. He was fired.

CBS, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes (2004). Fell for fake documents. CBS used forged documents from a non-credible source in claiming George W. Bush received favored treatment in the Air National Guard.

CNN, Operation Tailwind, CNN NewsStand (1998). Lying/fabricating. The televised special claimed that the U.S. military used nerve gas in a mission to kill American defectors in Laos during the Vietnam War, but the story had no factual support. CNN later retracted the story.

CNN and Eason Jordan (2003). Admitted bias, slanting the news. Eason Jordan, CNN's news chief, admitted that CNN withheld reporting on Saddam Hussein's atrocities so as to continue getting favored treatment from Saddam.

Walter Duranty, The New York Times (1930s), Pulitzer Prize winner. Lying. This man visited Stalin's Russia and wrote that nothing untoward was happening there -- no famine, etc. In fact, up to 10 million people died in the Ukraine famine. His writings matched Russian propaganda almost exactly. His Pulitzer Prize still stands.

Joseph Ellis, professor at Mount Holyoke College and historian/author (2001), Pulitzer Prize winner. Lying. He falsely claimed military service in Vietnam and incorporated his war "experiences" into his college courses on "The Vietnam War and American Culture". Mount Holyoke censured him and suspended him without pay for one year.

Hassan Fattah, New York Times (2006). Fell for a hoax. Did a front page story about the man in one of the famous Abu Ghraib photos. But it turned out that the man who claimed to be the one in the picture, who provided details for the story, was not the one in the picture at all.

James Forlong, Sky News (2003). Fake story, fake footage. He presented footage from a missile test as actual combat in Iraq. He subsequently committed suicide.

Adnan Hajj, Reuters (2006). Doctored photos. He doctored dozens of pictures of the 2006 Lebanon-Israel conflict. Reuters later withdrew all 920 of his photos from sale.

Mark Halperin, ABC News (2004). Admitted bias. He wrote a memo to news staff telling them to hold George Bush to a stricter standard than John Kerry: "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and makes] mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win. We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."

Eason Jordan, CNN (2005). False accusations. He accused U.S. forces in Iraq of deliberately targeting and killing journalists. He apologized and resigned.

Jesse MacBeth, anti-war star (2006). Lying/fabricating. "Jesse MacBeth stoked opposition to the Iraq war in 2006 when he spoke out about atrocities he committed as a U.S. Army Ranger serving as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. MacBeth, 23, of Tacoma, claimed to have killed more than 200 people, many at close range, some as they prayed in a mosque. He spoke at an anti-war rally in Tacoma and appeared in a 20-minute anti-war video that circulated widely on the Internet. Trouble is, none of MacBeth's claims was true."

NBC, Waiting to Explode segment on Dateline NBC (1992). Faking evidence and footage. NBC demonstrated the explosive danger of GM trucks' gas tanks by showing one actually explode in what appeared to be normal circumstances. "NBC said the truck's gas tank had ruptured, yet an X ray showed it hadn't; NBC consultants set off explosive miniature rockets beneath the truck split seconds before the crash -- yet no one told the viewers."

NPR, CNN and others on the "Jenin massacre" (2002). CNN reported: "There's almost a massacre now taking place in Jenin. Helicopter gun ships are throwing missiles at one square kilometer packed with almost 15,000 people in a refugee camp . . . This is a war crime, clear war crime." However, the actual "death toll was 56 Palestinians, the majority of them combatants, and 23 Israeli soldiers."

Reuters, Lebanon coverage (2006). Fake/staged photos. Took pictures of live men acting as dead victims, a burning tire dump as the scene of an Israeli bombing, etc. during the Lebanon-Israel conflict.

Barbara Stewart, Boston Globe (2005). Lying/fabricating. "The Boston Globe acknowledged yesterday publishing a partially fabricated story by a freelance reporter about a Canadian seal hunt that had not taken place."

Ward Churchill summed up how Sir Loin and Jon Stewart really feel about 9/11. Fake tears don't fool me.

Anyone see Cheney hagiographer Steven Hayes on Jon Stewart last night? What the hell was Hayes thinking by going on that show?

I don't think he's ever talked to anyone who disagrees with his worship of this administraiton before, because he got slapped around like Karl Rove in the "Hot Military Studs" rumpus room.

Those capatilist pigs in those towers deserved to die!

I was beginning to worry about the '08 election but then I started reading SLOB's "Republicans are Nazis" posts above and realized that these people on the left are wacko-- I mean certifiable, cuckoo-for Cocoa Puffs-nuts. The Dems have no chance with a voting base like these looney-birds.

>>Associated Press (AP) (2005). Fell for hoax and phony photo. The AP ran a story, with a photo, about a soldier held hostage in Iraq. The photo turned out to be that of an action figure doll; there was no such soldier.

A hoax isn't a lie, son...

>>Nada Behziz, The Bakersfield Californian (2005). Lying/fabricating and plagiarism. Writing mostly on health issues, she plagiarized from the New York Times and AP, made up sources, and got basic facts wrong. An investigation counted 29 fabricated or plagiarized articles. She also lied on her resume. She was fired.

Plagiarism, not lies and not political AND she was fired. I asked for liberal slanted lies, child...

>>Jayson Blair, The New York Times (2003). Lying/fabricating. He fabricated parts or all of at least 36 stories. He, along with his bosses Gerald Boyd and Howell Raines, resigned from the NYT.

Fraud, but again, where's the liberal slant that I asked for?

The latest media fraud is a photo that has been posted and prinetd of an old lady in Iraq holding bullets that she says American soldiers shot at her and her elderly friend. Posted widely, yet no editor noticed that the bullets were whole and obviously not fired from a gun... WTF!

Don't tell me that media doesn't have an anti-war liberal agenda.

"Fake tears don't fool me."
Posted by: The Factor at August 16, 2007 12:41 PM

Then you must be just as outraged as the Olbyloons at the bullshit tactics W's boys play on the country, the rest of the world, every damn week.

Beef:

So what are you saying, we don't fight them in Iraq because mistakes were made by us?

Does this somehow give them a free pass?
Are they terrorists with immunity because of our mistakes?

Ward Churchill summed up how Sir Loin and Jon Stewart really feel about 9/11. Fake tears don't fool me.

Posted by: The Factor at August 16, 2007 12:41 PM

Ok, let's calmly examine your position here. You are saying that the day after 9/11; when Stewart's home city was brutally attacked, and the precise culptrits had yet to be identified, and several of Stewart's freinds were missing (later to be confirmed as dead), that he calculated a fake crying binge on his show?

To what end? Are you suggesting that he was in on the attack?

For your informaton, the hard-core lefty (of which Stewart is definitely not one) response to the attacks that day was to admonish people to beware of a Reichstagg Fire effect. I had a sociology professor present this danger to me that very morning, and I severely chastised him for his cynicism. - but he was right.

Now you are retroactively characterizing the obviously sincere greif on the part of people within sight and smell of the disaster as being contrived and "phoney". - and you admittedly do this based on their opinions about your president's policies months and years later.

You are fucked up.

I like Jon Stewart. He plays in important role in American Politics. I don't view him as far left. I view him as a concerned American.

>>The Boston Globe (2004). Fake photos, fake story. The Boston Globe published pictures alleging U.S. troops raped Iraqi women. The pictures turned out to be commercially available pornography.

No liberal slant, no lies...they were defrauded. Perhaps you don't understand what I'm asking for...

>>CBS, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes (2004). Fell for fake documents. CBS used forged documents from a non-credible source in claiming George W. Bush received favored treatment in the Air National Guard.

Defrauded...

>>Paul Bradley Richmond Times-Dispatch (2006). Lying/fabricating. Made up his story on reactions to President Bush's speech on immigration. He fabricated interviews. He reported on an event in the first person, yet he was not even in the same town. He was fired.

Lying, but slanted towards the conservative side, son...

>>CNN, Operation Tailwind, CNN NewsStand (1998). Lying/fabricating. The televised special claimed that the U.S. military used nerve gas in a mission to kill American defectors in Laos during the Vietnam War, but the story had no factual support. CNN later retracted the story.

Defrauded...
CNN and Eason Jordan (2003). Admitted bias, slanting the news. Eason Jordan, CNN's news chief, admitted that CNN withheld reporting on Saddam Hussein's atrocities so as to continue getting favored treatment from Saddam.

"awful things" about the Baathist regime--murders, tortures, assassination plots--that it simply could not broadcast earlier. Reporting these stories, Mr. Jordan wrote, "would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff." Hardly what I would call "favored treatment", child...

As it is, you've confused plagiarism is misinformation and any lie with lies with a liberal slant. You have failed...

Beef:

So what are you saying, we don't fight them in Iraq because mistakes were made by us?

Does this somehow give them a free pass?
Are they terrorists with immunity because of our mistakes?

Posted by: Little Feechie at August 16, 2007 12:51 PM

Well, I'll waste the pixels again: They (Al Qeada) are able to operate in Iraq because of our "mistakes" (i.e. intentional civic sabotage) and due to the retarding effect that our occupation as on the people there who desire self-determination. They see the giant military bases we are building in lieu of hospitals and police stations; they see the giant "Emabssy" - the world's largest - that we are building on the very locations of Saddam's favorite palace on the best real estate in Bagdhad. In short, the raqis don;t "stand up" because they don;t trust our intentions, and because 50% of the time we shoot or blow them up when they do "stand up".

