The special guest commentator for the "Isaiah Thomas Slurs Against Women" story will be an expert in the art of slurring women-- Keith Olbermann live from his hospital bed. Great Thanks!

Why is Kerry preventing free speech?

Bad enough he usurped the Heniz fortune to feed his windsurfing habit. Now he doesn't want to field questions from poor college kids?

I heard that, before checking into the hospital, Keith told Bill O'Reilly that Bill was his favorite journalist and that he had read every one of Bill's books several times over and had recorded every program on which Bill had ever appeared. Keith keeps a vast collection of Ebay-sourced BO memorabilia in a secret, underground bunker.

Now I have to say I miss Keith on tonights show.

I wonder how he would have reported the Isaiah Thomas story?

Or maybe he would have just skipped it.

Yeah, with Keith's track record with women. He would have skipped it.

Yeah Puck-Up, you and I are a lot alike. I was wondering last night too. Nothing important like you. Things like: Why we let a stupid sissy steal an election? Why we're letting a stupid sissy kill our men and women in a ridiculous war we can't win? Why we're letting a stupid sissy turn the US into a second tier nation? Those kind of minor things.

Guilt by association? You mean like the time Keith named Joe Lieberman "Worst Person in the World" for attending the Freedom Concert because Ann Coulter was there?

Olbermann's not right often, but he hit that one on the head! Any friend of Ann Coulter's an enemy to good and decent people anywhere. Dresses like a slut, pontificates like a Puritan, melts over Sean Hannity, libels good Americans and slanders everyone who doesn't subscribe to the Extreme Right Wing Manifesto. If Liebermann wants to run with that dog, he's rabid.

It looks like ol'Chrissy Mathews is trying to pick the slack with KO out of it..yesterday he blamed the tasering of that jerk at the Kerry speech and the cutting out Sally Field's little profanity laded rant at the Emmys on Bush and the War in Iraq...now that would be a classic KO Bush bash..I'm still waiting for one of MSNBC "finest" to find some way to link Bush to the O.J. story..well KO will be back soon maybe after he milks his illness for sympathy he'll gives us a "Special comment " on how Bush framed O.J. to divert attention from Iraq.

P.S.:Before somebody attacks me for suggesting KO would try to get sympathy for his illness after in another thread I said we shouldn't make fun of make vile comments about his health problems..I say this...KO is better he's on the mend,He'll be back to work soon and I'm still not attacking or making fun of his illness I'm just commenting on what he'll likely do when he gets back.

A representative from Code Pink was on Matthews and said that both parties are guilty of silencing speech. Matthews didn't really know how to respond to that.

I don't know who's trashier, Ann Coulter or mlong, but I don't intend to surrender any speech rights to a couple of nasty old sluts.

'',

But you are still the dingbat who dares not speak your own name.

So go stick your finger in your mouth and pout, Rico. You won't be able to peck out dumbass comments like that, and we'll all be happier.

Kerry didn't have the man arrested. He was talking to him when the police jumped him. Topic of conversation: Impeaching Bush. What a police state!

Oh, and another Republican pedophile has been caught attempting sex with a FIVE YEAR OLD GIRL...

Or, as I term it, a normal day...

Perfectly normal.

All politicans suck R & D. Luckily their greed provides jobs to lobbyists and highway workers.

What we need is another argument where one person calls another a name because they are so dumb they can't see the truth as the other person imagines it.

I think I'll go take a walk in the sun.

"Republican pedophile has been caught attempting sex with a FIVE YEAR OLD GIRL..."

Normal day for you blindrat-
Republican politician?
Names?

Can it be, someone from the MSM reporting poor ratings for Football Night in America (plus, more importantly, Olbermann is NOT allowed to do political commentary---why do they still call it a "news" show?):

excerpt:

"...Olbermann, who missed Sunday's show because of an appendectomy, can do "no-holds-barred" commentaries. (Almost. Weisman says the host of an acerbic MSNBC news show "knows we don't want any talk of politics.")..."

"One thing, though. So far, viewers haven't flocked, with NBC's Sunday game rating down 15% from last season. Of the 11 NFL TV game windows on NBC, CBS, Fox and ESPN so far, nine have had ratings drops. NBC's pregame show rating is also down 13%."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2007-09-18-sports-on-tv_N.htm

Don't hurry back on our account.

blindrat makes another random accusation without any substance.... just a normal day, huh.

