Not a word from orinenglish...her head must be exploding with thoughts of Beefy-Keify & the 23-year-old "journalism" charity case gettin' it on in the new marbled Trump Condo lovenest. At least Mr. Tur is happy, his daughter has a nice place to live, while he fights utube. Maybe when he's completely broke, he can live with them, that won't be tooooo weird.

Moron parnoid demonmutt wipe$

The BungHole actually posted Gail Shitters' article & link to TVnewser, errors & all. Its like some ugly circle jerk of self promotion, yuck....

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/22/328693.aspx

But here's a great comment from a Keith lover...seems her one night stand worked out a little better than Keith's:

"Lots of one time things become permanent. That's how I got my boyfriend. I expect Keith will be equally fabulous.
jen,il (Sent Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:31 PM)

Hey clear-thinkers....

Did you hear about how Katy's Dad is going to live with her and Keith in their new place?

I read about it here:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/08/the_olbyloons_o.php#comments

Isn't that weird?

Not surprising coming from Keith. He's such a perv.

Thanks for exposing Keith and his loons!

Too bad things didn't work out quite so well for Keith's little one-night stand, Karma and the no-doubt countless other fans he lured into his bed and then kicked out. The Olbylunatics also tried to deny her existence too just like they did his purchase of this multi-million apartment. They also tried to weave a fantasy in which Keith wasn't really living with a 22-year old girl but was just showing her around town as a favor to her Dad. And to this day I don't think they have ever admitted they were wrong about any of it. Like Keith, they seem to have issues with the truth.

Once Olbermann stops lying on a daily basis, I'll be glad to.

P.S., this site still gets more hits per day than all the other Olbyloon sites do combined. Eat it bitch!

"p.s., this site still gets more hits per day than all the other Olbyloon sites combined. Eat it bitch!"

That's like bragging about having the newest used car on your block.

That's right. The Olbyloons are fact-challenged. That's why even when confronted with evidence of Olbermann's repeated lying even about the most simple of details they still insist he's a truth-seeker. It's just sad really.

"it's just sad really."

I know....it's very sad that the public loves practicing voyerism into the private lives of celebrities more than they like keeping an eye on what their own government is doing.

In some ways, this site is a microcosm of that reality!

Mike,

You love this site. You are here more than just about anybody else.

It's sadder still that the Left are so eager to label those "truthtellers" who are pathological liars. And it's just pathetic that the loons like Mike insist on turning every single discussion into one about Iraq, particuarly when faced with overwhelming evidence of Olbermann's habitual deceit.

"And it's just pathetic that the loons like Mike insist on turning every single discussion into one about Iraq, particualarly when faced with overwhelming evidence of Olbermann's habitual deceit."

You go a point there. I mean why worry about silly things like a controversial war when we can gossip about the "habitual deceit" and personal life of a TV commentator who happens to be controversial mostly because of his stand against.....the war?

Anti-name,

The most important similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that the Left wanted to lose in Vietnam, starting around 1968, and has wanted to lose in Iraq almost since the start. Vietnam was the first war where the Left defeated their own country and they are trying to do it again.

Rico, do you REALLY believe that bulls#*t??

We are winning all the battles, just like we did in Vietnam. The media is just making it look like we are losing, just like they did in Vietnam.

"We are winning all the battles, just like we did in Vietnam. The media is just making it look like we are losing, just like they did in Vietnam."

When confronted with this kind of ignorance, what can you do but shake your head and sigh?

Mike,

I mean what I say. The Left wants their own side to lose. They are fucked up in the head. They are fighting their war, against Republicans, conservatives, and Christians every minute of every day, 365 days a year.

If you ever wanted the mission in Iraq to succeed, then say so.

Anti-name,

You said:

Vietnam was lost because there was no direct threat against the United States.

Nonsense. You win a war by winning it. Half of the wars in history have been won by the "bad guys". Nobody ever lost a war because the people they were fighting against did not constitute a "direct threat". Your assertion is not only nonsense, it is a vapid inanity.

Rico:

I mean what I say: ALl I can say to that Rico is; a mind is a terrible thing to waste!

"The left wants their own side to lose": I still don't have a clue what you mean by 'lose' when referenced to Iraq's Civil War? Contrary to your simplistic and ridiculous asserion, the left wants to save American lives and treasure, as well as the slow depletion and degradation of our military.

"They are fucked up in the head": I'll bet you STILL think invading and occupying a country that did not threaten or attack us for contrived reasons was a good idea, don't you?....And yet you have the nerve to call OUR side "fucked up in the head"!

"If you ever wanted the mission in Iraq to succeed, then say so": I hoped against hope that following what I personally thought was a monumentaly stupid decision to invade, it would work somehow. Early signs were actually encouraging. I became disallusioned when it became clear that it was a mission of occupation, and not just our stated goal of getting rid of Saddam. It became obvious we were in big trouble when the Abu Gharab story broke, because it meant we had lost the hearts and minds of the people, ... which was ALWAYS the ONLY way you will ever 'WIN' a conflict like this.

"You win a war by winning it"

Does that comment even make sense to YOU Rico?

Is that like saying 'you drive a car by driving it'?

Or how about 'you win a race by winning it'?

WTF!

Early signs were actually encouraging. I became disallusioned when it became clear that it was a mission of occupation, and not just our stated goal of getting rid of Saddam.
(Mike)

I was completely unaware of this act until now. I don't have the full document. Here is the link:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:vzal18EFv5sJ:www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm+Public+Law:+105-338+(10/31/98)&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Oct 31, 98:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.
Signed by President.

Grammie,

If you are online casually observing, what do you remember about the public reaction to the above law? When I started staying home in 2000, I started to take an active interest in politics. I don't remember anything about the law, just a general impression that Saddam was still causing trouble.

It had been the official policy of the US government to try to assist in the overthrowing Saddam covertly since Desert Storm. Bush 41 openly talked of his hopes the Shia and Kurds would rise up and overthrow Saddam. It almost happened after that war by all appearances.

Law 105-338 was not an endorsement of a direct Military invasion.

Since Bush 41 so openly cheered for a Saddam overthrow at that time, I have always wondered what the aftermath would have been like without our help? .... Especially since some of us are so cocksure certain that they desperately need our continued help now.

It certainly was a strong statement:

it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

I can't believe how you are downplaying that policy, considering all of the talk here. I won't even bother quoting. Bush put into action a bipartisan ideal. That is why the vote was yes, to authorize war. Ron Paul is on the congressional record as opposing.

Mike,

Abu Ghraib was nothing trumped up by the leftest news media to help us lose. Yes, a few people had to do naked pyramids. So fucking what? You had better see how many GI's during WWII were hanged by Uncle Sam for war crimes. It wasn't for making anybody do naked pyramids. But it wasn't paraded about in the newspapers. The media was on the side of their country in those days.

The left does want to lose this war, and they are doing all they can to make sure that happens. For some reason you have taken leave of your senses, and joined their side. The left already has their mortal enemy, and it is all of those on the right. The war on terror is just another playing field in which the leftists can fight the right. And they are doing so very effectively.

Anti-name asserted that you lose a war if your reason for being in the war is other than that the other side was a "direct threath". THis is nonsense. Alexander, Napoleon, and a lot of others have won a lot of wars against people who were no "direct threat" to them.

The war in Iraq was not started for any "contrived reasons". Saddam was the WMD, and he sought, and used WMDs in the past. But that wasn't the only reason for the invasion. You pretend that it was.

Bush, Rummie, and the crew have been pussyfooting around in Iraq since the beginning. The surge should have been the SOP from the very beginning. Bush fucked it up. But I still want my own side to win. I don't think you do.

I tried to look up that property information at ACRIS, got no results.

Sharon: "I cen't believe how you are downpaying that policy".

Read the last paragraph in law 105-338.... It reads:

"SEC. 8, RULE OF CONSTRUCTION"

"Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in Section 4 (a) (2) in carrying out this act"

As I said Sharon, Law 105-338 was NOT an endorsement of a direct military invasion of Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------
Sharon: "Bush put into action a bipartisan ideal"

Once again, it had been more or less official US policy to COVERTLY attempt to dethrown Saddam ever since the first Gulf War. There was nothing intrinsically new about this general policy, and that is why id didn't receive that much attention.
------------------------------------------------
Sharon: "That is why the vote was yes, to authorize war"

Wrong. It had little to nothing to do with it. The vote was to give Bush the authorization AS A LAST RESORT. Some in Congress actually believed Bush was responsible enough to use it as leverage in forcing Saddam to fall in line. They were fooled. Senator Russ Feingold is on record as stating that Congress would live to rue the day they gave THIS president Congresional authority to wage war. How right he was!
-------------------------------------------------
"Sharon: "Ron Paul is on the congressional record as opposing"

Yes he is. So why isn't he leading in the Republican race....instead of hopelessly trailing?
-------------------------------------------------
Sharon, you readily admit that you weren't paying attention to any of this at the time...yet you come on this blog and make such strong statements about things you are just now finding out about. It is difficult if not impossible to gain proper perspective about such things by reading about them later....just as with Cee's revisionist history of the Vietnam War, that he fervently believes nonetheless.

What did you think about Dick Cheney's highly rational justification for NOT invading Iraq in 1992 following Desert Storm? That statement is nothing new but it was widely circulated in the media just last week. Why did he display so much more rationality then than he does now?

Good night!

Rico: "Abu Gharab was nothing trumped up by the leftist news media to help us lose."

First off, it wasn't "trumped up". It was very real and some of it was caught on film. I understand the worst photos were never even published in the media.

Second, the rumors and stories about what was going on there were already rampant within Iraq long before the story broke. As far as they were concerned, It confirmed within the Muslem world their false preconceived notion that we were no more humane than Saddam himself. We were seen as international hypocrites...and yes, Rico, it WAS a major turning point in this war.

Your thinking is SO convoluted that it is obvious that you are never going to get over your patently FALSE worldview that everything 'bad' is the fault of the so called "Leftist Media. In that regard, you are every bit as much of a conspiracy theory nut as the 911 conspiratists are.

As for the remainder of your 2:37 post Rico, the depth of your delusionment concerning THIS war, AND others is disturbing, to say the least. It would take three pages of text to debunk all the false premises you alluded to, ... but trust me, they are all false.

Also Rico, you keep right on trumpeting the ridiculously simplistic and stupid "you want us to lose" O'Reilly type arguments. However, I find it revealing that you actually fall for such absurd right wing baiting.

Good night!

Mike had bough hook line and sinker the new revisionist hiostory stance of the backpedalling democrats that VOTED for the use of force...

According to Mike- "The democrats thought Bush would use force as a last resort" Its dribble. Just trying to reframe the moment 6 years later.

Nice try Rico, but Mike and others like him who see the actions of Bush as only naked aggression and American imperialism will never see reality any other way. It is an ideological problem of such a great nature that their reality is perverted. When a citizen can no longer recognize an enemy of their country's own core values (freedom of thought, freedom of religion) and replaces the true enemy with one only based on domestic political differences, reasoning is impossible.

And it will continue because the "leaders" the left is promoting also suffer from this poison. No one of national reputation I can think of on "their side" (other than Joe Lieberman and Bob Kerrey) has been able to put aside selfish partisan power protection in order to objectively evaluate the situation in Iraq. It is now only a matter of winning domestic positions of power in '08 and '10 while manufacturing protections against any responsible policy that could have the public think the Democratic party has any blame coming regarding Iraq. That is why the Democrats poll on the "issue" of Iraq and are all over the place in their take on it.....They are also not willing to take any political risk in implementing their fringe's demands BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT IS THE MORALLY WRONG THING TO DO AND WILL RESULT IN HORRIFIC RESULTS FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE...