- but talking about "free passes", Feechie , what do you propose in regard to hlding Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et. al. to account for what you classify as "mistakes"? DO they get off scott-free?

Ok, I give Stewart the benifit of the doubt. Maybe he really was upset enough to cry. Maybe it wasn't just a ratings ploy. He quickly turned those tears into an assult on the president, capitalism, and patriotism. His venom has gotten worse and worse the more he has been patted on the back by his fellow republican haters. He is now just another zombie crying about the 2000 election.

The fact that Stewart attacks the president makes him a patriot. Bush has accomplished nothing of value since he was appointed president, son...

Sir Loin of Beef ,
Stewart is a fraud.
He's paraised Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
He's a supporter of Islamic groups.
He's fake!

Ok, I give Stewart the benifit of the doubt. Maybe he really was upset enough to cry. Maybe it wasn't just a ratings ploy. He quickly turned those tears into an assult on the president, capitalism, and patriotism. His venom has gotten worse and worse the more he has been patted on the back by his fellow republican haters. He is now just another zombie crying about the 2000 election.

Posted by: The Factor at August 16, 2007 1:17 PM

That's not what you said above, you flip-flopping fuckstick. You called Stewart's public grief on 9/12 "phoney tears". Don't you think before you type?

Just last Friday Bush generously called the 9/11 attackers "19 kids lured onto airpalnes"; another case of amoral flip-flopping in order to protect the interests of the Military Industrial Complex. His message? - that Al Qeada is no longer the existential threat, we have to make room for Iran.

Do you agree with your fetish/president in this regard? if not, all of your personal feelings regarding the 9/11 attacks are null and void, by your paradigm.

Sir Loin of Beef,
Why do Leftists like you support the Iranian regime?

The fact that Stewart attacks the president makes him a patriot. Bush has accomplished nothing of value since he was appointed president, son...

Posted by: blindrat at August 16, 2007 1:29 PM

He has kept your throat from being slashed, isn't that worth something? Anybody tried to throw you in a wood chipper, lately? Cut your tongue out for speaking your mind? I rest my case.

"he has kept your throat from being slashed, isn't that worth something?"

ROFLMAO!!!!

Do your REALLY believe that????

He has kept your throat from being slashed, isn't that worth something? Anybody tried to throw you in a wood chipper, lately? Cut your tongue out for speaking your mind? I rest my case.

Posted by: at August 16, 2007 1:41 PM

You're a fucking coward. I can keep my own throat from being slashed, thanks - and if not there used to be a justice sytem in this country that could catch and prosecute the felons and keep them from doing further damage.

Bush has taken this country - fueled by irrational, castrating fear like yours - into stuations that get our soldiers killed for no reason, and make enemies for us who may actually pose threats to us.

...and don't forget - Bush campletely capitulated to Osama's demands following 9/11! He took all of our troops and bases out of Saudi Arabia, and we haven't been attacked since. Now he calls the 9/11 hijackers "19 kids lured onto airplanes". Awww, poor Mohammed Atta - a misunderstood, impressionable "kid".

Take a look at yourselves, you shivvering mind-slaves.

Joker to Beef: "Why do you leftists support the Iranian regime."

Why do YOU keep asking that same VERY STUPID question over and over and over and over and over again????

Anon(13:41):

Did you get your "throat slashed" during Clinton's term? Guess he saved you, eh son?...

I can't wait till Chavez - with his tiny non-conventional military - conquers America and I get put in charge of a Republican Re-education camp. You won't have a good time there.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 16, 2007 12:25 PM

Not a day goes by w/out fat ass slob showing us how he REALLY is deep down. Such a nice fellow, I wish he was my neighbor.............

blindrat certainly is a condescending little prick, isn't he?

Why do YOU keep asking that same VERY STUPID question over and over and over and over and over again????

Posted by: Mike at August 16, 2007 1:51 PM

I think it's a legitimate question. Why do you?

Take your tin-foil hat off and figure out what a flip-flop is. I gave Stewart the benifit of the doubt to prove the point that his actions after his crying episode speak volumes about what is really important to him. Attacking republicans and conservatives.

If you think Iran is not giving arms to terroist to kill Americans, then you need help. They have been doing it since 1978. As for Bush's statment, he is trying to reach out to the left. Its a mistake.

Check out the 2005 study from UCLA. The results show a liberal media bias. Yeah, yeah, I know. It's only one study. And it's from the conservative UCLA (?). And it's from 2005. I guess we should just pretend it doesn't exist. It's easier for you people that way.

If you think Iran is not giving arms to terroist to kill Americans, then you need help. They have been doing it since 1978. As for Bush's statment, he is trying to reach out to the left. Its a mistake.

Posted by: The Factor at August 16, 2007 1:58 PM

So why did Bush attack Iraq instead of Iran? Iraq never attacked us; you are saying that Iran clearly has. Does your dumbfuck fetish/president ever get anything right? - or do you care? - just as long as he's still Bush.

...I'm serious, Factor - Think about what you are saying. If there is evidence that Iran has been arming our enemies against us, why would you support the wasting of our military readiness on this debacle in Iraq? Iran has never been in such a powerful regional position, and its all thanks to the brainless aggression of the neocons.

Anon 1:56: "I think it's a legitimate question. Why do you?"

I'd rather ask you why you would defend a question that stupid as that as 'legitimate'?

Or how about I ask you a few similar questions:

1) - Why do you beat your wife?

2) - Why do you hate our troops?

3) - Why are you a child abuser?

Mark Liberman does a pretty good job of shooting down the shoddy study you cite, facts...

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002724.html

ROFLMAO!!!!

If I nad a nickel for every time Mike has professed to be rolling on the floor laughing his ass off, I would be a rich man

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708140001

Somebody please listen to the Gibson audio and tell me that Gibson doesn't love Bush, but hates America.

ROFLMAO!!!!

If I nad a nickel for every time Mike has professed to be rolling on the floor laughing his ass off, I would be a rich man

Posted by: Mike is a weenie at August 16, 2007 2:28 PM

That's how he answers the tough questions. The one's he can't answer on the grounds that the answers will expose him for what he is. He harps and preaches at other posters about not knowing how to debate, yet, uses the "roflmao" as his rebuttal to actual debatable questions, go figure.

blindrat,
Gee, didn't see that coming. Most studies and results have opposition. There are also scientists that disagree with the global warming stuff. I am going to jump to a conclusion and assume that you dismiss their opinions though, right?

How about this?
The results might shock even the most jaded of newspaper readers. About 69 percent of the 3,600 news sources completed the survey, and they spotted 2,615 factual errors in 1,220 stories. That means that about half of the stories for which a survey was completed contained one or more errors. Just 23 of the flawed stories—less than 2 percent—generated newspaper corrections. No paper corrected more than 4.2 percent of its flawed article
http://www.slate.com/id/2172283/fr/rss/
Now this doesn't necessarily reflect any bias, but it does show that newpapers are rather shoddy in their reporting.

Facts,

Since the begining of the day, I have asked for specific instances where a major news network lied for the purpose of perpetuating the liberal cause. Usually, when you neocons complain, it is when the media prints the truth.

As Stephen Colbert said, "Facts have a liberal bias"...

Leave it to a liberal weenie to quote Stephen Colbert, what passes as news in the Liberal weenie world

It's not that they have to lie. It's the words chosen and the tone in which the story is written. The Haditha thing was all over the news when it supposedly happened. Now that the cases are falling apart, there is barely any coverage. You can write a story biased towards a cause without outright lying. Why do you feel that it has to be a full lie for it to be biased?

Poor blindrat ignores the few examples given to prove the media has lied in support of an agenda. Even from the 1930's, journalists have allowed their biases to either blind them to facts (allow fraud to occur) or even outright lie. Blindrat chooses not to recognize the many examples listed, some as far back as the '30's and some as recent as just this week.

Oh and another fine example of unbiased, journalistic professionalism.....Joe Scarbourough remembers a 2003 State of The Union Speech that got boos from the fine journalists in the TV newsroom....

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/

And this happened just this week with the Seattle Times with regards to Rove.

Blindrat, you are a simpleton. Even how these shills vote or donate their money supports the observation they are bought and paid by the leftist ruling class in our fine country.

How the Media Vote.
Surveys of journalists’ self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin.

Journalists’ Political Views.
Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.”

How the Public Views the Media.
In increasing numbers, the viewing audiences recognize the media’s liberal tilt. Gallup polls have consistently found that three times as many see the media as “too liberal” as see a media that is “too conservative.” A 2005 survey conducted for the American Journalism Review found nearly two-thirds of the public disagreed with the statement, “The news media try to report the news without bias,” and 42 percent of adults disagreed strongly.

Admissions of Liberal Bias.
A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.”