I think I'll go take a walk in the sun.
Posted by: ? at September 19, 2007 12:22 PM

Don't hurry back on our account.
Posted by: at September 19, 2007 12:26 PM

Perhaps you should take that advice.

You have a hairy back?

"DETROIT -- A federal prosecutor from Florida was taken off a suicide watch Tuesday and ordered held in custody pending his trial on charges he flew to Detroit planning to have sex with a 5-year-old girl.

John David "Roy" Atchison, 53, of Gulf Breeze, Fla., waived his right to a detention hearing in federal court. Atchison's lawyer, James C. Thomas of Detroit, said Atchison consents to detention for the time being but reserves his right to seek a bond hearing in the future..."

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/METRO/709190378/1020/NATION

hardly the political fodder you were projecting, huh....?
keep your eye on the ball loser-
senators, congressmen, judges, presidents, even governors.
local prosecutors?

Quit bringing your stray junk about local prosecutors here thinking it has legs. What lefty blog do you subscribe to that gives you this? May be why you are so miserable, son.

Jeez a prosecutor going to the klink identified as a round eye.

I imagine he is going to spend a lot of time in isolation else he learn to enjoy bending over and holding his ankles.

Too bad child molesters have to be protected in prison. The punishment should fit the crime - right?

blindrat is for putting the party in () after people's names when they are arrested for crimes.

When a party claims to be the party of "family values", it seems the appropriate thing to do, son...

When a party claims to be the party of "family values", it seems the appropriate thing to do, son...

Posted by: blindrat at September 19, 2007 12:47 PM

Your right blindrat. A Democrat would never be called hypocrites for committing this crime. I am sure their friends in the ACLU are working hard to get this guy released.

Let me guess the Factor. The Royal King is your bastard brother? You got the looks, and he got the brains? Your going to a family reunion this weekend to look for wives?

Factor,

Really? Let's see if they do, son...

More nothing from a neocon, folks...

blindrat certainly is condescending little fuck, isn't he?

When a party claims to be the party of "family values", it seems the appropriate thing to do, son...

Posted by: blindrat at September 19, 2007 12:47 PM

hmmmmm.... So the Democratic Party idoesn't claim to be for "family values" in the sense of taking a stand against child molesters....

That's the implication of your logic...

Actuallly, Grammie summed up this sort of tactic accurately. It an attempt by party junkies to put forth the notion that people of certain ideological stripes or party affliation are inherently defective or "bad" in some way.

Don't you think you're a little too old for that nonsense?

blindrat certainly is condescending little fuck, isn't he?

!@#$%^&*()|}{[]\":;'?>

No, he's just a whole lot better than you, the Factor and the Royal King. He just seems to be condescending because it's so hard to explain anything to you.

Cecelia,

Republican politicians have a need for power. That need extends to the sex lives of many of them...the need to be completely in control; hence, the use of children...

The same phenomena is occuring in Japan...

Good clarification, Blind Rat.

Thank you...

Republican politicians have a need for power.
Posted by: blindrat at September 19, 2007 2:03 PM

Unlike Hillary who wants to take the profits of oil companies and force people to buy heath insurance.
Or John Edwards who wants to force you to go to the doctor every year.
Or John Kerry who has been running for president since he was 18.
Or Al Gore who wants to tell you what kind of car you can drive. What kind of light bulb you can buy.

It must be quite a strong search engine "the rat" uses that is capable of searching country wide for scumbags. This same engine then conveniently omits all felons with a (D) next to their name and pops out those with (R)s next to their names that are ACCUSED of a crime. Then the same search engine omits those who are exonerated of said crimes. He has already convicted them, for having a (R) next to their names.

Thanks for bringing such biased and hypocritical news flashes to us. They do little more than to expose you blindness to your own party's flaws....

"DETROIT -- A federal prosecutor from Florida was taken off a suicide watch Tuesday and ordered held in custody pending his trial on charges he flew to Detroit planning to have sex with a 5-year-old girl.

John David "Roy" Atchison, 53, of Gulf Breeze, Fla., waived his right to a detention hearing in federal court. Atchison's lawyer, James C. Thomas of Detroit, said Atchison consents to detention for the time being but reserves his right to seek a bond hearing in the future..."