Let me remind the posters here that the far left has called for IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWL....no troops in Iraq by Spring '08 at a minimum....This policy is morally bankrupt and no decent person should support it.

This is why in September and through the remainder of '07, Bush will continue to get what he wants from the Democrat Party controlled Congress and the war will continue to be fully funded.

The political garbage coming from people like Mike is just what muddied the moral compass during the mid and later parts of The Vietnam War. After George Bush, we will see if the leader of the free world chosen by our country embraces the pathetic and morally bankrupt pardigm of the American left fringe. God help us over the next 50 years as once again, those who embrace totalitarianism are once again appeased by The Democrats and those Republicans poltically weak enough to only think of their own personal polticial lives. Worldwide freedom of thought and religion will once again diminish like it did through the democrat's rule in the 1970's and this time the endorcement of radical islam's tactics of terrorism by the American left will also result in a lot more death. The lessons of history are rarely learned and the power the left blindly thirsts for is a strong motivation to leave the rational and moral behind.

Pukes Mike Lussy:

"As for the remainder of your 2:37 post Rico, the depth of your delusionment concerning THIS war, AND others is disturbing, to say the least. It would take three pages of text to debunk all the false premises you alluded to, ... but trust me, they are all false."

END QUOTE

Trust a liberal biased asshole like you. I'd rather be handcuffed in the backseat of a Ford Fairlane owned by Ted Kennedy at 4 a.m. at the Sea Mist Lounge that can only be accessed by a rickety old wooden bridge.

Mike The Lussy Pisses and moans:

"Also Rico, you keep right on trumpeting the ridiculously simplistic and stupid "you want us to lose" O'Reilly type arguments. However, I find it revealing that you actually fall for such absurd right wing baiting."

END QUOTE

You can tell how Simple Fucking Simon people like Mike Lussy and liberal politicians that blame Fox News or O'Reilly. It gives real credibilty to their criticizm of George Bush.

Mike Lussy, I don't find it 'REVEALING" that some loser asshole like you would not support our President or our country. YEah, I know, you support the troops.

I haven't read your obituaries yet in thenews paper so I assume it's safe to assume you never did attend a soldiers funeral that dies in Iraq and shot your big whooping mouth off how his death was for nothing.

You are just a chicken shit, whiney-assed liberal who is right at home snuggled up in the cracks of Mike Moore or Rosie or swinging off Olbyfucks nuts like a monkey on a set of monkey bars.

Mike Lussy Lucy:

"I understand the worst photos were never even published in the media."

END QUOTE

Got any proof? Where did you get that from, Olbyfuck or did it get stuck in your teeth while you were grazing in Mike Moore's ass?

Lucy reports:

"Second, the rumors and stories about what was going on there were already rampant within Iraq long before the story broke. As far as they were concerned, It confirmed within the Muslem world their false preconceived notion that we were no more humane than Saddam himself. We were seen as international hypocrites...and yes, Rico, it WAS a major turning point in this war."

Once again any proof? The fact is it was under a stupid bitch that was promoted up the chain of command without being qualified and we got hit in the ass because of her incompetency. I'm sure the freak astronaught had prenty of signs she was a fruit cake in her record and yet she was a shuttle astronaught. You are a liberal puke Lussy Lucy. You want to place the blame on others. YOu are fucking stupid to even compare what happened there to what Sadam did. It's a shame you weren't witness tot he entier families that were thrown off 6 story building while bound one at a time.

Lussy Lucy concludes:

"Your thinking is SO convoluted that it is obvious that you are never going to get over your patently FALSE worldview that everything 'bad' is the fault of the so called "Leftist Media. In that regard, you are every bit as much of a conspiracy theory nut as the 911 conspiratists are."

END QUOTE

Look, Lussy Lucy, you are insane. I know it's tough when you can;t afford a joint and have to rsort to sniffing paint out of a bag, trouble witht he wifey, can't get it up, living from pay check to pay check, but complaing about criticizm of the media compared to what you liberal fucks are doing to George Bush is evidence you are Alice living in Wonderland, a 6' x 6' box of sand. If you keep shooting your mouth, George Bush and I will come by and after I kick sand in your face George will piss on your head to wash it off.

So Bush, in his press conference last week, cited Graham Greene's Vietnam novel "The Quiet American" as an anolgy of the US occupation of Iraq? This may be the most perceptive allusion he has ever made; although he obviously has never read the book.

Aden Pyle, the proto-neocon featured in Pyle's book, perpetrates a terrorist car-bombing in Saigon - killing many civilians - in order to discredit the Viet Minh and promote the artificial division of Vietnam. This sure sounds like us in Iraq to me.

Bush, in his press conference, also cited the disasters experienced by Vietnamese "boat people" who fled the communist government following our retreat.

If he really had any concern for the safety of refugees, then perhaps his government would have let more than 450 of the the estimated 2 million Iraqi refugees enter our country. That's all we've let in, folks. These people who's well-being you all now claim was the reason for our invasion - we've only accepted 450 into our country.

The rest must remain in Syria, Jordan, etc., further destabilizing the entire region.

Your fetish/president makes no sense; except to war-profiteers who laugh sarcastically at human misery.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Liberals read more books than conservatives. The head of the book publishing industry's trade group says she knows why — and there's little flattering about conservative readers in her explanation.
"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,"' Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."..."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-21-publishing-chief_N.htm

Why (do you post) spewed: "Most of his (Michael Moore) films are national treasures"

National treasures? Which nation are you referring to?

Ari Fleischer on Hardball, when asked about Bush's avoidance of the issue of national sacrifice:

"everytime one of them (US Soldiers) dies, we all sacrifice".

What a fucking vampire! Poor, poor Ari; loosing 4000 of his closest friends!

These people are miserable elitists who will throw your children away or burn their limbs off for their own personal gain, and pretend that its they who are sacrificing!

Sharon, you readily admit that you weren't paying attention to any of this at the time...yet you come on this blog and make such strong statements about things you are just now finding out about.

That is just another example of why you don't know how to engage in a debate. College age people who come here, hang it up as far as discussion with Mike. After all, your opinion is not valid if discussing prior events that you just now are learning. Secondly, I asked GRAMMIE for her take on the legislation. See other thread for further response.

oh blindrat...you are becoming too easy....

This is where one can find the facts of the poll you refer to....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_re_us/reading_habits_ap_poll

"There was even some political variety evident, with Democrats and liberals typically reading slightly more books than Republicans and conservatives."

###
Note the word "slightly," and this is even considering (see below) that across the political spectrum, books with political subjects are a regular choice by a very small minority.

"Who are the 27 percent of people the AP-Ipsos poll found hadn't read a single book this year? Nearly a third of men and a quarter of women fit that category. They tend to be older, less educated, lower income, minorities, from rural areas and less religious."

###
Yep, that sounds like the typical conservative demo to me. Oh, and.....

"The Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories. Popular fiction, histories, biographies and mysteries were all cited by about half, while one in five read romance novels. Every other genre — including politics, poetry and classical literature — were named by fewer than five percent of readers."

###
So I would say that the simplistic and very silly interpretation of the poll by the leftist loon Pat Schroeder is dubious, blindrat.....

Try again.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

"The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP's negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again."

###
Brilliant! The left's standard bearer for the 2008 Presidential race reveals her insightful thoughts regarding the political implications of terrorism.

What a great example of leadership.....Where can I donate?

Stop the illegal and immoral war!......Pull the troops out now!.....Cut the funds!

Where is Mental Midget (Why), this blogs Democrat Party apologist, on this latest Mensa moment for one of his candidates?

I would even be interested in Loin's take.....Who is the poor soul going to vote for on 11/4/08?

Cee,

The left does have a collective mental disorder. It is the cause of their political views. This disorder leads to everything they say and do. They literally are not on their own side. They think, that if Bush loses the war on terror, that they have won something. Even if they all get killed in the process. They die happy, with a smile on their faces, martyrs even.

cee,

Cherry picking from the article, I see...

You left out the fact that, among liberals, twenty two percent haven't read a book this year; however, among conservatives this number is thirty four percent...

Kinda insincere of you, doncha think, son?

The left does have a collective mental disorder. It is the cause of their political views. This disorder leads to everything they say and do. They literally are not on their own side. They think, that if Bush loses the war on terror, that they have won something. Even if they all get killed in the process. They die happy, with a smile on their faces, martyrs even.

Posted by: Rico at August 24, 2007 10:55 AM

This has to be one of the stupidest analyses I've ever seen.

"...if Bush loses the war on terror..."? How do you suggest that he proposes to WIN it? In his VFW speech he basically said we should still be in Vietnam, and that then everything would be fine.

We are merely demanding coherent policies and openly stated goals; not the post-modern miasma of moral and operational ambiguity promulgated for five years now by the Bushies.

"No it does not sound like what you and the leftist ruling elite are saying, Loin. Your own quote from the editorial even leaves the reader with the impression that the authors do not support precipitous withdraw from Iraq without regard to their progress towards stability."

Then you didn't read it. Surprise, surprise.

These soldiers say clearly that our presence is counter-productive to the stated aims of regional stability. They say, as I have been saying, that Iraqis won't "stand up" until our hooks are out of their country. I think you are (probably intentionally) misinterpreting in this regard their statements that they will fulfill their duties as soldiers no matter what those are (in fact, one of them suffered a headwound shortly after the piece was written), and that disingenuous pissants like you should not make political hay out of their "feelings" regarding our political debate. They are not as delicate you are.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081907A.shtml

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 23, 2007 7:05 PM

cee, you had made a vapid response in regard to the "What We Saw"opinion piece yesterday, and I did not see your response to my criticism. I thought I'd give you another chance.

I would even be interested in Loin's take.....Who is the poor soul going to vote for on 11/4/08?

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 10:50 AM

Clinton would be hands-down a far better president than Bush. However, she has deep-seated integrity problems and is clearly a mercenary to an array of corporate lobbyists.

Kucinich is my guy.

Ron Paul on the record against Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (mandate to kill Saddam?)

But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

That sounds pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact, I think it sounds so clear that it contradicts U.S. law. How do you remove somebody without killing them? Is it just because we do not use our own CIA to bump them off that we are not morally and legally responsible? We will be.

Kucinich voted yes.

Congressman Lee Hamilton (supported the legislation but expressed several concerns)

Third, there is a wide gap here between means and objectives in this bill. When we declare that our policy is to remove Saddam Hussein from power, we raise the objectives of our policy very high. Yet we provide modest means to achieve what has proven to be a very difficult objective. When you have a gap between goals and means, that often leads to trouble in the conduct of American foreign policy.

Ron Paul on the record against Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (mandate to kill Saddam?)

I forgot quotation marks

"But I would also like to challenge the statement that this does not change policy, because on section 3, it says it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

That sounds pretty clear to me. As a matter of fact, I think it sounds so clear that it contradicts U.S. law. How do you remove somebody without killing them? Is it just because we do not use our own CIA to bump them off that we are not morally and legally responsible? We will be."

Yes, Sharon , Kucinich did vote for that act:

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1) one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that meet specified criteria as eligible to receive assistance under this Act; and (2) additional such organizations which satisfy the President's criteria.

Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.

Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime. "

Do you see the word "invasion" or "military force" in there? Humanitarian aid to Iraqis and Iraqi refugees, propaganda, and training are all that are covered in the act.

You binary righties can't understand that change can occur without violence, and that that mode is, in fact, the most productive. Nobody in America since Ronald Reagan has been fond of Saddam; but some people like Kucinich realize that wars of choice bring only instability and chaos.