Denials of Liberal Bias.
Many journalists continue to deny the liberal bias that taints their profession. During the height of CBS’s forged memo scandal during the 2004 campaign, Dan Rather insisted that the problem wasn’t his bias, it was his anybody who criticized him. “People who are so passionately partisan politically or ideologically committed basically say, ‘Because he won’t report it our way, we’re going to hang something bad around his neck and choke him with it, check him out of existence if we can, if not make him feel great pain,’” Rather told USA Today in September 2004. “They know that I’m fiercely independent and that’s what drives them up a wall.”

Evidence of Bias in News Coverage.
The Media Research Center continuously reports on instances of the liberal bias in the mainstream media. Daily CyberAlerts offer a regular roundup of the latest instances of biased reporting, while our NewsBusters blog allows Web users to post their own reactions. Media Reality Check fax reports showcase important stories that the news media have distorted or ignored, and several times each year the MRC publishes Special Reports offering in-depth documentation of the media’s bias on specific issues.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/printer/biasbasics1.asp

Thanks, Facts Please....I am sick of blindrat's ignorance.

...right, Facts Please, like the entire MSM recently calling Kenneth Pollack and O'Hanlon "strong war critics" and "liberals" when they came back with their fairy tale of things going great in Iraq.

Pollack has never been anything BUT a cheerleader for the war, and O'Hanlon is a bone fide PNAC signatory alongside Cheney, Rummy, and Kristol. But every single media outlet pretended these guys were hard-core lefties who had their minds changed by their guided tour of Iraq. Read any single article written by either of them and you would know better, but none of these "journalists" felt compelled to know better.

The media has a monolitihic corporate slant, and corporations love what makes them profits. They love the war; love their taxes cut; love regulations lifted; ...in short they love Republicans. When they are occasionally forced by circumstances to throw a grudging bone to the liberal interests of the majority of Americans, you all gripe that its "liberal bias".

"Oh and another fine example of unbiased, journalistic professionalism.....Joe Scarbourough remembers a 2003 State of The Union Speech that got boos from the fine journalists in the TV newsroom...."

I wonder if Joe remembers the non-stop coverage of Gary Condit's scandal at the same time that a young female aide's death by blunt trauma to her head IN HIS CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE went almost unmentioned in the news? Nothing to see here folks; move along...

Joe's obviously totally unbiased memory represents unimpeachable fact to cee. No woder cee is such a respected voice in this forum.

It is also known that the owners of these outlets are overwhelmingly conservative. If you print something that they don't like, it could mean your job...

How the public views the media is a direct result of the screeching the neocons have been indulging in since the eighties. Screech it enough times and a moderate will view it as fact. You're numbers are wrong, however, based on the poll posted earlier today...

Read "About us" at the mediaresearch.org site. Their goal is not to arrive at the truth, but to "prove" the conclusion that they've already come to...

Not very sound, son...

Ah ah!

"It is also known that the owners of these outlets are overwhelmingly conservative. If you print something that they don't like, it could mean your job..."

###
Facts please! Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, son!

Oh and Sir Loin of Milquetoast, your display of typical leftist disregard for human suffering is becoming more obvious everyday.....I like seeing my view of you all these months is being confirmed.

The media has a monolitihic corporate slant, and corporations love what makes them profits. They love the war; love their taxes cut; love regulations lifted; ...in short they love Republicans.
Sir Loin of Beef at August 16, 2007 3:29 PM

Wow Sir Loin, you sure do live in the land of make believe. Articals and articals posted of admitted media bias and you still stick your zombie head in the sand. March on zombie, march on.

Once again, I am not your son. If i were, I would probably need my food chewed for me because of the obvious genetic defects you exude. Your patronizing attitude lessens any opinion you may have whether valid or not. But it's typical from the left. The superior attitude you people show is rather vulgar. And without merit.

"Oh and Sir Loin of Milquetoast, your display of typical leftist disregard for human suffering is becoming more obvious everyday....."

This from the cocksucker who just posted on the latest OW forum that Jon Stewart's "emotional breakdown" on 9/11 was not "acceptable". You cannot be allowed to cry at personal loss and the suffering of commoners - but you must feel bleeding-heart empathy for Leader Bush!

"Their goal is not to arrive at the truth, but to "prove" the conclusion that they've already come to..."

As is the goal of most research. I wonder how many studies and experiments have been conducted and the conclusions were all accidents. Or did the researchers start with a hypothesis and conduct the experiment or study to validate the hypothesis. It's called the 'scientific method'. But, as you've shown, you don't like facts, so I wouldn't expect you to admit your error.

No Loin, I accept Stewart's AND Bush's reactions....you on the otherhand are a hypocrite for defending Olbermann's breathless reaction to Gibson's jab while supporting the lousy jab at Bush.

No Loin, I accept Stewart's AND Bush's reactions....you on the otherhand are a hypocrite for defending Olbermann's breathless reaction to Gibson's jab while supporting the lousy jab at Bush.

Posted by: cee at August 16, 2007 4:07 PM

That's where we differ cee (among every other matter of character): I accept and respect the show of honest emotion from an entertainer; but I would prefer a President who acts rationally in an emergency situation. He was helpless without direction from Uncle Dick.

cee, if you are sincere - which is logially impossible - then where is your condemnation of the heartless display by Gibson that started this whole matter?

"That's where we differ cee (among every other matter of character): I accept and respect the show of honest emotion from an entertainer; but I would prefer a President who acts rationally in an emergency situation. He was helpless without direction from Uncle Dick."

###
Keep it simple, I respoded on the other thread....

Slimy Jews! Stuuuuupid fundy flat-earthers!

Jeff on Mike: "Go figure".

Jeff, only a dumbass such as yourself would need to "go figure" as you just suggested.

When someone suggests something as utterly ridiculous as crediting Bush for having saved us from having our throats slashed......Well, there is simply NO other intelligent answer other than.....ROFLMAO!

"Debating" someone who actually believes fairy tales like that one is pointless. They also probably still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus as well.

I couldn't care less about a media quarrel between John Gibson and Keith Olbermann involving the talentless John Stewart. I only commented after I read through the posts and saw your shrill reaction.....You baited me Loin, I just can't resist your charms!

Mike,
Don't be silly. Of course the tooth fairy doens't exist. Duh.

I wonder where clucker got her info when she claimed things in europe were so peachy.

Nearly ten million people in Britain are out of work - more than six times the official unemployment rate - it was revealed last night.

The 'hidden army' of jobless accounts for a quarter of the working-age population.

Critics said the staggering numbers represented a 'huge pool of wasted talent' and fuelled concerns about the drain on the economy.

Jeff, only a dumbass such as yourself would need to "go figure" as you just suggested.

When someone suggests something as utterly ridiculous as crediting Bush for having saved us from having our throats slashed......Well, there is simply NO other intelligent answer other than.....ROFLMAO!

"Debating" someone who actually believes fairy tales like that one is pointless. They also probably still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus as well.

Posted by: Mike at August 16, 2007 4:24 PM

He proves me right, once again. He threw in the "roflmao" mixed with name calling. It's all he knows. Hook, line and sinker.

4:31: "Mike, don't be silly. Of course the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Duh...."

He does so! I saw him just last night in a credit card commercial!

Well, looks like Jon Stewart, who makes a living constantly seeking to ridicule people, is not the only target of some hardball humor. Here's the work of some pundit, the gopher-like Ada Calhoun, over at AOL News commenting on the news that Jenna Bush has just become engaged:

"We have to confess, we thought the less-drunk-seeming twin would get engaged first. But looks like Jenna's set to marry Henry Hager, former Karl Rove intern. "

And here's a reader's comment to that hilarious observation:

"Both twins are UGLIER looking than Chelsea Clinton . . . The brunette one looks so retarded in her face, all she needs is a hillbilly CORNPIPE. The blond FAT one is fat old Britney lookalike. Go away.

SJ at 3:35PM on Aug 16th 2007

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/08/16/jenna-bush-is-engaged/

Oh well, it's rather classless, but I don't think these people are Nazis just because they want to make fun of the President's daughters, unlike SLOB who thinks that anyone who makes fun of Jon Stewart is a Nazi

He must have some sore shoulders and some worn out rugs from all the hurling himself on the floor he does.....Mike calm down brosephus, nothing here merits all the rolling on the floor you do

I'm Jewish. So, yeah. If you make fun of me, you are a NAZI.

Yes, I'm Jewish too. Olbermann called me a monkey, so Olbermann is a Nazi, too.

Oh, wait...another pure example of the "support" the left has for the troops on the ground in Iraq:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/16/153253/898

Last Throes Redux
by BarbinMD

Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:46:34 PM PDT

If there is any doubt remaining that the September report from Gen. David Patraeus will be anything but a whitewash, take a look at how one of Bush's commanders on the ground manages to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear in an article about the dramatically increasing risk to our troops from house bombs, "where soldiers are lured into a house rigged to explode":

Officials attribute the increasingly sophisticated attacks to desperation on the insurgents' part after troops became too successful at finding roadside bombs and other explosives.