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/METRO/709190378/1020/NATION

Posted by: blindrat at September 19, 2007 12:34 PM

Funny, I don't see anywhere this guy is a republican, blindbat. You have access to top secret info in your cubicle?

Cecelia,

Republican politicians have a need for power. That need extends to the sex lives of many of them...the need to be completely in control; hence, the use of children...

The same phenomena is occuring in Japan...

Posted by: blindrat at September 19, 2007 2:03 PM

So you're arguing that Republicans are inherently apt to be child molesters.

I suppose since Hillary, Edwards, Obama, and Biden are not for gay marriage, that they are just slightly less drawn to child molestation than Republican pols.

Pro-life Dems slighter still....

(Thanks for expressing precisely what I had articulated as your reasoning behind this silliness.)

"Republican politicians have a need for power. ...the need to be completely in control; hence, the use of children..."

Interesting concept blindrat, the idea that politicans would use "children" as a way to get power and control. But as far as using this technique to achieve their ends, you've got the wrong party:

"Marion Wright Edelman, Hillary Clinton’s old friend and colleague at the Children’s Defense Fund, comes as close as any to being the architect - or, more apt, the mother - of this idea."

"The CDF was launched in the early 1970s largely to push for more generous social welfare programs. But Edelman realized that welfare could be a hard sell. “When you talked about poor people or black people, you faced a shrinking audience,” she said. “I got the idea that children might be a very effective way to broaden the base for change.” The idea was as simple as it was brilliant: By making The Children the beneficiaries of welfare rather than the adults, the left could portray any attempt to curb the welfare state as “anti-child.”

"Ever since, liberals have argued that disagreements over policy are motivated by cartoonish animus toward kids. For example, when Bill Clinton finally signed Republican-backed welfare reform, the CDF called it an act of “national child abandonment,” while Ted Kennedy denounced it as “legislative child abuse.”

"Such acrimony over welfare reform hardly translated into the Clinton administration abandoning its “do it for the children” approach to politics."

"Former Attorney General Janet Reno — America’s chief law-enforcement officer — always cast herself as the protector of children. “I would like to use the law of this land to do everything I possibly can,” she declared when nominated, “to give to each of them the opportunity to grow to be strong, healthy and self-sufficient citizens of this country.” If only al Qaeda had been targeting day-care centers, she might have paid more attention."

"Hillary Clinton’s entire approach to public policy, from her earliest days as a “children’s rights advocate,” has been grounded in the idea that political differences need to be put aside for the sake of The Children. In 1996 she proclaimed, “As adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn’t really any such thing as someone else’s child. ... For that reason, we cannot permit discussions of children and families to be subverted by political or ideological debate.”

"But here’s the thing: There really is such a thing as somebody else’s child. I don’t want to live in a country where there’s no such thing as somebody else’s child, because that means there’s no such thing as my child. And the fact is, my child is mine and nobody else’s (save, of course, for her mother). Almost as important, I don’t want to live in a country where I am a “subversive” simply by offering political or ideological debate against this vision."

>>Unlike Hillary who wants to take the profits of oil companies and force people to buy heath insurance.

How is covering people going to give Clinton more power, son?

>>Or John Edwards who wants to force you to go to the doctor every year.

Really? Proof?

>>Or John Kerry who has been running for president since he was 18.

Since he was 18? Proof?

>>Or Al Gore who wants to tell you what kind of car you can drive. What kind of light bulb you can buy.

How is this power, son? It affects what he drives and what lightbulbs he uses...

I guess you are just pulling things out of the air, boy. I can't blame you. Better than looking at truth...

Wow! So many idiotic reponses I don't know which to respond to.

Do I respond to rk by telling him that he was appointed by Bush's attorney General and registered as a Republican on the Florida rolls?

Or Cecelia, who essentially said nothing of value?

Or Hank, who has a problem with using the fact that children are beaten or starving to keep them from being beaten or starved?

Goodness!...

You have them on the run, Blindrat. They'll all have to leave to go babysit St. Sharon's kids soon.

I guess you are just pulling things out of the air, boy. I can't blame you. Better than looking at truth...

Posted by: at September 19, 2007 2:27 PM

If you don't see there's immense power to be given to politicians by handing off to them the method of paying for everyone's health care, then that's because you've not given the issue much consideration.

Whether we want to make health care the sort of political football that Social Security has become is arguable.

As for environmental politics or policies, Gore is for regulations that would affect what sort of car can be produced.