I would still think Ron Paul would have your support. I think he has exhibited the strongest opposition to the war. Beyond withdrawal, I would like to know his plans for the foreign policy. He supports social views of mine (pro-life, pro homeschool).

Third, there is a wide gap here between means and objectives in this bill. When we declare that our policy is to remove Saddam Hussein from power, we raise the objectives of our policy very high. Yet we provide modest means to achieve what has proven to be a very difficult objective. When you have a gap between goals and means, that often leads to trouble in the conduct of American foreign policy.

Posted by: Sharon at August 24, 2007 11:45 AM

That's a very good point. Have you paid any attention to anything in the past six years, for Crissakes!?!?

Some Bush's fatal "mosest means":

- No sacrifice asked of American people (other than Ari Fleischer's recently expressed personal sacrifice of other people's children)

-a tiny occupaton force counter to all military recommendations,

-no plan for reconstruction; other than a profound DE-construction, that is,

-no effort spent on oversight of the taxpayers' fortunes wasted in Iraq, leading to the disappearance of billions and billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of weapons.

I would still think Ron Paul would have your support. I think he has exhibited the strongest opposition to the war. Beyond withdrawal, I would like to know his plans for the foreign policy. He supports social views of mine (pro-life, pro homeschool).

Posted by: Sharon at August 24, 2007 11:51 AM

I respect Ron Paul's honesty and integrity; but I tink e is dangerously wrong on domestic issues, primailly regarding taxation and the roll of government. I support him on the war, but little else.

Kucinich showed weakness. He had one of the strongest pro-life voting records, even better than some republicans. He sold out for The Nation. It is so clear by the record. No matter what your view on abortion, you have to recognize a sell out. I used to think he was a person who stood his ground and complimented him several times for that, until I found out he is a politician at heart. Maybe Ron Paul is legitimate. You mentioned a poll several weeks ago that showed support for Paul among vets. Second in that poll was McCain (you didn't respond to that when I pointed it out). That , to me, is one indication of a clear divide among vets. Milbloggers are pro-war. I don't deny the existence of anti-war servicemen and women.

"No matter what your view on abortion, you have to recognize a sell out."

If you insist - but to me a "sell-out" in the right direction on a wedge-issue doesn't bother me too much. I prefer to view it as a change-of-mind.

What about the Republicans selling out on your abortion issue? They controlled the White House and both houses of congress for six years and gave you absolutley nothing but the Terry Shiavo burlesque. Why did they not act on their booming rhetoric in regard to this isue?

They are only stringing you along, because they realize that 75% of Americans sensibly support the constitutionality of choice. But they know that you will blindly adhere to the do-nothing pro-life paper-tigers; supporting their wars and their rape of the American commons because of their empty promises regarding your one moral priority.

Dearest Loin,

Just because I did not acquiesce to your call for immediate withdrawl from Iraq based on your interpretation of what the authors are proposing does not mean I had a vapid response.

You see, the goal of getting the Iraqis to take more responsibility in defending themselves is not the argument. The radical left calls for immediate troop withdrawl....you call for troop withdrawl....Mike calls for troop withdrawl....not decreasing troop levels, not anything even coming close to what most responsible (including the authors of the editorial) have proposed.

Do not try to hide behind more moderate and thoughtful (and patriotic) people, Loin, because your views have been clear. No American presence in Iraq as soon as possible. That is not what the authors propose.....

"Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit."

###
I do not see an implication of withdrawl, immediate or otherwise and I do not see an implication that The United States disengage in the process towards a stable democracy in Iraq. You, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, have made the grand declaration that our involvement now and from the beginning has been immoral and imperialistic....The authors do not imply their support for that silly idea either.

Please do not try to camoflage your morally bankrupt, conspiracy laden, selfish and downright radical opinions about the US war against terrorism with a well-intentioned and rational opinion piece from honorable people. It makes you look silly.

"What about the Republicans selling out on your abortion issue? They controlled the White House and both houses of congress for six years and gave you absolutley nothing but the Terry Shiavo burlesque. Why did they not act on their booming rhetoric in regard to this isue?"

###
A lie. The partial birth abortion ban was passed with bipartisan support and The President Signed it into law. The law is supported by a majority of Americans but the radical left has used the sympathetic courts to question its constitutionality based on the lovely idea of penumbra, Loin.

Wow, both you and blindrat are off your games today!

"75% of Americans sensibly support the constitutionality of choice."

###
Oh, and Loin.....now do you claim 75% of the American public support infanticide like you and the radical left does or something else?

Sharon, I guess your 10:55 post makes it pretty clear that you believe 40 years of life experience while closely following politics the entire time pretty much means nothing in the context of debating policy and recent history?

You may well be right. After all look at Cheney's dismal record recently after a virtual lifetime of high level political involvement. It was college age students who rightfully saw the lunacy of the Vietnam War before most of the rest of America did.

That said, you show an amazing amount of personal sensitivity for someone who is not afraid to slight someone yourself. Your comment that you "couldn't believe how I was downplaying" the significance of law 105-338...even as I rightfully pointed out that it was not considered anything earth shattering or alarming at the time,.... and it had ALREADY been the officially stated policy of the executive branch to dethrown Saddam for 6 years prior to that time. However, NEVER in any of that time was it real or implied US policy to take him out by militsry force. In a sense, you were guilty of dismissing me with that statement, even though you were clearly unaware of all of that. Also, how do you think I should have taken your statement yesterday that i wanted to believe only the worst in America?

As for your accurate assertion that you were asking "GRAMMIE" the question, you forgot that you are on a PUBLIC discussion board...one in which anyone is free to respond to anyone else...invited or not.

I have complimented you many times on this board, as you know, .... and I take back none of that. However, it is so obvious that you want to believe SO badly in what your country is doing that you will literally grasp at straws in order to do so.

People like me fervently believe in America too, Sharon. We just want to see the it once again become the shining star it used to be before it became tainted by a few very bad apples.

blindrat,

How does your quote,

"among liberals, twenty two percent haven't read a book this year; however, among conservatives this number is thirty four percent"

support the exaplaination, "The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes. It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page.'..."

Especially when the reading of political books is such a small part of what people actually read. Ms. Schroeder's idea is not supported by the poll's demographics.

Again, you are off your game, blindrat.

Benson, if you bother to actually read the "joint resolution authorizing the use of force", it will become very clear that the written provisions required the president to exhaust all available peaceful means before rushing in.

Therefore, there is nothing "revisionist" about my contention that many in Congress were voting as much to give teeth to the president in dealing with Saddam as they were actually voting for war, come hell of high water.

By calling me a "revisionist", you are also dismissing my own impressions as to exactly what the vote meant at the time.

There is one thing that never seems to change....People on your side insists on seeing eveything in black and white...but in reality, this is not a black and white world, and it never will be.

"Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit."

###
I do not see an implication of withdrawl, immediate or otherwise and I do not see an implication that The United States disengage in the process towards a stable democracy in Iraq. You, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, have made the grand declaration that our involvement now and from the beginning has been immoral and imperialistic....The authors do not imply their support for that silly idea either.

Please do not try to camoflage your morally bankrupt, conspiracy laden, selfish and downright radical opinions about the US war against terrorism with a well-intentioned and rational opinion piece from honorable people. It makes you look silly.

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 12:23 PM

...and yet leaders of both parties in this country are talking about "replacing" Maliki, and we are actively arming every group of three or more Iraqis that we can identify so that they can fight one another. And, once again, one of these brave soldiers was shot in the head shortly after collaborating on the piece. So much for the "margins" in the soldiers' admonitions - such instances are clearly what the article was decrying.

But please cee; quit parsing. You cannot deny that the main theme of that opinion piece is the clear recognition that there is no general problem in Iraq that our military can solve, and that our presense will always motivate and legitimize in Iraqi eyes violent oposition to the occupation.

cee,

Obviously, it indicates a larger percentage of intellectually lazy people. You know, the kind that still use 9/11 attacks to justify invading Iraq; the kind that still pretend that Gore was a liar; the kind that still think that Bush won the 2000 election; the kind that think that there is enough oil in Alaska to last us for a decade; the kind that thinks that tax cuts are great when we are running a deficit; the kind that thinks that the surge is working...

In other words, the kind that don't think. Slogans are all that they understand. They hear "Kerry", they think "flip-flop"; they hear "Hillary" they say "Hitlery"; they hear "universal health care" they screech "communism"...

You know...the usual neocon idiots...

Gridiron news By: JOHN MAFFEI - Staff Writer

- Keith Olbermann, one of the most overhyped performers on TV, gets his first network sports assignment in six years when he works a special edition of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" at 4 p.m. Sunday on NBC. Olbermann will also be a regular on NBC's "Sunday Night Football". It's not that I don't think Olbermann is good. It's not that he's not entertaining and opinionated. I just don't believe he's the greatest thing since slice bread.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/08/24/sports/maffei/21_22_258_23_07.txt

"one of these brave soldiers was shot in the head shortly after collaborating on the piece'

###
And was this soldier murdered by an Al Qaeda terrorist, a sunni insurgent, or a disgruntled Shiite militiaman, Loin?

You see, the common thread of those actually doing the murdering is their ideology....Not a simplistic view that the US Soldier is psychologically robbing them of their dignity. Please. The idea that radical islamic theology has nothing to do with the motivations behind someone willing to kill another human being is so simplistic as to be laughable. Military power and security can solve the problem of a minority of ideological maniacs along with political and diplomatic policy. But without security, the other two are impossible. That is what the American soldier is protecting and there are even more soldiers who have that opinion as opposed to the psychobable you choose to expand on from the opinion piece.

Nevermind that once again, the authors and you ignore the minorities that will be at the mercy of the radicals if the US troops are not there to insure their human rights of freedom are respected. Once again, a hard reality and responsibility that so many also ignored in Vietnam, and continue to ignore when they look back historically. When this FACT is not part of the equation, you lose me.....Religious minorities, innocent women and children will die at the hands of Al Qaeda if the US leaves prematurely and you, Mike and the well intentioned authors of your posted article choose to forget that fact.

"the kind that still think that Bush won the 2000 election"

A little more insight to the thinking (?) of blindrat. He still subscribes to the "CHIIMPY MCHITLERBURTON STOLE THE ELECTION" crap. Seriously, how do you people make it out of bed in the morning without dying of fear?

blah blah blah, son. blah blah blah, child. i know more than anyone here, son. child. child. son. look at how smart i am and how i shut you down with my sons and childs. can't touch this, son. i am too cool, child. booya.

Why do we care about this man's personal life and what he says to a TV columnist?

Although I am a progressive and I agree with the man philosophically but I'm not looking at him as a bastion of moral authority. I would suggest, if you truly want this site to further the discourse about the important issues, to actually start talking about them. You disagree with the man, talk about what he says on the show and how you disagree. I'm all for healthy debate, it annoys me that sites like this one pass as media critics when all I see are schoolyard taunts like:

"bathtub boy"... "Krazy Keith"... "Oldermann"... "Olbyloons," etc... Nothing of any real substance. No criticism beyond a perceived bias.

In other words:

Who really gives a shit? Say something of substance and, perhaps, someone might.

"Seriously, how do you people make it out of bed in the moring without dying of fear?"

Isn't that something you should be asking your OWN side. After all, you're the ones who keep stammering silly little phrases like "don't you know they want to kill uou and your family?" in an effort to keep political power.....through fear!

I'm certainly not one who necessarily subscribes to the belief that "Bush stole the 2000 election". However, don't you people realize that IF the Supreme Court had ruled the opposite way, we wouldn't be mired down in Iraq right now, 4000 soldiers who are dead would not be dead, the military would not be depleting itself, the country would not be in so much debt to the world, and our country would not be hated so much around the world.

None of that means ANYTHING to you right wingers?