"It's a clear sign that they could not get to us by other means, and that's a good sign," said Lt. Col. Michael Donnelly, a spokesman for the American operation in northern Iraq, describing the pattern of house bombs in that area. "Obviously we're countering the improvised explosive devices, and force on force, they know that they can't fight us." [...]

"There is no question that there is still a serious threat," Donnelly said. "But the gains we have made are tremendous. In the end, we will win, and they will be marginalized and pushed out."

From the kos poster: "Yes, one might even say that the insurgency is in its last throes."

###
Oh they do enjoy the success expressed by the soldiers on the ground......The left just is so happy at the optimism displayed by people who are actually there in Iraq, fighting the terrorists.

Mike? Blindrat? Why? Sir Loin of Milquetoast? Anyone?......Do we want the IED's to be successful so you leftists have your domestic political victory?

Tsk, tsk, tsk

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

And this is my post today, the 1,569th 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

"Oh they do enjoy the success expressed by the soldiers on the ground......The left just is so happy at the optimism displayed by people who are actually there in Iraq, fighting the terrorists."

If you want the answers you beg for, you will have to clearly state your question. Your post - like your personal honor - is a garbled mess. Your skull must be a very uncomfortable placve in which to reside.

"Mike? Blindrat? Why? Sir Loin of Milquetoast? Anyone?......Do we want the IED's to be successful so that we can have your domestic political victory?"

Cee, I never used to question your honor....just your bad judgement! Now I see you have neither honor or good judgement.

That was the second time in a week you have used my name in a suggestion that I was somehow rooting for the enemy to succeed against our troops.....and for the second time in a wee.....you are a LIAR!

You have NEVER, EVER seen me site day to day success OR failure to bolster ANY of my arguments. Not EVER, you liar!

I hope every bit as much, and probably more, than you do you for success of our troops. And nobody on the board feels a greater pang of distress than I do whenever I hear about more soldiers dying than I do....and that is precisely why I want them home...NOW. This fiasco in Iraq is NOT worth the life of even one of them!

Politics be damned Cee! I would be just as much against this war if the Democrats were behind it. And I relly believe that for most anti-war activists, politics has absslutely no bearing on it.

I believe YOU are the one showing no honor because even though you are still eligible, and you have a skill sorely needed, you do nothing but sit on your couch and criticize others who want to stop your inane war.

You sir, are the one who has shown you have no honor...not I.

Once again, the usual suspects ignore the source of the propaganda....a daily kos contributor.

You see it is very simple. These are the same people who said the 2006 election was about bringing the troops home. They have complained since then about their ruling elite not achieving the result of this mandate YET continue to support the same ruling elite.

The poster at kos takes a quote from a soldier in Iraq (yes, although the man is a Lt. Colonel, he is there in combat, gents) and questions the man's veracity and motive....just like the left will question Petreaus's honesty and motives about his likely recommendation to continue supporting democracy and freedom in Iraq from the forces of totalitarianism (you know leftists....the type of state you want).

Mike, Why, Loin and the venerable blindrat are shills of the left here at OW, so it is very funny to see their reaction to their ideological fellow traveler at daily kos.

Oh, and I forgot about Clucker who also enjoys living in the land of contradiction.

Oh yes, and what about AAP....another arrogant and self-proclaimed enlightened leftist who can't seem to string two words together without saying BUSHWIPE.

You, and some others, have to account for the bold predictions, criminal accusations and demogogic characterizations that would make the fraud Olbermann proud. I simply saw the kos post and immedietly thought of you terrific leftists who like to see what a soldier says in Iraq and use it as polticial spew.

Bring the troops home now.....the democrats should cut the war's funding!

Bush and Cheney have shred The Constitution.....they should be impeached!

The appeasement of despots leftists (and I once again repeat this means you: Mike, Loin, blindrat, Clucker, AAP, and especially Why) is a group of honorable, compassionate and patriotic individuals, really, they are!

(Slimy Jews, stuuuuupid fundy flat-earthers.....they staged 9/11!)

Cee, you surpised me in this. You have a point of view with which I often take exception, but you do have sense and you are blessed with intellectual integrity. Unfortunately, you have allowed Pea Brain to draq you down into the tormented snake bit of his roken and fetid bmind. This was really beneath you.

Posted by: Clucker at August 16, 2007 6:20 PM

Your critique of cee's post is spot on, but you apparently need to look a little closer at his standard gibberish. He is the most decietful and logically-changable partisan on this board. He has always said anything - ANYTHING - that makes him believe he has scored a point. He is the neocon mindset in microcosm - "say anything to perpetuate the lie, and avoid self-sacrifice, or even temporary discomfort, like the plague".

"Once again, the usual suspects ignore the source of the propaganda....a daily kos contributor."

These drowning rats are obscessed with Kos. I don;t know about you guys (the rational ones here, that is: Mike, WDYC, CLucker, etc.), but I haven't visited that site more than a dozen times in its entire existence. The righties can't imagine different people coming to the same logical conclusions independently. This is because they need to have their own worldviews spoon-fed to them on a daily basis in order to remain in sync - no two monkey's out of a million could ever type out similar versions of their arbitrary fantasies.

Yes, Cluker, in your world the Lt. Colonel is flawed, and you are entitled to your opinion, just like the deary at kos. But again, to claim you "support" this man and his fellows on the ground would then seem a bit intellectually dishonest.

And Sir Loin of Milquetoast, your proclivity for pissing contests also demand you only see such truth as yet another ploy directed against your narcissistic philosophical quest. A quest to nowhere.

And the dear mental midget, Why. Once again looking at the fight against despotism as only what is good for the American left's ruling class. Such a deep thinker! Enjoy that rally in September, Why....make sure you get your goober ready to hurl at Sparling.

Wonderful gents! You play you typical roles so well when faced with facts not withstanding your predictions or world-views. I often wonder if one person is posting for all of you, following a scripted formula for each personality.

Oh and Loin, I would just love to continue to discuss neocon conspiricy theories with you again! Let me get my tin foil hat on and my latest children's book from President Bush....

"My Pet Goat Ate The IED"

"The righties can't imagine different people coming to the same logical conclusions independently."

###
Ha, ha, ha....yeah independently! I heard the same tripe in college, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, from frosty leftists pining for their 2nd Woodstock. They were complaining about the fall of the wall as a propaganda tool for the evil right.....nevermind millions of people were now free to cross a border!

Yeah, you think independently like Marx loved those slimy Jews (a myth believed by blindrat).

It must be very lonely being on the "other side" of these great satirists.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 16, 2007 7:23 PM

This a very pleasurable topic in regard to partisan schaddenfrued (sp?). Fascist cultists have always been shit-out-of-luck when comes to humor. The recent cancellation of the laugh-tracked "Half Hour News Hour", or what ever the fuck it was called this time, is the only time I, and apparently anyone else, have laughed out loud at that show.

It reminds of the cancellations of everyting Denis Miller has attempted in recent years. Do you recall that during the dying gasps of his last show they literally could not pay audiences to sit there and pretend to laugh? I heard they were offering 15 bucks a head for that sacrifice, but it was just too much to ask.

"Yes, Cluker, in your world the Lt. Colonel is flawed, and you are entitled to your opinion, just like the deary at kos. But again, to claim you "support" this man and his fellows on the ground would then seem a bit intellectually dishonest."

...another example of cee's comic-book logic as pointed out by Clucker above. A binary world-view in which one anecdote is taken as total refutation of his opponent's position - but it only goes one way.

How many dominoes fell?

Some estimates are 1 million people dead at the hands of the leftist North Vietnamese. I'd say the dominoes weren't better off in Vietnam like McGovern claimed.

Oh, and those that did not fall were re-educated in concentration camps....pretty nice according to John Kerry. Yes. Totalitarianism is a wonderful form of government the left loves.

Please mental midget.....give me more!

Oh and Loin....I am now up to reading Bush's great chidlren's book,

"My Pet Goat's Trip To Gitmo"

The tin hat is working fine....no tinnitus from Sky Lab!

"...another example of cee's comic-book logic as pointed out by Clucker above. A binary world-view in which one anecdote is taken as total refutation of his opponent's position - but it only goes one way."

###
Um, Loiny, you're losing it....Clucker claimed the officials in Iraq's argument was illogical, not me....So, I would ask you and Clucker, who feel the mission is flawed....Why are we still there? Why do the left's ruling class continue to support such foolishness with appropriations? And why should Bush still have his executive powers if such a policy is so wrong?

Oh yeah.....you couldn't adequetly answer those questions in 11/06 and I doubt you will be able to now.

Choosing not to recognize the millions who died and the multiple millions who lived under totalitarianism in South Vietnam after the left forced retreat is your choice, MM (mental midget).....I tend to read about history with an independent and open mind, not a closed one because of my ideology.

The left in America was wrong to abandon the people of South Vietnam. Just like we stayed the course in Korea and you all seem to have no problem with it.....guess what....it should have happened in Vietnam as well....but alas, the left gained some respect in our democracy in the 60's (it's a free country), and got what they wanted....

The troops out!

Sorry, MM.....the South Vietnamese were not better under the leftists....you may think so, but I think the facts of demicide and re-education tell a different story.

Try to get your facts from people who don't have an agenda for a change.