The power to regulate is the ultimate power. You, I, or anyone else might feel that govt regulation or oversight is justified in any particular case, but don't act as though we aren't putting power into the hands of pols when we do.

That's a valid concern. Don't minimize it.

Goodness!...
Posted by: blindrat at September 19, 2007 2:32 PM

Yes, deciding which valueless comment you should respond to after having essentially argued that some folks are endemic child molesters because of their conservative stances on abortion and gay marriage ..... would certainly be THE dilemma for you, Blindrat...

However, considering what you're arguing, it's not the only one.... :D

Cecilia,

>>If you don't see there's immense power to be given to politicians by handing off to them the method of paying for everyone's health care, then that's because you've not given the issue much consideration.

There is only one way for the vast majority of Americans to pay for medical care: Insurance. Why pretend that there are any others?

"Or Hank, who has a problem with using the fact that children are beaten or starving to keep them from being beaten or starved?"

Only Olbermann rivals your ability to invent an interpretation of an opponent's argument that is so disconnected from reality that one must assume that you are either mentally ill or completely disingenuous.

One can make arguments about the size of the welfare state, how it should be funded, whether decisions should be made at the local level or should be centralized without being someone who doesn't care " that children are beaten or starving". The fact that you would use the same over the top rhetoric to misrepresent my argument is a perfect example of the "if you disagree with me you want to hurt The Children" mentality of you and your political soulmates.

Another "Mission Accomplished" speech by Blindrat. He doesn’t like having his own words used against him so he dismisses the arguments and claims "victory". Keep marching zombie. We wouldn't want an independent thought to reach you brain.

hank,

>>One can make arguments about the size of the welfare state, how it should be funded, whether decisions should be made at the local level or should be centralized without being someone who doesn't care " that children are beaten or starving". The fact that you would use the same over the top rhetoric to misrepresent my argument is a perfect example of the "if you disagree with me you want to hurt The Children" mentality of you and your political soulmates.

Kinda sounds like your side's "You're with me or with the terrorists" speech...

I think that it is valid to tell people the ramifications of NOT helping people out. If that argument moves you, so much the better. There is hope for you yet...

There is only one way for the vast majority of Americans to pay for medical care: Insurance. Why pretend that there are any others?

Posted by: blindrat at September 19, 2007 3:03 PM

Why do you pretend that is the sole issue about the matter and that nothing else matters? At what price (and that's not just a monetary price) such coverage garners is certainly pertinent.

You'd have no difficulty recognizing that there was more to a particular issue, if I suggested that racial profiling was more effective at catching criminals than no profiling... or that the NSA domestic spying program harbored more opportunity to catch terrorists than NOT having it.

Kinda sounds like your side's "You're with me or with the terrorists" speech...

Posted by: blindrat at September 19, 2007 3:13 PM

So why are you engaging in the sort of thinking you say you disdain?

What pisses me off is that the democrats defending the govt. health care that may be jammed down our throats is going to be flawed compared to MY CURRENT health care which I busted my ass to secure. If the govt. takes over my health care it is guaranteed to fail, just as social security will. Just as I can't count on my retirement fund being supported by the govt. - I do not want the government to guarantee my health. Its worse than I have now. Why do I have to suffer?

"...I think that it is valid to tell people the ramifications of NOT helping people out."

Oh, I see. I called you out on your cheap underhanded smear and now you're giving me the shoulder-shrugging "I was only trying to explain what I meant" soft shoe.
That act is as old as that Democrat Senator who can't seem to stop using the "N" word. Very unimpessive.

Oh, I see. I called you out on your cheap underhanded smear and now you're giving me the shoulder-shrugging "I was only trying to explain what I meant" soft shoe.
That act is as old as that Democrat Senator who can't seem to stop using the "N" word. Very unimpessive.

Posted by: hank at September 19, 2007 3:29 PM

No, he's saying that if you don't agree with nationalized health care then some people won't be covered. If you have any consideration for anything other than this--- monetary issues, power issues in handing over the insurance industry to the govt, the effect it will have incentives for researchers and medical professionals, standards of care, etc..... then you're a selfish pig. End of story...

There is only one way for the vast majority of Americans to pay for medical care: Insurance. Why pretend that there are any others?

Posted by: blindrat at September 19, 2007 3:03 PM

Kinda sounds like your side's "You're with me or with the terrorists" speech...