The votes were recounted, statewide, WOW...

Gore would've won if all the votes had been counted. But, that would've be democracy and you girls can't have that, eh?

Pining for what if, hey Mike. I got some ideas too!

If Gore had won, The Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan and Osama would still have a state on which to rely on in order to launch such wonderful attacks like 9/11. And I am sure there would have been more attacks on American soil because of the Clinton record regarding terrorism. Thousands more civilians dead in horrific fires, bombings and other terrorist tactics.

Oh, and I am sure Saddam Hussein would still be shooting at our pilots while he gets ever closer to having an up and running WMD program. UN resolutions still not enforced. He would still be supporting terrorists in Israel with financial help and likely well connected with other radical islamic terrorists.

Oh, and the economy would have gone into recession around 2003 while interest rates continued to climb from 2000.

None of that means ANYTHING to you left wingers?

Oh but our carbon footprint qould be .000001% smaller!!! Hurrah!

Ah, cee is doing the neocon dance that I call, "What if?". It consists of predicting what WOULD have happened, in this case, if the election had been run properly.

I understand that cee thinks a wartime deserter is a far better leader during a war than someone who was actually IN the combat zones; however, that goes back to my original post today...

If cee were a "reader", he'd know that Gore had introduced an air safety bill identical to the one hurriedly enacted after 9/11. He wouldn't have cancelled the weekly meetings on terrorism and he would've stayed in Afghanistan had 9/11 attacks occurred...

Clinton record: A couple of hundred dead Americans due to terrorism...

Bush record: Over six thousand...

Clinton record in light of latest CIA report.....

thousands of civilians murdered on 9/11.

'who was actually IN the combat zones"

he, he, he....a "journalist" Oh yeah, the elitist leftist Al Gore was really on par with the grunts, blindrat!

Keep wishing, blindrat.....terrorism, even after 3000 dead, would still have been a law enforcement problem akin to insider trading if Al Gore was the executive. Many more domestic tragets would have been hit AND internationally, the terror network would still have its infrastructure....Because Al Gore was a Clinton clone. No political spine, no leadership qualities, he never looked at anything that could potentially cause him to risk his polititcal hyde.

The problem is Cee, all YOUR hypothetical ideas are hopelessly delusional AND are full of unsupportable conclusions.

It is nothing short of amazing to see people like you STILL defending the invasion of Iraq...no, not just making the more rational argument that we should stay now that we're there...but you ACTUALLY are still defending the rational for the invasion and occupation itself!

I truely believe that if you had been a citizen of 1940's Germany, you would be passionately defending the occupation of France and Poland just as dogmatically as you defend the invasion and occupation of Iraq today.

"If cee were a 'reader', he'd know that Gore had introduced an air safety bill identical to the one hurriedly enacted after 9/11. He wouldn't have cancelled the weekly meetings on terrorism and he would've stayed in Afghanistan had 9/11 attacks occurred..."

###
According to Al Gore! He, he, he....No blindrat, based on his pathetic leadership and Clinton's, appeasement would have continued, the UN would still be the avenue, and our foreign policy would still be directed by the Security Council veto from the ChiComs or The Russians.

We would not have invaded Afghanistan under President Gore....There would have been sanctions, perhaps a cruise missle shot as soon as his poll number dipped below 40%, but that would have been it. Women would still be being stoned by the Taliban for their lawlessness and Osama would be on our TV's weekly with his own reality show.

Cee: "We would not have invaded Afghanistan under President Gore..."

Bullpucky! He would have know when to stop though, and kept the pressure on the REAL enemy...you know Cee...the one that actually attacked us who is STILL living fat and happy.!

IF the Supreme Court had ruled the opposite way, (Mike)

Ah, cee is doing the neocon dance that I call, "What if? (Blindrat)

Hypocrisy.

Mike,
I have a life with people who care about me. I don't come here for validation. I come to debate and discuss issues of the day. You are the one who insinuated that only your qualifications make one worthy of expressing a strong opinion.

SLOB,

I guess if Romney "changes his mind" in a direction you don't care for, it is flip flopping, eh? I don't even want to vote because the ultimate two candidates will have engaged in some kind of slimy politics to get the nomination. I vote because I believe it is a moral duty. I brought up that whole issue of the 1998 legislation to show that Bush did not come in with a brand new philosophy. I don't understand why a policy position was made into law if it was not meant to achieve something. I don't think many people reacted because most of the American people believed Saddam was dangerous. People are tired of the war now but I really think many are apathetic. Except for a small group who spend time debating on the internet regularly, the ones who are truly engaged are the military members and their families on both sides of the issue.

I truely believe that if you had been a citizen of 1940's Germany, you would be passionately defending the occupation of France and Poland just as dogmatically as you defend the invasion and occupation of Iraq today.

###
Then you do not read my posts, Mike. I would have been one of the thousands of protestant born-again believers helping anyone under the persecution of the Nazis. I also am part-Jewish, so perhaps I would have been one of the millions ignored by people with similar ideologies to your fellow traveler, Sir Loin of Milquetoast.

I judge on ideology....democracy and freedom for all, regardless of race or creed. Nazi Germany was the antithesis to my ideology, as was Minh, as was Saddam, as is Al Qaeda, as is Iran, as is Syria, as is China, as is Cuba, as is Venezuela, as is ___________.....no freedom of thought or religion....I do not support it.

Get with the program, Mike. You are truly full of hatred if you actually believe I would have supported Hitler. My judgement is clear....your's on the otherhand shows it needs some work.

Sharon,

>>Ah, cee is doing the neocon dance that I call, "What if? (Blindrat)

Wow! What a debate "style"! Retype something and put the word "hypocrisy" after it...

Cee: "I would have been one of the thousands of protestant born-aain believers helping anyone under the persecution of the Nazis."

Bull. You are a "Born again Protestest" here and now only because that is the status of the here and now. I firmly believe you would grown up with and accepted whatever status quo existed, wherever that happened to be. Your closed mind shows that.
-------------------------------------------
"You are so full of hatred if you actually believe I would have supported history."

I have no hatred at all, as anyone who knows me would gladly tell you. I just have an inherent ability that you woefully lack to see through all the bullshit we are being fed and see the truth.
hatred.

Truth is never our enemy Cee. Why do you run from it so hard?

Wow! What a debate "style"! Retype something BR.

You skipped the first part of my comment, which means you missed the whole point. Mike engaged in the "What if" scenario as well.

Show me one, just one, piece of evidence from Al Gore's leadership in the Clinton administration that shows he would have done anything differently than his pathetic boss did regarding islamic terrorism.

Even how the Clinton administration dealt with Saddam was laughable and showed we were weak and vulnurable. No, Mike, if you think any democrat would use military force is any risky way to themselves politically, you are living is a fantasy world.

Focus group polls on whether to invade a country are still considered poor taste.

Even the real man in the relationship, Hillary, would still be timid in making any real life/death decisions because of her political timidity.

This is the modern day left.....weak and timid.

Sharon: I do not come here for validation either. I did not EVER insinuate that I was the only one worthy of stating a strong opinion either.

My insinuation was and is that I bring certain qualifications and experiences to the table that others lack, and those should not be dismissed the way so many like to do on this board. I fully understand that many others may have equally if not more valuable qualifications in which to base their viewpoints, and I have NEVER insinuated otherwise. You are too sensitive!

I'm truly sorry if you dissaprove of my passionate belief that GW Bush is literally taking a jackhammer to our nation, and it's constitution.....and that SOMETHING needs to be done about it as soon as possible.

Once again, to the lovely named poster at 3:38PM (sarcasm).....

Defending those who can't defend themselves is moral. Sacrificing your life for your neighbor is what Christ taught. A basic part of my foundation that would have shown me the truth of Hitler's ideology....

Minh's ideology.....

and it shows me the truth about Al Qaeda and the other radicals shooting at the innocent and our troops in Iraq currently.

And Mike, I respect your right to keep the faith in your contrived ideology...it will lead you astray as it has again this time but I am hopeful that miracles still occur.

Oh and to the lovely named poster at 3:38PM (sarcasm).....

When you find a group of born-again protestants flying loaded planes into skyscapers, beheading hostages, stoning women and throwing gasoline on 9 year-old children while striking a match.....let me know.....

Finally, you say I am a war-monger. Perhaps in the end I am.

Posted by: cee at August 3, 2007 3:34 PM

cee and osama bin-laden...

Just two of God's Chosen Warriors.

The difference?

OBL is actually fighting for what he believes....

>When you find a group of born-again protestants flying loaded planes into skyscapers, beheading hostages, stoning women and throwing gasoline on 9 year-old children while striking a match.....let me know.....

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 4:02 PM

When you find a group of muslims bombing abortion clinics, gunning down doctors, and ignoring science...let me know...

Actually come to think of it, those are things Islamists would do...

I guess the christian extremists and muslim extremists have a lot more in common than would afford cee the comfort level he THINKS he enjoys...

Oh and to the lovely named poster at 3:59PM (sarcasm).....

Since I know you are not actually interested in the truth regarding Christ, I will demure although my own response as a Christian is humorously posted at 4:02PM.

And I do fight for what I believe in, anon....I just do not use it as a false point when I post here at Olbermann Watch. Like I have told Sir Loin of Milquetoast and many other ChickenHawk debaters, I could say whatever I wanted to here and you wouldn't know if it was the truth....just like Mike, Loin, etc. I do not believe rational, nondemogogic debate allows for such silliness. Let us just leave it at that I have made sacrifices for people when directed by my God and only He deserves the glory.

Allah is great!

Allah willing, we will deliver justice to the infidels!

Their land will be washed with the blood of martyrs!

Death to America!

Allah is Great!

Like I mentioned to you previously, lovely named poster (sarcasm)....read John's gospel, the first chapter and you will find Christ as The Alpha....He was present at the beginning and even if you do not recognize it, He is the creator. Yes, even the creator of what you think is "moral."

Oh and when have I ever endorced "bombing abortion clinics, gunning down doctors, and ignoring science"

I question the assumptions of what some call science and the religion that has become secular humanism....but I know that also irritates your progressive tolerance furnuncle.

I question the morality of killing unborn children, infanticide and people claiming a right to do such violent acts being found in The US Constitution.

Oh, and I am a doctor so it is against my oath to the AMA to gun down my fellow physician as it is required I have messy handwriting.

Are you done being stupid now?

Mike- sorry for the delays on the response.

Very few (if any) of your beloved senators that voted for the use of force use your argument as justification for retracting their vote. You are merely an apologist for their vote. They voted for the use of force because the climate at the time warranted it. Exactly the reason they are triumphantly trying to make ammends for said vote. Fact is the vote was made and your excuse is only that- an excuse. They knew the ramifications!

As a Progressive I support the Muslims.
They are oppressed by eveil White Capitalists.
They are fighting back and they're winning!
The Leftist-Islamic alliance will triumph!

Why do we care about this man's personal life and what he says to a TV columnist?

Although I am a progressive and I agree with the man philosophically but I'm not looking at him as a bastion of moral authority. I would suggest, if you truly want this site to further the discourse about the important issues, to actually start talking about them...
Posted by: Keyser Soze at August 24, 2007 2:31 PM

Keyser, I am so sick of your phoney self serving bitching. This is a frigging OPEN blog, everybody and anybody seems to be able to post here. (Unlike your crummy ko.org forum blog).

On any given day the MAJORITY of the comments here are serious and heated debates concerning politics between smart leftys & rightys (yes we have dopey leftys & rightys as well). Although I never see YOU join in those debates, YOU'd rather comment on the folks who'll troll goofey personal shit. Is it any different then wading through the shit at the ko.org forum or ERT where all girls care about is his f*cking ties. So if you are soooo concerned about the discourse here, join in the serious discussions. Oh, I forgot, it's a lot easier to bitch about another blogs trolls. F*cking puke.