So: the head cook in a high school cafeteria accepts a shipment of foul-smelling and odd-colored hamburger which turns out to be tainted with e-coli bacteria. She decides to use the meat to make tacos. 500 students eat tacos and 100 of them becoming violently ill, incurring doctors' bills, missing a week of school. The spokesperson for the school district says yes, we had a river if diarhea and a lake of vomit, but we all know today's kids are fat. We're happy that we were able to make some of those kids lose weight. When an incredulous parent objects saying her daughter suffered mightily, the spokesperson says you are opposed to public education. You side with the school district, I assume?

I'd say you were being and are being a true crackpot, but that would be an insult to crackpots. Good Lord, Man, all you were doing is saying I want to slander this website and people with whom I disagree in general, and I can do that if ....

Cee, you surpised me in this. You have a point of view with which I often take exception, but you do have sense and you are blessed with intellectual integrity. Unfortunately, you have allowed Pea Brain to draq you down into the tormented snake bit of his roken and fetid bmind. This was really beneath you.

Posted by: Clucker at August 16, 2007 6:20 PM

The Lit Col. says we have gone from them blowing up truckfuls of soldiers out on the street, to their having to invite a few soldiers into someone's home in order to kill them. Clucker argues that this isn't progress because soldiers have died and have still died in a misbegotten war in the first place.

Clucker is essentially arguing that any sort of progress in a war (the Iraq War) is specious because we shouldn't be there PERIOD.

While Clucker's 'bad meat at the cafeteria' is a completely inept analogy for the illustrating the gist of the Lit Col.'s words about the progress he feels is occuring in Iraq (the lack of logic lies in Clucker's foregone conclusion that the Lit Col. SHOULD think exactly as he does in that the war effort is the equivalent of spoiled meat foisted on an unknowing public) ...., it is a certainly a very illustrative of the point that Cee is trying to hammer home: That is that you can't essentially put forth the sort of all-or-nothing arguement that there can be no progress in this war because it was an utter mistake from the outset AND concurrently support congressional Democrat's arguments that it must continue being funded AND their most recent statements that we must attempt to "fix" things in Iraq and continue there for some time to come.

Clucker's thinking in this post is clumsy, self-referential, and hackneyed as usual, but it's a sterling example of the contradiction in rhetoric vs actions from those who Cee argues should be held in account.

"Some estimates are 1 million people dead at the hands of the leftist North Vietnamese. I'd say the dominoes weren't better off in Vietnam like McGovern claimed."

...and some estimates are that the war in iraq is going exactly as planned. DOesn't mean they're right.

the fact that cee dodges with this point is that we destabilized the entire SE Asian region with our support of the French, our scuttling of the national reunification elections decreed by the Geneva conventions for 1956, our gradual increase of troops until we reaced the level of a full-scale invasion under Johnson; our destruction of the environment; our killing of at least 2 million Vietnamese while we were there, our illegal bombing and destabilization of Cambodia and Laos,our support for China and Pol Pot in their attacks on Vietnam following our retreat;....

...all of hte deaths that occured in Vietnam following 1956 on on the heads of a series of American presidents and on their sheep-like constituents.

The same is the case in Iraq - people will die in the turmoil after we leave - just as they die during our occupation - and it was all decreed by the invasion and during a short period afterward during which every single oportuity to ameliorate the situation was squandered one by one by this administration.

My whole point all along since 11/06 and the arrogant posts of many who saw the political mandate of immediate withdrawl from Iraq.....

Who is responsible.....

Very good Loin.....And the mistakes of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson should have been met WITH A JUST CONCLUSION.

The leftist driven protests and leftist ruling elite actions made a JUST solution impossible.

And the mistakes of Iraq deserve A JUST SOLUTION.

And the leftist driven (pathetic) protest of this war is just like that of the late 60's.....wrong.

So please, MM, get a grip. You are wrong now. You were wrong then.

A just solution for the people is possible, but not likely if the left gets their way.

Bob Kerrey said it better than I did......

"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."

And along comes Cecelia, carrying Cee's water.
How cute !

Posted by: at August 16, 2007 8:17 PM

And here come the little toy ankle-biters, how typical... :D

"The parallel ( in Korea)never moved, Dunce.
Nothing was accomplished.
So all the deaths were worth it?"

###
MM....I am sure those is South Korea have a different opinion looking towards their leftist ruled cousins....

starving....

Oh yes.....wonderful socialism!

MM, you really need to read more.

No one has been able to come up with "A "solution none the less a just one...due to the catatrophic mistake of invading iraq.

The elusive "just solution" is like fairies in Cee's sleep.
What a dumbass !

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 16, 2007 8:23 PM

So I take it that if anyone other than Bill Richardson or Dennis kucinich wins the Dem primary, you aren't going to have a candidate?

Oh yes, MM....this OPINION of Vietnam as a error due to not addressing nationalistic passions is well known. You are entitled to your version of events, MM. The simple fact is certain domestic political ideologies took hold and allowed the north to win....The American left is responsible for the surrender of South Vietnam to the leftist north just as much as any of the pet theories of the leftist historians who can't see past the tip of the nose.

He, he, he, mental midget.....more please!

Oh and Sir Loin of Milquetoast....now it's George Bush's classic:

"My Pet Goat Ate My Intelligence Estimate"

How wonderful to have you back, Cecelia. I'd heard a rumor you had swallowed the spoon, and I was desparately worried.

There are many meritorious arguments you could have made to attack my analogy, but, instead you reverted to the old RRWR volley that is essentially, we lied and tricked you, but you ought not be so dishonorable as to not keep the commitments you would not have made "but for" our lies and tricks. Some people learned nothing from Nixon or Vietnam, I suppose. I guess I have to be patient. The knuckle draggers didn't stroll straight out of the muck and mire. More like 5 out and 4 back in.

Posted by: Clucker at August 16, 2007 8:32 PM

The most "meritorious" part of my argument about the sort of thinking your analogy TRULY illustrates, is that your stance is in complete contradiction to the stated stances of all except two of the Dems running for president and to those actions and votes from our Dem majority in congress.

As Cee has argued, this all-or-nothing rhetoric and argument is YOURS. You're accountable to addressing it not to war supporters, but to the leadership of your own party.

"All worth it, to the pathetic cee.All of this tragedy plus nothing was accomplished...just like in iraq.'

###
Poor MM....it seem to be worth it for the Chinese Communists (your ideological buddies), and now it seems to be worth it for the radical islamists in Iraq.....

The real question is, is the life of the person who does not want to live under a radical islamic totalitarian state worth anything to YOU, MM?

Because remember, IF the Chinese communists did not invade from the north, the conflict would have ended.

And IF, the NVA and Viet Cong were ture to their word to allow a seperated Vietnam, the conflict would have ended.

And IF, the radical muslims currently using terrorism to kill innocent civilians decided to stop their evil and horrible tactics, the conflict would end.

So shut up, MM.....you are looking dumber with each and every post!

America bad!

Poor, MM.....I know it is frustrating to hear dissent but, afterall, why should you become so angry? The facts of demicide after 1975 in South Vietnam not fit with your fantasy of utopia under leftist totalitarianism? I asked a professor that once, and she claimed there was no killing, no retribution by the communists. There was no internet back then and I decided to remain quiet. No more. Primary sources are more available now than ever before and I use them. I do not rely of the synchophants of the left who have tenure and are too lazy to even question their wrong assumptions regarding history.

So, MM, please try again.....You shot, you missed.

"If Cee was president, he would wage war and kill millions to save a couple of people.

"Wonder if Jesus would agree."

###
Yup, a good one! That's me in a nutshell.

And no, Yeshuah would be concerned about your eternal soul....You know, that thing that doesn't exist according to many who attack me now....

Remember, I am a fundy flat-earther!

Where oh where is my partner in conspirisy, Sir Loin of Milquetoast....you know the Jews were responsible for 9/11 and "My Pet Goat" was all about W in fear of daddy finally pulling the trigger in the grand neocon scheme!

I am up to Bush's great children's book,

"My Pet Goat Likes To Eat MRE'S"

Doesn't seem to be, AAP....The funding will be approved through 2009 by the democrats and the large American force will remain through the election.

What happens after 1/2009 all depends on who is elected. All I know is that the left has not achieved their goal of withdrawing the troops and will not until after 2009. If Iraq continues to progress towards a stable democracy, the next President will have a nice decision to make and we may see some mea culpa from the left.

But that is not what I was promised in 11/06, AAP....The left said we would be out of Iraq by Spring 2008! Oh well, broken promises.

Nice to see your BUSHWIPE again....I hope you read my post where I mentioned you, dear AAP.

Get your ass kicked, claim victory AND call names.
Nice Christian man.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 16, 2007 8:44 PM

You shouldn't talk about slob that way, he won't be happy. You do read slob's posts, right?

cee is pretty hung up on "the Jews". I know he thinks he is parodying me, but he is far wide of the mark.