Posted by: blindrat at September 19, 2007 3:13 PM

Blindrat first uses a tactic and then condems it. Proof positive he is a moron.

Blindrat first uses a tactic and then condems it. Proof positive he is a moron.

Posted by: The Factor at September 19, 2007 3:39 PM

Health care... smelth care.... Blindrat is only here to insult Republicans, son...

Why do I have to suffer?

Posted by: Ouch at September 19, 2007 3:25 PM

The ultimate goal of the (d)'s is to make everyone reliant on the gov't for everything. That's why they immediately blamed Bush for the Katrina fiasco, even though he was not at fault.

blindbats bus has left- you see- he's also reliant on the government for transportation.

"Why do I have to suffer?"

Well, why the hell do I have to suffer? I bust my ass working a full time job, yet still have to shell out $2000-$3000 a year ON TOP of my premiums and co-pays because I was unlucky and lost the genetic lottery.

I'm being punished for something THAT I HAD NO FUCKING CONTROL OVER because my insurance company wants to make money.

Well, why the hell do I have to suffer? I bust my ass working a full time job, yet still have to shell out $2000-$3000 a year ON TOP of my premiums and co-pays because I was unlucky and lost the genetic lottery.

Posted by: Anon at September 19, 2007 6:00 PM

BOOHOOOOO!! I can't renew my World of War Craft subscription. Cry me a river. Life is not fair. Get over it and grow up.

Why do I have to suffer?"

Well, why the hell do I have to suffer? I bust my ass working a full time job, yet still have to shell out $2000-$3000 a year ON TOP of my premiums and co-pays because I was unlucky and lost the genetic lottery.

I'm being punished for something THAT I HAD NO FUCKING CONTROL OVER because my insurance company wants to make money.

Posted by: at September 19, 2007 6:00 PM

Judging your reasoning abilities illustrated in this post, my guess is that you're also being punished via life in general for losing the genetic lottery by being born none too bright...

Posted by: at September 19, 2007 7:17 PM

"I can't renew my World of War Craft subscription. Cry me a river. Life is not fair. Get over it and grow up."

I see. So in your mind I'm lazy and selfish. Typical "I got mine, so fuck off!" response of the right.

Party of "family values" and "compassionate conservatism" MY ASS.

"I can't renew my World of War Craft subscription. Cry me a river. Life is not fair. Get over it and grow up."

I see. So in your mind I'm lazy and selfish. Typical "I got mine, so fuck off!" response of the right.

Party of "family values" and "compassionate conservatism" MY ASS.

Posted by: at September 19, 2007 7:20 PM

So now we're inhuman for not feeling the proper level of compassion for someone who IS insured, but who has to pay more for coverage....

As though no conservative and/or Republican ever finds themselves in just the same situation... and just gets the hell on with it....

Personally, I'd have a whole lot more compassion for you if you didn't term yourself as being "punished" (as though any individual has a "right" to the best nature can offer...) for bad circumstances and if you didn't confuse the insurance industry with the American Red Cross.

Let me guess the Factor. The Royal King is your bastard brother? You got the looks, and he got the brains? Your going to a family reunion this weekend to look for wives?

Posted by: at September 19, 2007 1:47 PM

{-}{-}{:}{:}(>)(>)(

Party of "family values" and "compassionate conservatism" MY ASS.

Posted by:same person as above at September 19, 2007 7:20 PM

>>>

Party of "family values" and "compassionate conservatism" MY ASS.

Posted by: at September 19, 2007 7:20 PM

Let me guess the Factor. The Royal King is your bastard brother? You got the looks, and he got the brains? Your going to a family reunion this weekend to look for wives?

Posted by:same person as above at September 19, 2007 1:47 PM

>>>I'm curious, which "party" do you belong to?

Dum dum's latest dumb post:

"That's why they immediately blamed Bush for the Katrina fiasco, even though it was not his fault"

_ "They" blamed Bush because the day New Orleans flooded, he wwen off on a routine appearance talking about his Iraq fiasco"

- "They" blamed Bush because it took almost a week for the national Guard to enter town in force.

- "They" blamed Bush because the freakin News Media new more about what was happening than the government did.

- "They" blamed Bush because he chose a horse trainer to run Fema.

- "They" blamed Bush because he gutted Fema when he allowed it to be absorbed into Homeland Security.