Olbermann is a hero to the Left and Muslims.
He's helping ensure America becomes a Socialist-Islamic republic!

You tell him k-fed up...
I hope the asshole dropped the same load of bullshit on the other blogs praising KeithO as the next news deity. Spare me Keyse's trumoed up angst.

OBL is actually fighting for what he believes....

Posted by: at August 24, 2007 4:05 PM

Asshole, he "believes" he wants to kill you. Got it?

Nice admonition, but it ain't even a full sermon, DUMBFUCK.

Notice you didn't refute the idiocy you've posted before. Instead now you are waxing religious.

So here it goes again.

When would Jesus bomb Mecca?

Posted by: DUMBFUCK is preaching now at August 24, 2007 3:59 PM

Isn't patsy a nice fellow? Every blog should have someone just like him. He makes the spolbyloons shine!

royalking,
There's nothing you cjicken hawk can do!
Us Leftists control the media and will ensure an islamic victory so we can wipe out Christianity!
Ha ha us and our Islamioc allies are winning!

Oh lovely named poster at 4:49PM, my statement is clear. There are wonderful archived discussions about the assumptions made by scientists here at OW that I have had with such respectful posters....

like craigs. And you know the fun I had about the religion of the secularist (or atheist) the other day that initially inflammed your furnuncle.

Science is one of many gods in the pantheon of the secular humanist religion.....along with lots of other fun and humorous gods.....like technology, money, class status, education level, eternal beauty, and that great one: political power....they all make their demands on the soul and sacrifices that the secularist is more than ready to give. I have seen wonderful worship of these idols by the devoted secularist.

Again, if you want to have a serious discussion of such matters, let me know. I would be glad to apply more warm compresses to that pus filled lesion of progressive tolerance on your backside!

When you find a group of born-again protestants flying loaded planes into skyscapers, beheading hostages, stoning women and throwing gasoline on 9 year-old children while striking a match.....let me know.....

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 4:02 PM

Nail bombs at the Olympics in Atlanta; shooting doctors through their widows; pipe bombs at abortion clinics; antrax in the mail;...these are OK with you?

...and since your whole "Caliphate" straw-man requires a long trip back through history, its only fair that we ask what it was that was supposed to have happened through protestants and Catholics alike during the 30 years war; the inquisition; the Tudor/Stewart rivalry, etc. Lots of torture, rapine, and murder in the name of Christian Gods. Northern Ireland trough the 20th century is a nice link with this past - sort of illustrating the traditional contuity of bloodthirsty chauvanism intrinsic to christians - at least to the same degree as can be said for Muslms.

"According to Pastor Cee, the eveeeeel sessskularist prongresssives already have a religion of their own... and they are coming after Christmas and Santa!!"

###
It is you AAP! You sure are agitated today.

No, AAP (I am so glad I do not have to write "lovely named poster"), I am confident that the normal American respects the US Constitution and will not follow the silly tenets of secular humanism and their demand that they be the only religion we all follow in the public square.

That is what is great about America....common sense makes the radical left look absurd....as you can see with your posts above, AAP. That is why Gore and Kerry were rejected as leaders because they were so pathetically beholden to their radical fringe....wisdom I hope is still present in sufficient numbers to see through the acts of the manly hawk turned dove Clinton and the "I'll never use nuclear waepons, EVER!" Obama.

Sir Loin of Beef,
As a Progressive I support the Kaliphate.
Better Muslims than Christians!

Spews the Christian Extremist cee:

"That is why Gore and Kerry were rejected as leaders because they were so pathetically beholden to their radical fringe...."

How does the fact that Gore actually got more votes than Bush fit in with your wrong-headed hypothesis?

I can't wait to hear you twist in the wind on this one...

Thank you, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, for eventually using a small c in christianity because those false believers responsible for the events you site presently and through history were not Christians....They were akin to the present day "religious" christians not following the Word (again note the capital) of Jehovah. Again, read the first chapter of John for clarification. The secular was injecting itself into the sacred and the heart of man is not rightous.

No, the acts you cite show the source of the ideology and it is not even close to Christianity. And to equate Christians who have not acted in such un-Christ ways to radical muslims who use terror and have in their ideology violent martyrdom shows the illogical hatred you have for the truth.

That is why I asked for the examples, loin, a rhetorical question you seemed to have missed because the examples you give are not acts done by Christians. They are sinful acts rightfully judged wrong here on Earth and I am confident will be judged sinful at a later time as well, in front of another judge.

Christ instructs me about the false teachers in His word that you mentioned. Muslim teaching does not. Muslim teaching preached conversion by force, Christ does not. And no one can quote me or any real follower of Christ saying such garbage.

No, the secular poisoned the sacred from the first day, Loin....not the other way around. It is the pursuit of the sacred through the only way Christ said there was, that is the only solution.

Through His indwelling....Again, I refer you to the gospel of John.

>Asshole, he "believes" he wants to kill you. Got it?

Posted by: royalking at August 24, 2007 4:55 PM

Right, royaldouche.....

UBL wants to kill me and so do you....

Now you know who's side you're on!

"I can't wait to hear you twist in the wind on this one..."

###That's easy......our system uses something called The Electoral College and the people spoke through the constitutional process....hense Bush won.....Gore was rejected.

And you also seem to forget that George Bush got the most number of popular votes ever in 2004....despite being a draft dodging, cowboy loser going against the best the left could muster......a New England elite veteran with a rich, capitalist wife!

Poor, poor, leftists, still hurts doesn't it?

Through His indwelling....Again, I refer you to the gospel of John.

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 5:44 PM

How about through your inbreeding, Again I refer you to the gospel of cee.

You can quit your proselytizing any time now phallucee.

We all know you rely on others to tell you how to live and act.

Please allow those of us who choose freewill and somehow miraculously still manage to live an ethical life do as WE DECIDE.

You sure are judgmental for a Christian.

Oh yeah, I forgot, that's what Christians are best at...judging others.

AND not obeying the commandment

"Thou Shall Not Kill"

Perhaps the part about "Except Muslims" crumbled away from the stone tablet.

Give me a break cee, you're filled with more self-righteous sanctimonious bull-shit than normal-and that's saying something!

I like how you try to marginalize liberal Christians like Gore, Kerry, Etc because their brand of Christianity is unacceptable to you.

That tells me and everyone else here (except jeff-he's having trouble keeping up reading aloud while breathing through his mouth) that POLITICS are more important to you than SPIRITUALITY.

Could it be any clearer to everyone here that you are first and foremost a petty preening partisan hack, and a delusional judgmental war-mongering Christian second?

......you got the spelling right?

###
Yes. But under the new covenant proclaimed by Christ, those scary curses you selectively recall from a poor Sunday School experience as a young man no longer apply.

Again....when you want to be serious about this, let me know, AAP!

>Poor, poor, leftists, still hurts doesn't it?

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 5:50 PM

Leftist? I'm a conservative cee.

I like how you conveniently left out your original assertion that Gore was 'rejected' because of his fringe politics.

How can someone be 'rejected' due to their fringe politics when MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE than voted for Bush.

Spare me the civics lesson. Yes, Bush was elected due to the mechanics of our system of electing presidents. But that hardly means Gore was rejected because of fringe ideology.

In order for your self-serving theory to be true, not only would Bush have to be elected, but more people would have had to want him to be president than Gore and that simply is not the case and you know it.

A swing and a miss!

But what else is new on Planet cee?

Some conservatives still think politics and religion should sleep in separate beds, cee.

If you want to govern the American people from the pulpit, you will lose every time.

All secularists and a lot of religious folk want the separation of church and state.

Can you say the converse is true?

Who do you think that classifies as having a 'fringe' ideology?

Obey or Burn in Hell, you are also agitated....Please look above and tell me honestly, how this all was brought up.

If, as you claim, all you need to do is choose right based on your own feelings, why does Christ teach what He teaches. His words are incompatable to your statement. Anyone who claims they believe Christ was God and was raised from the dead and is living (the last time I looked, that is what Kerry would have said in his attending Mass as a Catholic and Gore would have stated it in his saying of The Apostle's Creed) who can then ignore the actual teachings of Christ has the problem. Christ claimed to be a living sacrfice for the atonement always required for the sin committed by men and women. Period. No way around it, no way to say He meant something else. And, by the way, no other "religion" has such a claim made by their "leader."

That is how I know right from wrong. Not by a rule book, not by a human made list. it is through Christ.

Again, John's gospel expalins it well if you want to have a serious, nonemotional and nonjudgmental discussion about it. IF you really want to learn the truth. It seems though that you are judging me through the progressive's tolerance glasses I see so often here and at other websites. The ability to tolerate and listen to different opinion seems to stop when Christ is mentioned....but that was also mentioned by Him as well.

I had an interesting if not brief discussion with Clucker about this idea of selectively believing the teachings of Christ. Clucker seemed to have a problem with divine revelation which is clear and required for faith to exist. Spirituality is also another word for this idea and the secular humanist requires one not to believe in the supernatural. This is why I can confidently claim atheists are relgious because they have a very real tenet.

Please respond, I would appreciate your reaction.

"All secularists and a lot of religious folk want the separation of church and state."

###
As I have shown, secularists want their religion as the official state religion. They want their religion taught in the public school system paid for by my tax dollars.

I believe The Constitution clearly states the government should not meddle in religious affairs, and not require the citizen to practice a particular sect.

It is impossible to make any individual leave their chosen religion aside when making any decision. It influences all decisions from starting a poverty program to involving a nation in war. You live in a fantasy world if you think you can eliminate such influences by law. And The Founders never intended it.

Conservatives do not want the state telling them who to worship and no one ever has. I never have. I also do not want my child taught in a public school that there is no God, no possibility of supernatural revelation....in otherwords no faith.

AAP....I do believe in God, as do the leading democratic party candidates and a majority of the country.....I guess they would believe in Santa Claus and the easter bunny too according to your logic, AAP?

"...who can then ignore the actual teachings of Christ has the problem."

There are numerous denominations of Christianity that ALL think THEY are interpreting the words of Jesus correctly. Religion, by definition, is devisive. You subscribe to a particular religion to the exclusion of all others.

Tell me what you think will happen to Mitt Romney when he dies. And don't cop out and tell me that's between him and God.

If you preached love and tolerance and welfare and forgiveness and peace like Jesus did, I would have NO PROBLEM with you cee. But you, like many others, pervert the words of Jesus to mean what you think they should mean.

You, like many Christians, are so off the charts with your religion you forgot about your spirituality.

Would Christ describe himself as a war-monger like you have here in a rare moment of lucidity?

You are only christ-like in your own mind cee. Lucky for you, that's all you need to sustain you.

Unfortunately the rest of the world has to put up with the real cee....

Self-Rightous bible-thumping war-mongering partisan ideologue.

Those are my thoughts. And, no, I'm not agitated. I'm just passionate when it comes to Christofascists like yourself.

Another quote from a secular humanist.....a declaration of belief.....

"As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural."

###
Oh and this is a good tenet of the religion of secular humanism and why there is such controversy about its teaching in the public school system:

"We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles."

###
So, AAP, do not tell me that secularists want a seperation of church and state. They want to impose, especially on the children of all citizens, what they think is "moral."

When the church of the atheist backs off in trying to promote their religion, then I think you will find most conservatives more than happy to stop their constitutional arguments regarding freedom of religion.

>I also do not want my child taught in a public school that there is no God, no possibility of supernatural revelation....in otherwords no faith.

Please cite the text book that says there is no God.