The sad thing is; if his fetish/president Bush were to suddenly shift gears and declare Israel a terrorist nation and call for its invasion, cee would be saying these things in all seriousness

All worth it, to the pathetic cee.All of this tragedy plus nothing was accomplished...just like in iraq.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 16, 2007 8:34 PM

Thanks patsy, just point your grubby finger and run and hide. Did you run out of "global warming" shit to cut and paste?

You shouldn't talk about slob that way, he won't be happy. You do read slob's posts, right?

Posted by: royalking at August 16, 2007 9:26 PM

I never claimed to be a Christian, Bumblefuck.

"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."

Posted by: cee at August 16, 2007 8:20 PM

...and Bob Kerry needs to face the fact that our cynical occupation is standing in the way of this "demand for self-government". The Iraqis know that the American motivation for being there is American hegemony and corporate loot. Why would they want to risk anything to help us?

Its simple: we get out - or even make some clear promises as to WHEN we intend to get out, and patriotic Iraqis (if any remain alive) will step up to the plate.

You really are getting as delusional as RK, Cee, our resident religious hypocrite.

Posted by: Why Do you care/patsy/anon at August 16, 2007 7:58 PM

This is a sure sign your making headway, cee. Congrats and cheers.....

The sad thing is; if his fetish/president Bush were to suddenly shift gears and declare Israel a terrorist nation and call for its invasion, cee would be saying these things in all seriousness

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 16, 2007 9:29 PM

Yes, Loin, but for Pres Bush, Cee would be the anti-neocon...

Prof Said with tanks...

"And IF, the NVA and Viet Cong were ture to their word to allow a seperated Vietnam, the conflict would have ended."

I'm curious, cee: just what was this "word" and when were the NVA anf the Viet Cong supposed to have given it? History, left and right, records an agreement reached in Genva following the French defeat at Diem Bien Phu in 1954 that there would be a temporary partition followed by a national election in July of 1956 to determine the form under which the country would be re-unified. Everyone present consented to and signed this agreement EXCEPT for the American delagation. July of 1956 rolled around and we had convinced the South to boycott the elections. The rest is one long, slow descent into a quagmire and eventual defeat.

So please tell me; what were these apparently secret promises made by the NVA and the VC?

Prof Said with tanks...

Posted by: Cecelia at August 16, 2007 9:42 PM

equating cee with Said? You are delusional.

equating cee with Said? You are delusional.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 16, 2007 9:50 PM

Said did accuse Israel of being terrorist, but when did you become so tone-deaf?

Get your ass kicked, claim victory AND call names.

Posted by: Why Do you care at August 16, 2007 8:44 PM

You shouldn't talk about slob that way.

Is that better slob? It's blatantly obvious you aren't a Christian. Sorry if I offended you, you humanitarian fun loving person, you.

A truly Christian man ! ( you think)

Your soul will burn in hell.

Posted by: Bob at August 16, 2007 10:03 PM

Is this going to be the case for all war supporters, Chucks, or is it just a doctrinal dispensation for Cee only?

Said did accuse Israel of being terrorist, but when did you become so tone-deaf?

Posted by: Cecelia at August 16, 2007 9:55 PM

Sorry Cecelia- your response was far more sophisticated than I gave it credit for. I'm getting a bit punchy.

Cecelia,

Do you know where cee is? I really want to get his secret info on the secret NVA/VC promises to let South Vietnam "secede".

But Puck, Laura, Brandon, Johnny BU$HWIPE, and the rest of the BU$HWIPES better get the suntan lotion.

Posted by: Average American Patriot at August 16, 2007 10:20 PM

AAP, I don't know whether to feel grateful or insulted...

Cecelia,

Do you know where cee is? I really want to get his secret info on the secret NVA/VC promises to let South Vietnam "secede".

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 16, 2007 10:26 PM

He's off discussing infanticide and world-wide nuclear destruction with Karl Rove. He'll pencil you in for later, I'm sure.

Cee: "try to get your facts from those who don't have an agenda for a change...............LOL!

Cee: "I read about history with an open mind"...................LOL!

Cee, the only way YOU would ever have an "open mind" would be by having brain surgery.

Get the picture ?
The name "American Thinker" is a cardboard store front for the Karl Rove's, Rush Limpballs discredited world view.

Posted by: Bob at August 16, 2007 11:55 PM

The American Thinker website is a great site for conservatives and for any nonconseervative who likes to read intelligent opposition. Brad Delong and Matthew Yglesias qualify as such on the left.

"Do you know where cee is? I really want to get his secret info on the secret NVA/VC promises to let South Vietnam 'secede'."

###
At the time, I was in bed blissfully dreaming of a world where W was unquestioned ruler of the world for life, THE DAILY SHOW was a ratings winner starring Paul Shanklin and you, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, were finally found at an anti-war protest chained to The White House's south lawn fence protesting the latest example of US hegemony.....San Francisco, CA.

No Loin, The leftists in North Vietnam never agreed to permanant partition. My post was regarding their agreement in 1972 to finally allow the Saigon government to exist while a cease fire and further negotiations could go on. The final accord would have allowed free elections for the people of South Vietnam, yet this was not allowed in the end.

The left in the US pulled support from The South Vietnamese government as Nixon's power faded due to Watergate and the results of the erosion of the leftist anti-war movement finally had its malignant effect on the will to support a struggling democracy. The ruling elite in Congress, the democrats, cut the legs out from under the democratic government in the south. The North Vietnamese and leftist terrorists, Viet Cong, correctly read the appeasement signals from the US Congress and took the offensive.

Not a just conclusion, Sir Loin of Milquetoast....The resultant demicide and leftist ideological rape of the minds of millions of people was wrong. You and the rest of the elitist left in America choose to ignore the results of the anti-war movement, but they are there. And I will continue to take inspiration from those who resisted the appeasement of totalitarianism in my continued fight against those who would allow despots to achieve their evil goals over the innocent people in Iraq.

See you on the TV at that rally in September, Sir Loin of Milquetoast? Get a good strong chain.....those pig cops will be ready to remove you from that fence!

And this is my post today, the 1,570th 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

Sheridan, to accept your argument (I have to prove the government would have succeeded?!?) is to never learn from history. You are better than that!

It would be like me saying that any moral question that I believe was incorrect in the past was actually of no consequence because I am told the facts of future events are untouchable by the decisions made today.

"Ideology" was all that was to those who protested the Vietnam War, Sheridan! The Ameircan left said the North Vietnamese were on the side of the angels. They even visited Hanoi and praised their system of doing things. The people, a small amount of people, who started the protests in the mid sixties when the war was supported by a large majorty of Americans, were communists, declared and open. So please do not be naive and think that history was already set in the 1950's and communism accepted by "all" of the South Vietnamese people. That is what leftist historians have written to make themselves feel better about demanding the abandonment of millions to death and re-education under leftist totalitarianism.

Please tell me, scientifically, how could ANYONE know what millions of people wanted when they were looking at the barrel of the communist's gun!

Please note that the growth of protests were not from the grass roots...it was on University campuses and from other leftist sources. The biased media presents the coordinated efforts of the radical left as somekind of "awakening." No, it was a political strategy of an ideological cabal.

Just like I can be critical of FDR's behavior regarding allowing the leftist tyrrant Stalin control over half of the European continent (and Churchill was also critical!), a moral decision that cost the freedom of millions. Moral judgement can be questioned, Sheridan, just like you question the moral judgement of W, I question the moral judgement of people who allow bullies and thugs power over weaker people.

The NVA and Viet Cong were terrorist thugs, ideologoically wrong because they believed in totalitarianism as a moral form of government. Democracy was at stake and the American left chose totalitarianism.

The militant, radical islamists in the forms of AL QAEDA and extremist Shia/Sunni insurgents are terrorist thugs, ideologically wrong because they believe in totalitarianism as a moral form of government. Democracy is at stake in Iraq and the American left is once again chosing totalitarianism.

Support for war goes beyond the 30 day waiting period on a credit card, Sheridan. This country would not win the Civil War now because of the attitude of the people towards just/moral armed conflict. And the left has taken advantage of the casual attitude people have towards just/moral armed conflict and assigned short term results to success of defeating an immoral ideology.

Vietnam was the first instance.....Iraq is now the second....and if democracy is abandoned in Iraq, I do not think there will be a thrid because the ENTIRE American poltical class in this country will cower at defending right because of the potential politicial price now demanded by a growing AMORAL populace....even when our own democracy will be threatened.

It will be the ultimate downfall of freedom and democracy...and the goal of the radical left who does not actually support real democracy....As shown in their support of the socialist tyrants of the 20th century.

Power is a funny thing....benevolent dictators who "know" what is right for their people have always done this through-out history and American leftist ideology is so dangerously like such thinking. I blindly support representative democracy and open markets as blindly supported by our founding fathers. Any people we can help to achieve the best system of governance is a good and moral endeavor. Now that Saddam is gone and there is a vacuum of power in Iraq, The United States and every moral citizen should support any measure to get the Iraqi security force strong enough to stand on its own and defend the elected government.