- "They" blamed Bush because he was clueless enough to "heckuva job Brownie" in a photo op session, when anything but a "heckuva job" was being done.

- "They" blamed Bush because a full two days after the onset of the disaster, he used the disaster as a photo op from 20,000 feet instead of actually taking charge.

- "They" blamed Bush because in a time of an unprecidented national emergency, he neglected to cut through the BS and take charge...in short...be a LEADER! Something HE, and only HE had the power and authority to do.

- "They" blame Bush because despite all of his meaningless lip service he gave it after the fact, he STILL refused to take charge and be a LEADER on this issue, and cut through all the the BS.

Jeff, you don't know what in the hell a real leader is, do you? No wonder you continue to rabidly support this incompetent dolt who couldn't even manage a corner hardware store by himself.

What exactly would Bush have to do to lose your childish respect?

And don't bore us with your stupid "it was really Nagin and Blanko's fault" arguments.
No, they weren't perfect, but a national disaster like this will always require a massive FEDERAL response.

You nailed every single far left talking point dead on, mike. mike's analogy, the gov and mayor should sit on their thumbs and wait for the president to do their job...........especially if they're (d)'s and the pres is a (R). All the while the gov and mayor were all safe and cozy in 5 star hotels in Texas.

Keep on calling facts "talking points" Jeff.

That way you'll never have to face realty, will you trooper?

What exactly would Bush have to do to lose your childish respect?

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 8:29 PM

Cut and run.

Jeff: "cut and run"

In other words, saving many American Troops lives who are currently doomed to die for no coherent reason would lose your respect?

Yet you wonder why I say you hate the troops and do not support them!

In other words, saving many American Troops lives who are currently doomed to die for no coherent reason would lose your respect?

Yet you wonder why I say you hate the troops and do not support them!

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 9:10 PM

4000 deaths out of 1.3 mil serving is "doomed to die?" Do me a favor, find a parent or relative of a soldier currently serving and tell them they are "doomed to die." Better yet, find a soldier packing his bag to go fight for your sorry ass and tell him or her they are "doomed to die." Please. Then, have your wife bring your laptop to the hospital you are in so you can keep us informed on the progress of your recovery from having your ass handed to you.

LMAO at Jeff....AGAIN!

60 - 95 Americans are in FACT doomed to die per month as long as we stay, according to one of your own heros...General Petreaus.

I'm sorry you hate the troops so much that you take so much comfort in the thought that ALL of them are not doomed to die.

Don't worry Jeff, your selfish Republican party has "won" on this issue. The country has lost! It has now become a fact that we can't stop this stupid war until at least 2009.

Go cheer in the streets. Do some high fives and back flips! It'll only another 1000 or so additional troop deaths that'll be on the conscience of those of you who cheered it on.

Wait....do you even HAVE a conscience?

Don't worry Jeff, your selfish Republican party has "won" on this issue. The country has lost! It has now become a fact that we can't stop this stupid war until at least 2009.

Go cheer in the streets. Do some high fives and back flips! It'll only another 1000 or so additional troop deaths that'll be on the conscience of those of you who cheered it on.

Wait....do you even HAVE a conscience?

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 9:36 PM

Look at this way, Mike. in an interview with Sen. Dodd, Olbermann asked if the Democrats weren't making a gesture to end the war because it was in their interest to keep it going until '08. Sen. Dodd (someone "in the know" to say the least...) expressly stated that he felt that was partly the case.

Which is more selfish--- to keep a war going because you believe in its cause or to keep it going because it helps your party politically?

Olbermann and I report. You decide...

Cecelia: Still buying the myth that failure to stop the war is the fault of the Democrats?

But yes, the Democrats are only the lesser of two evils...by a lot!

Cecelia: Still buying the myth that failure to stop the war is the fault of the Democrats?

But yes, the Democrats are only the lesser of two evils...by a lot!

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 10:45 PM

You got THAT from what Senator Dodd said about the cynical plays of his fellow Democrats?

But yes, the Democrats are only the lesser of two evils...by a lot!

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 10:45 PM

BTW, Mike, "selfish" was (and always is...) YOUR term...

So which is more selfish-- to keep the war going because you support it (against public opposition) or to not make any gesture to stop it because it works for you politically?

Why must I defend the selfish democrats in order to justify my condemnation of the selfish republicans? I condemn them BOTH!