Please cite the text book that says there is no possibility of supernatural revelation.

Please cite the text book that says there is no faith.

1.) There are things science can prove.

2.) There are things that science cannot disprove.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Let's go ahead and have number one taught in the schools, and leave number two for the indoctrination of the church.

A strawman....the textbooks state that there are people who believe there is a god, but no teacher can use a Bible for instruction during class time. Why, when it was perfectly acceptable before? Public schools have rules for teachers regarding having a Bible on their desk, for goodness sake. It can be there out in the open only when class is not in session. Why?

No, once secularists demanded their way only, the public school system lost its neutrality. I for one would have no problem with its dissolution and feel it is wrong that my tax dollars are required to go to a system that one, is not even doing a good job with basics and two, is an avenue for secularists to impose their ideology on the public.

Give vouchers to people to choose where to take their kids for education. It is the choice of the individual how moral values and education is given to their children.

>When the church of the atheist backs off in trying to promote their religion, then I think you will find most conservatives more than happy to stop their constitutional arguments regarding freedom of religion.

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 6:40 PM

cee, sadly, the only way your argument works is if someone buys your simple-minded construct that NOT subscribing to an established religion is somehow in and of itself a religion.

It might be a choice, it might be a way of life, it might be a source of pride, but it's in no way, shape, or form a RELIGION.

People can do non-religious things 'religiously' but that only qualifies those things as a religion if you are a confused 9 year old or simply stretching logic to justify your wrong-headed thinking.

I find it odd and bemusing you want to take the spirituality out of the term 'religion.'

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, since you don't seem to have a spiritual bone in your body.

"Tell me what you think will happen to Mitt Romney when he dies."

###
Mitt Romney will evetually face judgement, as will me and you.

That is what Christ teaches regarding your question, clearly stated in the scriptures. Please show me how there is any room for interpretation. The Christian says nothing else in regard to your specific question. If it seriously asked from someone truly seeking the truth, then the next logical question is on what does God judge men on? And Christ has an answer for that next logical question if you want to know the answer, let me know.

And if this angers you as well, then I would suggest simply opening your mind and reading the gospel of John. You seem to have a very closed mind in regard to what I believe.

And if you are so inclined, show me an example of how I perverted something Chirst has said....I really want to learn.

"cee, sadly, the only way your argument works is if someone buys your simple-minded construct that NOT subscribing to an established religion is somehow in and of itself a religion."

###
Taking my quote out of context of what an actual secular humanist says is moral (which puts it into context) would be intellectually honest.....

"We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles."

###
This is a statement and component of the creed of secular humanism. You seem to want to avoid the logic that having conditions and beliefs is what a religion is.

I believe in the supernatural (spiritual) and have no problem relying on Jehovah for real strength and wisdom. The secular humanist demands that one not recognize the supernatural and even teach their child about it.

Please respond......this time in context.

Pete Hoekstra is a coward terrorist lover. a republican with absolutely nothing to admire. a good (R) is a great thing.... but simple party affiliation doesnt a greta man make.

Pete Hoekstra.... FUCKING LOSER.

"...A strawman....the textbooks state that there are people who believe there is a god, but no teacher can use a Bible for instruction during class time."

Okay first of all, it's NOT a strawman.

You specifically said:

"I also do not want my child taught in a public school that there is no God, no possibility of supernatural revelation....in otherwords no faith."

I simply asked you to provide evidence that schools are teaching kids there is no God. Obviously you could not, because it's NOT happening.

Are you too dumb to realize that there is just a dab of middle ground between a teacher telling kids there is no such thing as god (which is NOT happening although you implied it was) and a teacher citing bible verses.

So, you don't want a teacher telling a kid god doesn't exist? You've got nothing to worry about. It's NOT happening. If it were, you'd be providing the links, I'm sure.

So, I don't want a teacher reciting bible verses to my kid. If I wanted someone to recite bible verses to my kid, I'd take them to SUNDAY school.

"I mean Cee, tell us how the eveeeeel skkkullllirist himinists are trying to impose the 'eveeeel scccullliriirst himminist' religion on the children while embracing the totalitarian Islamic extremists.

"Them eveeeell scccullllitarian homminists just hacked the I-phone. Not that you'll get a clue."

###
When someone translates this for me I will try to respond.

Okay first of all, it's NOT a strawman

###
Yes it is because you asked for text books knowing the absurdity of you request.

Secondly, you never answered my questions. Why is the Bible not allowed in school.

"So, I don't want a teacher reciting bible verses to my kid."

###
Why not? It was once done, and accepted....Why the change?

"...You seem to want to avoid the logic that having conditions and beliefs is what a religion is."

Yes, conditions and beliefs are a component of religion. But it would be fallacious to then say that because conditions and beliefs are a component of religion that any mindset with conditions and beliefs are a religion.

Yes, red and blue are colors. But that doesn't prove all colors are red and blue.

That type of false logic just seems to emit from you so naturally, it's scary.

I 'believe' you've lost this argument due to you mental 'condition', but I'm not going to get all 'religious' about it.

"So, I don't want a teacher reciting bible verses to my kid."
###
Why not? It was once done, and accepted....Why the change?

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 7:07 PM

Are you serious? You think just because something was once done and accepted it should continue?

Abolish slavery? it was once done and accepted...Why the change?

Okay first of all, it's NOT a strawman.

Yes it is because you asked for text books knowing the absurdity of you request.

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 7:06 PM

Absurdity of the request?

How about the absurdity of your statement?

The request is absurd because your theory is absurd.

"Why is the Bible not allowed in school."

It is allowed, provided it is used as a HISTORIC or a LITERARY text, not as a RELIGIOUS text.

Secondly, you never answered my questions. Why is the Bible not allowed in school.

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 7:06 PM

The same reason the Koran, the Kabbala, and the Satanic Bible aren't allowed in school.

Because they are pieces of literature that support a particular religious ideology.

I'm sure you could find a school that would indoctrinate your child the way you want him indoctrinated.

Leave the public schools for families who would prefer to keep their child's education fairy-tale free.

Gotta run cee, you can claim I ignore your questions while at the same time you're ignoring mine some other time.

It was real fun. I have to go get my second grader some secular-progressive school supplies.

That is why I asked for the examples, loin, a rhetorical question you seemed to have missed because the examples you give are not acts done by Christians. They are sinful acts rightfully judged wrong here on Earth and I am confident will be judged sinful at a later time as well, in front of another judge.

Christ instructs me about the false teachers in His word that you mentioned. Muslim teaching does not. Muslim teaching preached conversion by force, Christ does not. And no one can quote me or any real follower of Christ saying such garbage.

No, the secular poisoned the sacred from the first day, Loin....not the other way around. It is the pursuit of the sacred through the only way Christ said there was, that is the only solution.

Through His indwelling....Again, I refer you to the gospel of John.

Posted by: cee at August 24, 2007 5:44 PM

Oh Phari-cee; you really know how to make me want to puke.

Watch cee as he casts out the infidels of the past - denying their right to have called themselves - or to be called - Christians. Apparently, only post-1990 (or when was it that Oral Roberts saw his 900-ft Jesus?) born-agains really know the mind of God.

cee cites crimes against humanity in this blanket excommunication; blissfully unaware of the irony that his little born-again fetish president - who can do no wrong in cee's little brain - has just brought about the deaths of a million Iraqis, and has driven 4 million from their homes (2 million in domestic homelessness; 2 million as foreign refugees. cee's christian fetish president has furthermore denied sanctuary to these regugees - less than 500 Iraqis have been allowed into the US since the war began. cee's christian fetish-president promulgates and normalizes torture and state-sanctioned kidnapping - hallmarks of the barbarian. cee's christian fetish/president is going to take us to war with Iran, if he can, and perhaps quintuple the deaths and devastation on all sides relative to the occupation of Iraq.

...and little christian cee has nothing to say about it; he sits on his cloud and smiles at God, and shakes his finger at the war-mongers and religious rapist of the past.

What a pious little chickenhawk cocksucker. How can a craven death- voyeur, glutted on vicarious bloodlust - think so fucking highly of himself?

...according to cee; the acts of a "true Christian" include:

-burning residential areas with white phosphorus munitions;

-burning residential areas with napalm (today, this is actually polstyrene and kerosene, instead of polystyrene and gasoline, which is outlawed by the Geneva conventions);

-locking people up on no evidence with no warrant and torturing them;

- sending one's nation to war but insulating your own family and class from danger;...

If Secular Humanism is a religion, then all of my secular activities at home, work, and market should be tax-fucking-free!

...but no secular humanist is stupid or selfish enough to demand this; we realize that we are our bother's keepers, and that the maintenance of social and national security and the national commons demands a certain pooling of resources, efforts, dangers, and ideas.

"Christ instructs me about the false teachers in His word that you mentioned. Muslim teaching does not. Muslim teaching preached conversion by force, Christ does not."

Isn't the occupation a "conversion by force"? Certainly not one made of fairy dust and unicorn horns; but in fact a secular, political conversion that deals in the mode of bood and food and pain and homes. But to Phari-cee this is all irrelevant; the only thing that matters is the "truth about Jesus" as Republican dreamers see it.

Olbermann is bitching about having to slum in a $4.2 million dollar Trump Palace 40th floor apartment. That's your "man of the people'.

You know what's going to be fun Anonloon? Watching Olbermann have the well-overdue nervous breakdown when he has his Imus moment. The higher he rises the harder he's going to come crashing back down to earth. It's all he's ever done at every step of his career. His countdown to oblivion is just a matter of time.

You don't seem to understand that the better he does the better it is for Olbermannwatch. More hits, more $$$. Read, watch, learn, and then weep.

You don't seem to understand that the better he does the better it is for Olbermannwatch. More hits, more $$$. Read, watch, learn, and then weep.

Posted by: Waiting for Olby's Imus Moment at August 25, 2007 4:35 PM

OK..you trade your self-respect and the pain of cognitive dissonance in return for the pittence that my schaddenfreud-enabling visits here earn for OW. Its a deal.

What a pious little chickenhawk cocksucker. How can a craven death- voyeur, glutted on vicarious bloodlust - think so fucking highly of himself?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at August 24, 2007 7:33 PM

Isn't slob a classy fellow? He, aap/why, clucker/philby/rudy and o'liar make such a lovely bunch. Model spolbyloons.

Yes, rk....Sir Loin of Milquetoast is the true secular humanist, showing the conclusion he has arrived at with his own moral paradigm.

Loin's behavior is an example that answers AAP (another hater) when he ask about my claim that morals start with Jesus. They SHOULD, since He is God, He is the only one that is holy (100% without evil) while myself, you, Loin, Mike, Clucker, AAP and the rest of humanity have that small part of us that can lead us astray. That small inherited part that is always whispering to us lies that we, in the end, CAN know best and can be the ONLY judge over everything. Christ is clear on this point and so many choose to ignore Him instead believing the lie that they do not need His holiness (note....I NEED His holiness), to not go down the roads seen in the above posts.

We keep reading Cee's continued invocation of Jesus and Christianity as an essential pretext for all that he believes to be moral, ethical, or right. We also continue to see his implied self righteous assertion that all who 'reject' Jesus are somehow missing a needed component that in turn, precludes the possibility of any inherent morality and goodness, .... from those of us he and others arbitrarily package and label as "Secular Humanists".

As I was reading one of Cee's latest ramblings about his faith, I was reminded of a letter I just read in yesterday's newspaper.

That letter stated unequivacly that people like me simply need to accept Jesus and all will magically become right with the world.

This is a theme that I see recurring over and over again in today's society, and even within my own extended family, since I am the only one in it who has not 'accepted' Jesus as "my personal savior".