People can choose to be amoral...."Who am I to EVER say what is right and wrong for others." But guess what, freedom, when this attitude is applied, will vanish eventually. Those who supported and fought the worst armed conflict in American history, The Civil War, continued despite horrible errors and carnage and an initial failed policy BECAUSE the armed conflict remained the right thing to do. Freedom for all people, no matter their race or creed, should be defended. Choose a side.

Oh mental midget (Why), deep moral thought is beyond your abilities....I pity you. Let me know if I can help.

poor MM.....

Pinch [Sulzberger] was a political activist in the Sixties, and was twice arrested in anti-Vietnam protests. One day, the elder Sulzberger asked his son what Pinch calls, "the dumbest question I've ever heard in my life." If an American soldier runs into a North Vietnamese soldier, which would you like to see get shot? Young Arthur answered, "I would want to see the American get shot. It's the other guy's country."

Jane Fonda's testimony to The US House of Representatives in 9/72:

"This is Jane Fonda. During my two week visit in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, I've had the opportunity to visit a great many places and speak to a large number of people from all walks of life--workers, peasants, students, artists and dancers, historians, journalists, film actresses, soldiers, militia girls, members of the women's union, writers.

"I visited the (Dam Xuac) agricultural coop, where the silk worms are also raised and thread is made. I visited a textile factory, a kindergarten in Hanoi. The beautiful Temple of Literature was where I saw traditional dances and heard songs of resistance. I also saw unforgettable ballet about the guerrillas training bees in the south to attack enemy soldiers. The bees were danced by women, and they did their job well.

"In the shadow of the Temple of Literature I saw Vietnamese actors and actresses perform the second act of Arthur Miller's play All My Sons, and this was very moving to me--the fact that artists here are translating and performing American plays while US imperialists are bombing their country.

"I cherish the memory of the blushing militia girls on the roof of their factory, encouraging one of their sisters as she sang a song praising the blue sky of Vietnam--these women, who are so gentle and poetic, whose voices are so beautiful, but who, when American planes are bombing their city, become such good fighters.

"I cherish the way a farmer evacuated from Hanoi, without hesitation, offered me, an American, their best individual bomb shelter while US bombs fell near by. The daughter and I, in fact, shared the shelter wrapped in each others arms, cheek against cheek. It was on the road back from Nam Dinh, where I had witnessed the systematic destruction of civilian targets-schools, hospitals, pagodas, the factories, houses, and the dike system.

"As I left the United States two weeks ago, Nixon was again telling the American people that he was winding down the war, but in the rubble-strewn streets of Nam Dinh, his words echoed with sinister (words indistinct) of a true killer. And like the young Vietnamese woman I held in my arms clinging to me tightly--and I pressed my cheek against hers--I thought, this is a war against Vietnam perhaps, but the tragedy is America's.

"One thing that I have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt since I've been in this country is that Nixon will never be able to break the spirit of these people; he'll never be able to turn Vietnam, north and south, into a neo-colony of the United States by bombing, by invading, by attacking in any way. One has only to go into the countryside and listen to the peasants describe the lives they led before the revolution to understand why every bomb that is dropped only strengthens their determination to resist.

"I've spoken to many peasants who talked about the days when their parents had to sell themselves to landlords as virtually slaves, when there were very few schools and much illiteracy, inadequate medical care, when they were not masters of their own lives.

"But now, despite the bombs, despite the crimes being created--being committed against them by Richard Nixon, these people own their own land, build their own schools--the children learning, literacy--illiteracy is being wiped out, there is no more prostitution as there was during the time when this was a French colony. In other words, the people have taken power into their own hands, and they are controlling their own lives.

"And after 4,000 years of struggling against nature and foreign invaders--and the last 25 years, prior to the revolution, of struggling against French colonialism--I don't think that the people of Vietnam are about to compromise in any way, shape or form about the freedom and independence of their country, and I think Richard Nixon would do well to read Vietnamese history, particularly their poetry, and particularly the poetry written by Ho Chi Minh."

###
Just in case you missed the most telling part of the American left's poisonous ideology, MM:

" {...] while US imperialists are bombing their country."

Ah the boogeyman of US hegemony....."US Bad, radical islamists Good!"

Oh, mm....you are too easy!

Oh, I forgot to point out another Fonda claim of good versus evil (angels/devils).....

"[Nixon's] words echoed with sinister (words indistinct) of a true killer,"

###
Please, MM, give me more to shoot down.

Oh, and MM....the left continues to be wrong today about totalitarianism.....

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): "I Am Convinced That Military Action Will Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism Against The United States."

Al Sharpton (D-NY) Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are Evidence That "America Is Beginning To Reap What It Has Sown."

Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) Suggested "Interesting Theory" That President Knew 9/11 Attacks Were Coming And Didn't Stop It. CALLER: "[O]nce we get you in the White House, would you please make sure that there is a thorough investigation of 9/11, and not stonewall it?" DEAN: "Yes. There is a report, which the president is suppressing evidence for, which is a thorough investigation of 9/11." NPR'S DIANE REHM: "Why do you think he's suppressing that report?" DEAN: "I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far--which is nothing more than a theory, I can't think ? it can't be proved ? is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not. And eventually they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the clear ? the key information that needs to go to the Kean commission."

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) Suggested Bush Administration Had Prior Knowledge Of Attacks, But Wanted Defense Contractor Friends To Profit From Ensuing War. "Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them. She added that 'persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war.' In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: 'We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. ... What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? ... What do they have to hide?'"

###
She sounds like Sir Loin of Milquetoast!

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "'The Time For Peace Is Now,' [Kucinich] Declared Optimistically July 11, Two Months To The Day Before Terrorists Hit The Pentagon And The World Trade Center. ... Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.

"Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn't Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan ..."

Soros Said War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than 9/11 Attack Itself. "This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself."

In 2003, Michael Moore said, "Three thousand Americans were killed. There's 290 million Americans, all right? The chance of--of any of us dying in a terrorist incident is very, very, very small.

"Likewise, to bomb Afghanistan ? I mean, I've never understood this,

"We abhor terrorism ? unless we're the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me....Let's mourn, let's grieve, and when it's appropriate let's examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in."

###
Oh yeah, MM....these types will do the US good in foreign policy and national security.

Please.

Liberalism is THE failed idealogy across the board. Look at any big city where liberalism dominates the populous. New Orleans is a prime example, crime, welfare, abortion are all off the charts. Get real, mr. "I'll stick with the facts."

Horrible examples, philby. Have you been to SF lately? You can't walk anywhere w/out stepping in human feces or urine and those cooks won't do anything about it. Prostitution is out of control, drugs are out of control, aids is out of control, crime, etc. Is Detroit in the deep south? New Jersey? Cleveland? No, they are not. You are failing, philby.

"Great website for intelligent opposition",
says Cecelia.
Right."

Cecelia's point was not that you will find agreement with your views; but that you will instead find thoughtful attempts to explain the conservative viewpoint. Meaning if you are ever thinking, as a liberal, "what are these so these people beleive what the beleive" this site explains it best.

that is "why do these people believe what they believe" I will endeavor to proof read my writing a little more closely.

Cee,

I am going to go through and respond to each point you have made individually I strongly disagree with what you wrote and will tell you why but I want you to know I feel like this was one of your best explained post and I feel like I have come closer to understanding your viewpoint than I have before.

"It would be like me saying that any moral question that I believe was incorrect in the past was actually of no consequence because I am told the facts of future events are untouchable by the decisions made today."

Your point is taken, but I would like you to honestly see if you can see the other side, even if you disagree with it. In my reading of your post I am seeing a belief that an evil occurred. That one side of the equation (in your viewpoint) was too cowardly to fight to protect the Vietnamese from tyranny. Your view is, that "appeasement" was evil,

I would agree if I honesty thought that was all there was to the equation, but I believe there is more to it than ideology.

Many who were opposed to Vietnam (and by the end there were plenty on the right as well) believed, honestly, that after 17 years Vietnam was not going to be fixed. That the Vietnamese people and the American solider were going to suffer more by prolonging the war. Now keep in mind I am not asking you to agree with this assessment. I am asking you to see if you can at the least understand why someone would come to that conclusion, rationally. Come to that conclusion after watching 17 years of Democracy not succeeding. After watching friends and loves one dying; after seeing images of little kids that had been napalmed in war; after billions of dollars; after a coup and three governments in the south? I mean honestly even if you completely disagree with that assessment of the war can't you see how someone would, given that information, come to the conclusion that the war was not a good thing? Again I am not asking you to agree with any of this thinking just try to understand how someone could get there.

When I look at your viewpoint, I think it is fine if you think, that despite all the reported wrongs of the south Vietnamese government it would have been a better alternative than the north. I think it is fine if you think that napalmed children was an evil thing, but an accident of war that occurred in the course of trying to protect those same children from some Stalinistic nightmare. I think it is fine if you think that despite all the suffering of everyone involved in the war, that the result of ending it would be greater suffering. I don't agree with that view of reality, but I do understand how you could get there, and I think it is not by some evil desire to prologue war and put as many solders in body bags as you could. I ask you to do the same to the other viewpoint and not look at it as some pure ideology. Because most of us (like you hopefully) are trying to do what we think is good in the world. I believe ending Vietnam when we did was a good thing that limited the evil of suffering the Vietnamese people endured. You believe it was a bad thing that increased the evil of suffering the Vietnamese endured. I think it wrong to say that either of us are evil for coming to the conclusion we have. There is data enough for either side, it is a matter of interpretation.