SOME Democrats apparently see a political advantage in keeping the status quo the way it is until next year, and SOME Republicans apparently see a political advantage in doing the same until after the primaries....Meanwhile....meanwhile, many more soldiers must die because of it....all for political reasons.

Why must I defend the selfish democrats in order to justify my condemnation of the selfish republicans? I condemn them BOTH!

SOME Democrats apparently see a political advantage in keeping the status quo the way it is until next year, and SOME Republicans apparently see a political advantage in doing the same until after the primaries....Meanwhile....meanwhile, many more soldiers must die because of it....all for political reasons.

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 11:20 PM

Well, it only took you three posts to finally include selfish Dems... in your extremely.....long....long....long... list of selfish folks in the world.

But you still haven't answered the question. Since you used the term "selfish".... and you do... which is more selfish.... to keep it going because you believe in it (it doesn't help Republicans with the public PERIOD) or to fail to make a gesture against it because it you wish to keep an unpopular war going because it WILL help you in '08.

You often judge things as being selfish--- so lets hear your judgment on this.

In other words, saving many American Troops lives who are currently "doomed to die" for no coherent reason would lose your respect?

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 9:10 PM

60 - 95 Americans are in FACT doomed to die per month as long as we stay, according to one of your own heros...General Petreaus.

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 9:36 PM

Crickets regarding telling a soldier they are "doomed to die." Shocker.

Cecelia: Actually it DOES help many Republicans with their base...at least until the primaries.

A prime example is Republican Walter Jones from my own state (a state with more than it's share of military installations). His conscience made him speak out against the war some time ago. Now he is being crucified by many in his Republican base and his re-election is in doubt because of it.

So Yes, any Democrat who is go along for political reasons is selfish to a degree I find difficult to comprehend. How could a Congressional seat be worth THAT much to anyone?

So Yes, any Democrat who is go along for political reasons is selfish to a degree I find difficult to comprehend. How could a Congressional seat be worth THAT much to anyone?

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 11:40 PM

That only took you five posts...and I don't know about your home state, but public approval of congress is 11% (there are a few more voting Republicans than that in the country....)

Unless you think this is because of Sen. Craig..... you're going to have to admit that support for the war is devasting to Republican candidates even with their own base.

I suspect you'd have no problem acknowledging that if the context was different.

So Yes, any Democrat who is go along for political reasons is selfish to a degree I find difficult to comprehend. How could a Congressional seat be worth THAT much to anyone?

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 11:40 PM

BTW-- for all your emotional rhetoric about selfishness and soldiers dying and that not another soldier should die....etc...etc.... there's no real indication that you find the above scenario especially difficult to overlook let alone comprehend.

"there's no real indication that you find the above scenario especially difficult to overlook let alone comprehend."

Another thing I don't find especially difficult to comprehend is that it is not really within the Democrats power to effect real change at this time, even if they marched in lock step, as the Republicans seem to pretty much be doing in the opposite direction.

Another thing I don't find especially difficult to comprehend is that it is not really within the Democrats power to effect real change at this time, even if they marched in lock step, as the Republicans seem to pretty much be doing in the opposite direction.

Posted by: Mike at September 19, 2007 11:57 PM

So it's not worth trying? It's not worth making a public stance and fighting like hell within a very sympathetic public forum to get it done? You think enough pressure can't be brought against Republican pols with an 11% approval rating in the country? If so, then you've got to credit them for their convictions to an extent far beyond me.

Would you have suggested that it wasn't important for any politician to have taken a stand against the war in Iraq during the initial vote because it was unlikely that it would do any good?

NO!

NO!

Posted by: Mike at September 20, 2007 12:07 AM

Well, all your rhetoric of about soldiers dying and our not caring and etc etc is indeed YOUR rhetoric.

I hope you've gotten some clarity about that...

And my "rhetoric' remains....because soldiers ARE dying.

What we are debating is....why?... And for how much longer?

Which is exactly the reason why emotion must be an integral part of the argument.

And my "rhetoric' remains....because soldiers ARE dying.

What we are debating is....why?... And for how much longer?

Which is exactly the reason why emotion must be an integral part of the argument.