However there is an inherent and insurmountable problem when you make the assumption that someone's 'problem' is that they have 'refused' to accept Jesus.

When you do that, you must also make the false assumption that anyone could choose to 'accept' Jesus if they would just do it! In other words, it is simply a matter of personal choice and nothing more. That assumption is patently false and ridiculously short sighted, as well as condescending.

To make such an assumption, you have to also accept the false premise that everyone has the ability to accept an unproveable story that reads more like a fairy tale than rational history.

To have 'faith', you must swallow a traditional story that is based entirely on an ancient book that has been continually re-interpreted and translated many times. To have 'faith', you must blindly accept a practice that is seemingly based more on traditition and the personal needs of some to believe in something greater than themselves, than it does on anything relevant.

Many of us simply CANNOT do that! It is simply NOT within our power to reject anything and everything scientific and rational, while simultaneously embracing a handed down story that sounds far too too much like a wishful fairy tale, ..... as the very basis for all that we know and believe.

To Christians everywhere, that is precisely what you are doing when you imply that someone is bad, incomplete, or somehow immoral simply because they are not a Christian!.....Do you realize that?

Before I ever become a Christian, I would need to see irrevocable proof that our society's wholesale acceptance of a wishful and fancifull story based on resurrection, eternal life, and an invisible supreme creator, who above all, demands to be vainly worshipped by his creations in order to not exact retribution on them.

These are all concepts many of us find absurd and impossible to believe.

So Cee, why is it that so many Christians find this simple concept so hard to fathom? To me, it seems that you are really the one who is living a life of personal delusionment and enial, .... and yet you seem to wonder why the thought of people like you running our country, while simultaneously making bold monumental decisions about war and peace, ..... literally scares the hell out of people like me!

Cee scares you, but, people that want to kill you and your family (radical muslims) don't? You call cee "delusional" and in "enial?" Thanks, mike!

"Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

This quote, from one our nation's founders, has been repeated many times, but it warrants repeating from time to time, especially in times like these.

I think Mike was describing a loathing, a sense of foreboding, a concern that America might cease to be America.

This is not the same as your perpetual state of knee-knocking, pants wetting, hiding behind some woman's skirts kind of crippling cowardice.

Do you undertsand the distinction?
Posted by: Clucker at August 26, 2007 3:10 PM

I do.

One is an indulgence in hyperbolic rhetoric as calculated political stance rather than any real "loss of faith" in the checks and balances inherent in American political institutions and meant to frame domestic political squabbles and domestic political opponents in a context generally reserved for foreign threats, and the other is a guy on a blogboard essentially asking if you don't have truer enemies to fret over rather than your fellow citizens.

I"ll leave that "tact" to some of you. I don't have the credulity or the acting abilities to pretend that liberal/democratic pols and peeps are so dire.

"and the other is a guy on a blogboard esentially asking if you don't have truer enemies to fret over than your fellow citizens."

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Why is it so difficult for some to grasp that unintentional harm done by those with good intentions can be just as devastating, if not more so than the "truer enemies"?

"Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

What is liberty going to do for you if you are dead or riddled with nails and marbles from a bomb?

The quote, which is most probably by Ben Franklin, according to the preponderance of opinion actually reads "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security." The two qualifiers are conveniently missing from those who normally cite it.

This quote by Ben Franklin always calls to my mind the quote by Justice Jackson that "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." This quote has been often repeated as "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" or perhaps it was paraphrased in this format by someone else.

Taken together these two quotes and the sentiments underpinning them should, I think, give us a good road map to maintaining a balance between our necessary protection and any temporary cut back in some civil liberties (Habeas Corpus) for illegal enemy combatants and the NSA Surveillance program (not rampant wiretapping of every communication of every citizen).

I assess the danger to America now as possibly catastrophic wherever it happens but statistically highly improbable to affect more than a vey small, relative to total population and area, group. There could very well be a nuclear or biological attack in a major city or two at one time which would be horrific but still leave the bulk of us untouched. The resultant financial and logistic upheavals would be quite severe but our track record proves that we are a very resilient nation in the face of such obstacles.

Now, if you'll excuse me I have to crawl under my bed and resume my shaking and quaking with fear again. :)

Grammie

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Why is it so difficult for some to grasp that unintentional harm done by those with good intentions can be just as devastating, if not more so than the "truer enemies"?
Posted by: Mike at August 26, 2007 4:44 PM

Ask yourself the same question. You've never expressed any doubt that "America as we know it", with it's institutions, it's political checks and balances, will survive foreign enemies, but you express no faith that we'll continue on the same when it comes to domestic political squabbles, political policy missteps (or those you consider missteps), and the opinions of your fellow citizens who largely aren't out of the mainstream.

Consider your worst case scenario-- we survived Vietnam, we've survived and resolved domestic political policies that were over-reaching or intrusive (there were some during WWII, you know...), and if you put into place all of what the fans of the Rev. James Dobson would want for the country we'd have the U.S.A. circa 1964.

I have no doubt our the country will continue on and our institutions would triumph over the these sorts of set-backs.

I don't doubt we'll triumph over terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism and against dictatorial socialist regimes either. But I count them a heck of a lot more threatening to the institutions within my country than those internal elements they must withstand.

I don't put any stock in and reject the opportunistic and dire prophesy that says America is going to changed forever for the worse if we draw-down or leave Iraq entirely and I believe we need to be in Iraq.

Surely, you can get some perspective about this other stuff....

elieve me, Cecelia, the moment Bush was appointed President, I became worried about our democracy, truly worried, vitally worried, worried with cause. I have been proven correct. I have always believed freedom trumps security, and I knew from Bush's term and a half as governor, his committment to democratic institutions is about as serious as Guiliani's committment to the institution of marriage.
Posted by: Clucker at August 26, 2007 5:24 PM

Well, you worry for both us, Clucker. For that and for your replacements via the new ...old... black helicopter crowd who you'll fret over if there's a Democrat in the WH in '09.

sheesh!....

Now, if you'll excuse me I have to crawl under my bed and resume my shaking and quaking with fear again. :)

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at August 26, 2007 5:09 PM

Grammie, we need you here serving the warm milk and cookies of commonsense.

Clucker,

Let me add that I'm not saying domestic threats aren't serious.

The most serious threat to our country was a domestic squabble circa the South's shameful conduct the resulted in the Civil War.

But to frameup every struggle and every dispute in the light of something of this magnitude seems to a professional sport and I suppose part and parcel of the effect of cable news and Madison Ave.

Only to you, patsy, makes perfect sense to me.

Cecilia's posts always make my head hurt.

Posted by: Why don't you think at August 26, 2007 6:39 PM

Considering you probably don't even know half of what the words mean, just another laughable post by the
ROYALFRAUD !

Posted by: Why don't you think at August 26, 2007 7:39 PM

Cecilia's posts always make my head hurt.

Posted by: Why don't you think at August 26, 2007 6:39 PM

Perhaps at some point that person holding a gun to your head and making you read them will go to sleep and you can make a run for it...

Well, to Mike and Clucker, I refer back to the Matthew passage about Christ's miracle with the fig tree. It is clear to me that in the context of contact with the "supernatural" Christ was (and always) means faith as that for which Clucker and Mike seem to not want to face....faith, "sounds far too too much like a wishful fairy tale."

Once again, the hateful and dehumanizing posts of so-called compassionate, secular humanists who have arrived at a moral nirvana through self creation seems a contractiction Clucker and Mike seem all to easily dismissive of while worrying that my public expression of faith, while causing some discomfort, is actually MORE damaging to our domestic tranquility than radical islam.

I really appreciate Cecelia's thinking regarding the similar topic regarding "faith" that our democracy can withstand such violent attacks like 9/11 while there is so little "faith" that it can withstand the current executive. Once again, my problem all along starts with who people choose their most vile and fear-provoking words for.....

Al Qaeda and their cohorts or
President George Bush

Wisdom, it seems to me, is choosing the right "enemy." Not agreeing with someone based on religious, political and/or economic ideology seems to be the deal-breaker for both radical poles in our country and I believe the one and only powerful threat we won't be able to overcome as a collective society.

From my vantage point, the radical left has been much more successful and destructive in this avenue, but I don't want to repeat myself.

One more piece of advice to all of those who fear evangelical Christians.....

Take C.S. Lewis's advice (a former atheist, he became a great Christian 20th century apologist and writer of The Chronicles of Narnia).....

(I am paraphrasing as best as I remember)

He said people have to see Christ as either the Son of God or a madman. To try to see Him as anything else is impossible, He really did not give that option if you seriously study His words and His ministry.

When people try to have Christ as some kind of compromise (a sage, a "good man with good ideology"), you see the base reaction like that of Clucker, AAP, Mike and Loin these last couple of days. Not very nice or compassionate. I would suggest if you decide to follow the cool advice of the smart and witty Mr. Lewis, we would all get along better.

My faith has brought me to the conclusions I have professed....either ignore me as some kind of lunatic or seriously inquire how I arrived at what seems to be such a childish and simpleminded conclusion for an adult living in 21st century America.

Jeff's : "What is liberty going to do for you if are dead or riddled with nails from a bomb?"

It never fails fails!

- Cecelia can make a thoughtful response to a post that can actually makes you think.

- So can Grammie, .... even a ditto on that for our ultra faithful Neocon, .... Cee.

But Jeff, .... you can count on him to make an ultra dumb reply every single time!

>>>>According to the biggest hypocrite, mike, I am not a moron, I am "ultra dumb!"

"Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." posted by mike

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

The actual quote, posted by Cecelia. Wasn't it mike wo has time and time again tried schooling other posters on getting quotes right? Even resorting to posting the definition of a "quote" in desperation?

"According to the biggest hypocrite, mike, I am not a moron, I am "ultra dumb!"

Who said you weren't a moron Jeff?

It's your comments that are "ultra dumb".
------------------------------------------------
The actual quote, posted by Cecelia"

Wrong again Jeff. The "actual quote" backed up only by the "preponderance of opinion", was actually posted by Grammie.

Wrong again Jeff. The "actual quote" backed up only by the "preponderance of opinion", was actually posted by Grammie.

Posted by: Mike at August 26, 2007 11:26 PM

Oh, what a colossal mistake I made right there and the hypocrite was right there to make another post of that stuff he likes to call "substance." Desperate, indeed. Thanks, mike! Ignore your relevant mistakes and point out others irrelevant ones, nice job.

"ignore your relevant mistakes and point out others irrelevant ones, nice job."

Yes Jeff, it's definitely YOUR place to determine which mistakes are relevant.

I think I can do that for you: If it's my alledged 'mistake', it's "relevant". If it's YOUR documented mistake, it's "irrelevant".

"Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." posted by mike

"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

This is a documented mistake, oh hypocrite and ignorant one. Deny and divert as you always do, it is all you know.

Jeff: "Deny and divert as you always do, it is all you know."

I do so know more than that! For example, I know that you're a moron!

Cluker, to you and you family...reread your response to me regarding "faith," back a couple of days ago...You stated clearly that you interpret the Matthew passage as Christ asking his followers to be "faithful." I reminded you that he was speaking of faith just after the miracle with the unproductive fig tree....a miracle....interaction with the supernatural....Interpreting such a passage without the context could lead one astray but it is clear that Christ, here and throughout His ministry, referred not to being "committed" when he spoke of faith, but to believe, rely and speak of something not of this natural, "scientific" if you will, world.

Mike mentioned his inability, and implied that modernity has all but destroyed the possibility, that he could have faith in Christ because it, "sounds far too too much like a wishful fairy tale."