"Please tell me, scientifically, how could ANYONE know what millions of people wanted when they were looking at the barrel of the communist's gun!"

I think you have come to the conclusion that I think the majority of the South really though communism was some sort of utopia. I don't believe that at all. I do think that many in the south thought there own government was so corrupt an inefficient that they were willing to give communism a try.

"Just like I can be critical of FDR's behavior regarding allowing the leftist tyrrant Stalin control over half of the European continent (and Churchill was also critical!), a moral decision that cost the freedom of millions. Moral judgement can be questioned, Sheridan, just like you question the moral judgement of W, I question the moral judgement of people who allow bullies and thugs power over weaker people."

I don't disagree you can question moral judgermrnt. I think it is unfair to do it so broadly. For instance if someone believes Cheny and Bush have started this war to show everyone how tough they are, that is a moral critique of individuals. right or wrong I think it is fair to do such a thing. I think it would be unfair if the same person making that critique extended it to the entire Right as I think there are compelling reasons for being for the Iraq war. Ultimately I have rejected most of them myself but that does not mean that If I think a small group of individuals have started war for a set of reasons that everyone who supports it is guilty of the same reasoning. Also you may remember that Nixon was quoted as saying that he didn’t give a shit about civilian casualties. Now, Nixon was certainly on the right. However, I don’t think it is fair to say that you or most of the right who supported the war shared that viewpoint. I assume your reasons were better than Nixon.

"The NVA and Viet Cong were terrorist thugs, ideologically wrong because they believed in totalitarianism as a moral form of government. Democracy was at stake and the American left chose totalitarianism."

Well, I agree that the Vietcong were not good people. I don't think democracy was at stake however. The south Vietnamese government was repressive and corrupt and saying the left chose totalitarism is incorrect and is no different than saying the right has chosen fascism and militarism by supporting the Iraq war.

"The militant, radical islamists in the forms of AL QAEDA and extremist Shia/Sunni insurgents are terrorist thugs, ideologically wrong because they believe in totalitarianism as a moral form of government. Democracy is at stake in Iraq and the American left is once again chosing totalitarianism."

Again I strongly disagree with this assessment as the equivalent of saying the American right, in a grab to expand its empire, are choosing fascism and militarism by conquering Iraq. I assume your support of the war is not due to your love militarism. I can assure you my opposition to the war is not due to a love of totalitarism.

In fact, Ask any democrat if they think Al Qaeda is made up of a bunch of good people and the answer you will get is "no." that is not the debate even if you try to frame it that way. The disagreement is, to what degree is Al Qaeda the problem in Iraq and to what degree can we solve that problem? Another point of disagreement is whether or not a sectarian conflict can be prevented? Look both sides get involved in this. Go to a left wing site and you will see Solders caskets and a message that the right believes in letting our troops die for an insane cause. Go to a right wing site and you will get some argument about how the left wants to let al Qaeda run the world. Both are bulllshit arguments that destroy legitimate debate for those trying to figurine out what actually is reality..

"Choose a side."

I just don't believe there are only two.

Cecelia's point was not that you will find agreement with your views; but that you will instead find thoughtful attempts to explain the conservative viewpoint. Meaning if you are ever thinking, as a liberal, "what are these so these people beleive what the beleive" this site explains it best.

Posted by: craigs at August 18, 2007 11:26 PM

Exactly. Thank you, Major.

(Good to see you!)

And, many thanks for interpeting Cecelia for us. After about 10:00 in the morning, well, you know .... Sort of rhymes with "black sandals".

Posted by: Quack Handles at August 18, 2007 11:37 PM

Thank you Sheriden for a thoughtful reply. I agree with you that not everyone who protested the war was totally invested in the left's ideology, many just "wanted it to end." My qualifier in my post regarding an American public quick to change their minds regarding just armed conflict applies here.

However correct and whatever the numbers of fence sitters, my argument still is that there is a large group of radical leftist ideologues in this country who automatically think that any use of US military force is automatically motivated by imperialistic impulse, a need to feed a greedy MIC and/or due to a primitive "tough-guy" impulse (cowboy mentality, etc).

The selfish political moves of either pole despite the consequences on populations of people, our own security, our future, is wrong. I even believe that as the idea of the radical left continues to become more accepted in the political psyche of the timid ruling class, incorrect assumptions and wrong decisions will become even more frequent and devastating.

I just despise the Pontius Pilate attitude of sactimonious elites in academia and in the media....washing their hands of the results of actions that had consequences. I still firmly believe that there was a sea change in The United States in the late sixties that now leaves many morally conflicted in their enjoyment of the democracy and wealth in this country while billions live under regimes based on failed systems. When certain posters go down the road of prideful sanctimony regarding purity in opposition to a war that, I still believe, is a just and a moral defense of freedom and democracy here and in Iraq, I whince at their ignoring the plain truth that all war is fundementally based on the protection of status of a people.

The Iraq regime, prior to 2003, was in violation of specific UN decrees that had military consequences attached. Legally, there was sufficient cause to remove the regime and the reaction of radicals within Iraq and outside Iraq must now be faced using the same paradigm....they represent despotism, hatred for human rights and are evil....they are in violation of the UN mandate that protects human dignity and freedom. The forces in opposition to the elected government of Iraq and it allies use terrorism, target civlians based on their minority religious views and/or have support from sources outside Iraq that are intent on the destruction of representative democracy around the world.

There are usually only 2 sides to pick when something comes down to such a violent act as war and when the difficult decision comes there are consequences to the choice.

The Civil War, in its first year, was a horrific failure for the union. There were still two powerful sides, with one side only wanting to be left to govern itself as they thought right, but those who wanted to maintain the union decided to impose it with military means. Many thought the fight was only about keeping the union, many saw it as a much higher moral fight to free the slaves. I believe that the stronger moral impulse to free the slaves kept the fight going on the union side in the face of military incompetence, thousands dead and even signs that foreign countries would come in on the side of the opposition. This strong moral impulse is disappearing in our country as results are the only thing of concern to the average American. With that sad state of affairs, those who maintain strong moral constructs, on either end of the spectrum, are even more powerful in influencing the policies of a powerful country. I fear that the wayward American left is on a course of destruction for the high moral callling that is democracy and justice for all.

The drive of ideology and automatic cynicism towards our own motives is what disturbs me about the left, craigs. The experience in Vietnam is complicated, but basic to the problem is ideology. The communist north was santized by the representatives of the left in The United States. I repeat, this is why the opposition started and was so powerful on college campuses and not a grass-roots revolt from the kitchen tables of America. Ivory tower elites in academia with radical leftist ideology (communists/socialists), whitewashed the despots of the north. Look at Loin's quoting of Minh speaking Thomas Jefferson's words from the Declaration of Independence to see this example! The media tells us that it was a grass-roots opposition from average Americans because they saw the carnage in TV. Again, a whitewash of history. Even as late as 1972, the main protests were driven and organized on college campuses by organizations including communists. Ideology shifts in the left, and the growing exceptance of such radical ideology by the ruling class, was the sea change that I speak of.

I appreciate your openess to my point of view, craigs, and although I know we disagree, your measured and respectful post has humbled me. Your ideas, respectfully presented, have provoked an examination of my notions and I appreciate that.

Actually the world began with God. Jesus was the son of God. Not that I'd expect you athesists to understand that.

Shows how much you know about Christianity there Clucker. But I bet you're all up on your Paganism aren't you?

Must be one of those Reagan Christians - go to Church when the cameras are there.

Posted by: Clucker at August 19, 2007 10:13 AM

You mean clinton, right? He was the one that toted his bible around for the cameras with the cover he had made for it with the extra large letters with Bible on the front. I'm sure you have wiped this from memory, though.

Clinton just used his Bible as a pillow for his latest conquest, he didn't actually READ it.

I honestly encourage the clear thinkers here to spend some time at the average liberal website and see the hatred and contempt they have for Christians. They blame them for their losses in the last two elections and therefore they are, to them, agents of Satan. Some of the comments made about Christians are truly unbelievable. But it gives you a very good insight into the mindset of these people.

I wonder if BJ was reading his bible while the pillsbury dough girl was doin' him.

I believe he would have made a good evangalist in the Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker vein. They all have much in common.

IT'S SUNDAY, WHERE IS THAT STUPID F* CEE?

###
craigs was respectful and kind, hence my reply.

What I have been doing since my reply to craigs is none of your business.

I will deal with you later. Briefly, Clucker is right.....Jesus Christ (I AM) was present at creation with The Father (I AM) and before. Christ identifies Himself "I AM" just as The Father did when He spoke to Moses. He was almost stoned by the Jewish authorities for this act of blasphemy much prior to His eventual punishment at the hands of the Romans.

"I AM" is written "THE LORD" in enlglish translations of the Hebrew scritpures.... or "Jehovah."

Read the first chapter of John;s gospel if you would like an explaination.