Posted by: Mike at September 20, 2007 12:34 AM

Well, when you use rhetoric highly emotional rhetoric about soldiers dyng...and how it MUST MUST STOP (add an infinite number of exclamation marks) and then turn around and use rhetoric about "the lesser of two evils" and excuses that...well, they can't change it so why try..... for essentially not bucking a status quo that you find so UTTERLY --- pull your hair out--- deplorable.... it comes off as less heartfelt than partisan.

Mike,

You can be slow. By now Cecelia must have convinced you that American men and women dying in some numbers in Iraq is just not important?

Mike,

You can be slow. By now Cecelia must have convinced you that American men and women dying in some numbers in Iraq is just not important?

Posted by: at September 20, 2007 12:52 AM

Or at perhaps convinced him that its just as important when a nonRepublican facilitates it too?

Mike,

You can be slow. By now Cecelia must have convinced you that American men and women dying in some numbers in Iraq is just not important?

Mike,

You can be slow. By now Cecelia must have convinced you that American men and women dying in some numbers in Iraq is just not important?

Posted by: at September 20, 2007 12:56 AM

It depends on who's facilitating it. If a pol wants nationalized health care-- it's alright to overlook men and women dying in some number in Iraq and only tear our hair out over selfish Republicans.

"Vice President [Dick] Cheney came up to see the Republicans yesterday. You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges," Hillary Clinton said at a $100-a-head fundraiser at town hall near New York's Times Square.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Darth_Cheney.html

Who writes Hillary's stuff, AAP?

Blindly following the disasterously failed leadership of the imbecile president is the true definition of:

BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

I wouldn't say you'd have to be crazy to vote for him (stupid perhaps, but not crazy), but you can only be considered squirrel fodder for still supporting him.

Yes, that means YOU Royal Douche

Thanks for the far left link, I needed a good laugh! Fox News (#1).

Jeff,

That's not what the meaning of BDS is, you leftist moron!

"You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges," Hillary Clinton said.

Playing with a full deck Hillary is not.

"You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges," Hillary Clinton said.

Playing with a full deck Hillary is not.

"You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges," Hillary Clinton said.

This is known as pandering to the far left, which hillary is a member of, for sure. "Centrist" she is not.

"The republicans are a party in disarray..and it's not like Cheney hasn't ever been called Darth Vader before...Maybe because it FITS !"

Detached from reality this man has become. Defends childish insults by Hillary he does. Thinking for himself he cannot.

"Like calling Cheney, Darth vader is going to lose her votes...
Just the opposite, fool !"

Posted by: at September 21, 2007 1:12 AM

Yeah, that kind of tactic has a great track record. Remember back in '96 when Dole ran much of his campaign on trying to slur Bill Clinton as someone you couldn't trust? It came off as angry and vindictive, especially with a candidate like Dole who did not exactly project warmth. It's the same with Hillary. Sure, the left fringe will fall for the "Cheny is Darth Vader" line, but the voters she really needs are in the center and they will be turned off by this. Bad news for Hillary, good news for the GOP.

Special Comment from his near-deathbed. Surprised he didn't show us his scar. He's that kind of shameless, look-at-me huckster. One day you idiots will figure out you've been had by that ole' lying "truth" teller KEith Olbermann. There's a reason why everyone who has ever worked with him hates his damned guts.

Keith is the sore spot for me. He's a lying hypocrite and the sheeple buy it because he's selling what they want to hear. And he knows it, which is why he keeps inching farther out their on that limb. But limbs break. Especially when the person sitting on them is a 300-lb hypocrite.

cee- why do you do it? After reading the string of posts today- its obvious you sliced and diced blindrat all afternoon. the debate on each topic was as lopsided as an early tyson fight.

yet the clown runs off to his bus claiming victory? is he really that delusional?

its definitely a short bus!

its definitely a short bus!

Posted by: at September 21, 2007 3:35 PM

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*/////////////////////

It can still run you down. Flat as a pancake!

I wish Rita Crosby would write a tell all book about cable news, but then again, she'd never work again...oh, I forgot, she's not working now....Go for it Rita!

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*/////////////////////

It can still run you down. Flat as a pancake!

Posted by: at September 21, 2007 4:06 PM

This is your brain on drugs.......////*\\\\ {~}(~)(*)[*][-][-][-][-][-][/][/][/]

This is your brain on drugs ....

€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€

Not that I do drugs, except some marijuna when I was doing something you're too much of a pantywaist to ever do, but if I did, I'd still have 4 times the brain you do Dipshit.