He put into words what you and Loin and so many others get upset about regarding "evangelical" Christianity. So, many cut the baby in half and compromise what the original text in the scriptures say to put Christ in a more comfortable place.....basically ignoring His self proclaimed divinity....a claim by the way that caused His fellow Jews to demand His execution....Christ was clearly guilty of blasphemy.

Reread the first two paragraphs again and let me know if they are still unclear, Clucker. And I would suggest you read C.S. Lewis....especially his apologetic works...."Mere Christianity" is especially mind opening.

Being a former atheist, I think Lewis has a particular challenging position to those, like you, who are uncomfortable taking the hebrew and christian scriptures at face value, like Christ asked us to (like children). Even with the challenge of secular humanism demanding no faith, and the ease to become lazy in a modern society, believers in Christ must be disciplined not to ignore the supernatural just because the popular and powerful crowd demands it.

Lewis is witty and kind about this tendency. He and his friend, devout catholic, JRR Tolkien, had many debates surrounding the function of tradition and liturgy in the church and it seems to me their friendly relationship was a great example of where catholics and protestants diverge in being different in such a modern world. Both men believed in God as sole creator and Christ as the eternal atonement, but Tolkien was a great defender of the symbolic traditionalism that his church carried on as well as the special place of the pope and the pronounced saints.

I have no negative view of such topics, along the lines of Lewis and I believe the anti-catholic opinions of many evangelicals is wrong. However, I see the commen thread between catholic and protestant of the supremacy Christ in all things, including creation and atonement, as inarguable. What do you think, Clucker?

do have a problem with Fundamentalists to the extent Fundamentalists pare God down and are not open to God constantly at work around them in the world and through other men and women. This limited God concept translates far too often into a scorn for God's greatest creation, mankind. And, I see little difference in this regard among Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalists. But, I tend to view Fundamentalists as cultic in many regards. Certainly, the Church has long taught us that fundamentalist Mormonism is, in fact, cultic.

I also disagree with you that the sole path to truth, goodness is Christianity. The sole path to salvation may well lie through Christ, but many, including what you refer to as Secular Humanists, live good and exemplary lives.
Posted by: Clucker at August 27, 2007 1:55 PM

It's interesting because far from seeing fundamentals as having put their own doctrinal restraints on God, therefore being closed to any daily revelation of his person, is NOT my complaint against fundamentalists. I don't see them as having given up on the world and on mankind because it is fallen, either.

My complaint is that so many of them DO think that God wishes them to make this earth as near to heaven as possible and to sort of hand back Eden to Christ when he returns.

Their definition of Eden may not be the same as the liberation theology Christians, but it's the same false path.

Any belief in Christianity should have social repercussions. It SHOULD effect how you view the world and effect your involvement and concern the suffering around you. But Christ's chief admonishment to his disciples is to preach salvation through his act of atonement to a mankind that is estranged from God and to made perfect for good works in HIS name.

Too often we confuse the largess of the distant magistrate for that.

I'm a fan of C.S. Lewis too, and I am particularly fond of his statement in Mere Christianity where he writes that people who feel they can use Christ to reshape the world into their view of utopia might as well believe that they can use the staircase of Heaven as a shortcut to their Chemist's Shoppe.

He'll reshape the world when he returns. He'll judge people with his judgement. Until then, Christians should preach what he said to preach, live as he said to live, and should be careful not to confuse their judgements, opinions, and methods with his and to use him as a means to their ends.

Perhaps at some point that person holding a gun to your head and making you read them will go to sleep and you can make a run for it...
Posted by: Cecelia at August 26, 2007 8:57 PM

Wow, she's so witty & brilliant!

Wow, she's so witty & brilliant!
Posted by: Cecelia fan club at August 27, 2007 8:12 PM

I hope you're not expecting a mug or a shirt or something...

Clucker,

I am not suggesting in the slightest that Christians shouldn't be involved in alleviating any sort of suffering.

But this commandment was personal. Sainthood is not conferred onto someone via their position on govt programs.

I feel that a social safety-net SHOULD be something endemic to all societies. But I might not agree with it to the extent that you feel it necessary and a folks of the libertarian persuasions believe it's the antithesis of freedom and morality.

Christians can believe these folks are mistaken, but any judgement as to the extent of their Christian devotion or salvation, based upon debates such as these, are the sort of legalism-- salvation via good works... that is antithetical to Christ's message....and is a renunication of the gist of the Gospel.

As to fundamentalism, I find its anchor to be in legalism and only Christ incidentally. Legalism makes God very limited.

Posted by: Clucker at August 27, 2007 8:13 PM

You'll have to define what you mean by legalism.

I define it as a set of doctrines about things like dress, decorum, sacraments, rituals, and codes of behavior, outside those expressly laid down in Scripture.

"the way the republican party is falling apart, you RW'ers better get religion."

They already tried hijacking religion, and it worked for a while.

Legalism in the NT context is a rigid adherence to rules with the apparent belief that such adherence brings salvation, rather the belief that salvation comes from God's grace. In other words, the notion that good deeds "buy" salvation. It is rather ironic, it seems to me, that fundamentalists should be legalistic since so much of their theology revolves around the notion of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, whereas "higher" churchmanship involves the notion that God comes to God's people, a corporate relationship, in which the individual finds his or her way with the aid, support and guidance of the broader community of believers. If my faith is in legalism, then I can condemn a fellow believer for errors in lifestyle, a sort of micrmanagement if you will, with the focus on the inividual instead of upon God's on-going, unending grace.

Posted by: Clucker at August 27, 2007 10:31 PM

I tend to think of the term "good works" as being directed towards others in the sense of tending to the needs of others. I don't see any broad teaching among fundies that implies that one can buy salvation through these acts, but that they are the natural outworkings and indications of transformed personalities.

I haven't considered the term "good works" as applying to those who don't engage in stealing, bearing false witness, or forbidden sexual practices.

That the Church, as in the community of believers, warns adures and condemns these practices is a part of the aid, support, and guidance that is found there, and is certainly historical Scripturally.

The teaching that Christians are being transformed into the image of Christ (but cannot be perfect in this life) and are "covered" by Christ is not incompatible with admonishing adherents against the sort of deliberate sin entailed in continued and willful practice.

You crystalized the tension, Cecelia. The fruits of the inner workings of Christ are required and amongst such fruits would be the "good works," the positive results like that of coming to the aid of those in need. However, the negative results (not negative as in bad, but negative as in the absence of) are just as important to note....

The absence of lying, stealing, coveting, cursing, killing and commiting consistently outlined sexual acts (fornication, adultery, perverse acts).

I do not rank the above mentioned sins, unlike my catholic brothers and sisters. They are all a result of a sinful nature. A nature that God has provided one, and only one, answer for. The effects of my sin on my fellow now seems to logically warrant "gradation" when punished here on earth and this has resulted in all sorts of confusion regarding the nature of sin in God's view. Permissive attitudes towards "small infractions" or "private acts involving consenting adults" or "acts without dire consequences" seems to translate into a view that God would also be permissive. No, I do not see such support for this view in scripture.

Forgiveness of sin is available from God, but permissiveness is not. The use of the term "legalism" is an easy strawman to erect to try to distract from the clear idea that God would not allow any sin He and His prophets have laid down.....including sexual sins. For any spiritual leader to claim permissiveness on behalf of God is just as wrongheaded as any spiritual leader to claim God would not forgive and redeem for a particular offense.

Why would God create the law if he was not ready to enforce it....from "the white lie" to "the mass murder?" Catholic tradition has erected an elaborate system for God to provide punishment (one I do not believe is supported by the cannon), and I think this among other things, has lead to an erosion to how we view sin.

So, Clucker's more "progressive" views regarding sin leaves me wondering where he draws the line. Is God permissive regarding homosexual acts only in "committed" relationships where the individuals have expressed "love" and a desire to be monogamous? Or does His permissiveness expand to acts like that of democrat Govenor James McGreevey and republican Senator Craig who seem to have inate desires and seek relations with other consenting adults of the same gender?

I do not deny God is ready to forgive McGreevey and Craig for their acts, but I differ with those who choose to ignore the clear statements that God deems such acts as sinful. I am not suggesting a "Taliban" solution for the sin but I am very shocked when anyone with a knowledge of scripture could suggest God does not judge such behavior as sin. Consistently, including Christ's earthly presence, all sin, including sexual sin, was regarded as such and only solved by what was pronounced by God.

Trying to rationalize any act of sin is the wrong road eternally.

The post at 9:11 AM was cee

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

Paul's letter to the church in Galatia.

###
I would like to know your opinion regarding these results of Christ's redemptive power, Clucker, and how the passage's implied exclusivity of the solution to the sinful nature fits with your worldview.

I hope you're not expecting a mug or a shirt or something...
Posted by: Cecelia at August 27, 2007 9:02 PM

That would be tooooo cooooool!!!!!

That would be tooooo cooooool!!!!!
Posted by: Cecelia Fan Club at August 28, 2007 11:29 AM

Great. Go grab us both some. I like blue.

(Oh, the power...)

Darn, I would have thought RED your favorite color.

Darn, I would have thought RED your favorite color.
Posted by: Cecelia Fan Club at August 28, 2007 4:32 PM

And you call yourself a "fan"?

You can't get good housekeepers or groupies anymore...

aint it the truth

Consistently, including Christ's earthly presence, all sin, including sexual sin, was regarded as such and only solved by what was pronounced by God.

Trying to rationalize any act of sin is the wrong road eternally.
Posted by: average american opinion at August 28, 2007 9:11 AM

I appreciate your post, Cee. I know this subject is more applicable to your life and less abstract to you than it is for me. I appreciate that too.

I think one of the things that is forgotten with Christianity, among some of its adherents and certainly among non-Christians who think that the "my myth is as good as your myth" is the sort of tolerance religious adherents should exhibit, is that according to Christianity, Christ and his atonement for sin is THE chief image for God and for his love towards mankind. There is no other "love" (as men would define it) available.

The notion that God is love and that love is, as some would define it -- tolerance towards faults and as C.S. Lewis put it, the benevolence of an old granddad who wishes the young folks to enjoy themselves.... is NOT the love that is exhibited in the story of Christ.

THE love that God has, the only LOVE there is from him, is one of atonement and the infilling of the Holy Spirit as comforter and perfecter. It is "Repent" and "Go and sin no more".

This is traditional Christian teaching. When you enter into any discussion about a religion and which of its adherents have it right and which have it wrong, you need to at least be aware of the basic tenets.

Does this mean that people who are not Christians will go to hell? I don't believe that for a minute. There are millions of people who for some reason or another will never "hear" in a full sense, the message of the Gospel. Yet God will move on them and guide them into the right precepts, expect the right choices from them, and ultimately judge them with his judgment, not ours.

Scripture says that there will be surprises on Judgment Day... However, this does not dilute the firm doctrinal stance that Christ, his death, and atonement, and renunciation of sin, is THE expression of God's love towards fallen man.

Some fundamentalists do seem to ignore other scriptures and teach that everyone else is going to hell. I'm guessing that this is what Clucker is arguing when he uses the term "legalism". If so, I agree with him.

I thought this was OlbermannWatch, not "The Gospel According to cee and Cecelia."

I think you two are some of the most intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, partisan, narrow-minded, unholy charlatans posting on this website.

But, somehow, I know you'll FORGIVE ME.

But, somehow, I know you'll FORGIVE ME.
Posted by: Theology Today at August 28, 2007 7:44 PM

Cee, I'm sure, will forgive you.

However, I'm an unrepentent heathen who just happens, by default, to have been schooled in the tenets of Christianity, so I know misrepresentations of the Faith when I see them.

However, I forgive you for trying to use any means possible to insult someone who doesn't vote like you.

It's all you have, poor soul....