The debates ratings rankings:

Olbermann's "big show" moderated debate on Aug. 7 is dead last...the worst rated debate ever:

Aug. 7 Dems MSNBC 893,000 297,000

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

You're proud of being a John Gibson supporter?

Fucking piece of shit.

Posted by: at October 10, 2007 6:53 PM

You're proud of being a Keith Olbermann supporter?

You are a worthless cowardly communist piece of bat shit. Grow some balls or leave this blog.

I hope your children die in house fires, you Nazi fucking faggot.

Do everyone a favor and kill yourself.

Posted by: at October 10, 2007 7:18 PM

I hope a Islamo-facist cuts you life partners head of in front of you waves their head on the internet for all to see and then some ACLU slip and fall lawyer gets them out of jail time.

life isn't good if you support hillary!
GOP in 08 Again.

Maybe you can find a candidate that can won that doesn't fuck his interns! Oh, Hillary fucks HER interns!

You were right the first time.
Hillary fucks his interns.

I hope that you go to a bar in any large city and tell everyone how much you like Bush...see how long it takes for you it get the shit stomped out of you, boy.

Posted by: at October 10, 2007 7:41 PM

Sorry, I don't go to gay bars like you.

Posted by: Life is Good (Unless you're an O'Reilly Apologist) at October 10, 2007 8:07 PM

Nice Media Matters cut up of O'Reilly's statements. O'Reilly constantly pointed out that he thought the boy was terrified to leave and that he thought the boy accepted his situation because he was afraid. O'Reilly tried to make the point that if the child had been taught to fight back, he might have escaped. While I think O'Reilly was wrong and O’Reilly should not have speculated until he new all the facts, he was just exploring a question that was on many people’s minds, why did the boy not escape. I also think O'Reilly should have apologized. O'Reilly does butcher his own argument but his constant attempts to get Jessica's law passed and his exposing despicable judges for letter predators go more than makes up for one misguided statement. Olbermann does nothing but attack people his disagrees with using false information. When has he apologized?

--However, a real man would admit he made a mistake, and apologize.--

Posted by: Life is Good (Unless you're an O'Reilly Apologist) at October 10, 2007 8:07 PM

A "real man" would apologize?? That's the same taunt Oralmann used last night. Why adopt his pathological hatred for Bill O'Reilly as your own?

Olbermann lied about Fox News showing the leaked Osama bin Laden video first and accused thim of doing the adminstration PR. Since the truth is ABC showed Osama bin Laden video first, Keith should apologize to Fox News if he is a real man. When will he.

How can anyone do a story about fake reporters without discussing Jeff Gannon, the male escort who visited the White House 100 times with fake credentials?

Thanks, patsy!

Boy, I'd sure hate to be that Bushwipe guy.

*tiptoes out of the room*

Chiv, I'm grateful that we only have one Patsy, the one trick pony.

Grammie

Oh, I get it. Patsy is your local troll. I was wondering what that comment by RK was about. :D

For the record, my comment about "bushwipe" was about a post right before that which has since been deleted. I'm assuming that was Patsy, and that RKs post was a similar situation.

But yeah, I'm not a troll. Just an occasional pain in the ass who likes bringing up the other side to arguments that aren't so cut-and-dry.

Chiv, I didn't think you were.

I named Average American Patriot Patsy, the one trick pony, a long time ago.

He has branched out with names but I promise you that you will be able to do his trick as well as he can in no time.

He is kind of easily upset and gets testy very quickly. You know how skittish ponies are. :)

Welcome.

Grammie

There's only been one poster here who is obsessed with Jeff Gannon. That would be aap/100 others.

Funny. Well, I'm not obsessed, but like I said, to have a conversation about "fake reporters" and not mention the most obvious one who was in the most potentially compromising situation to national security seems a bit one sided.

So I hate to rehash a conversation which probably happened a dozen times on here, but I've still never heard any right-wing source make the slightest comment on Gannon, let alone explain it in any satisfactory manor.

So if you don't mind my asking, what is the explanation from your side?

(damn, I hate not being able to edit posts with dumb wording which I forgot to proofread before sending :) )

But I'm not surprised at all of your daily hallucinations. In fact, I expect you to keep doing it, so I can LMAO!

Posted by: Average American Patriot at October 13, 2007 12:21 PM

I was proven right 98 out of 100 times, patsy. Do you have selective vision? Denial?

Like I said, patsy. 98% right. Kind of ironic, a person posting under 50 different names calling me sick, don't you think? Why don't you think?

RK, these frauds never cease to amaze me.

Mikey, Bobo and Patsy have all climbed on up their high horses and charged in high dudgeon because YOU were not perfect in catching them.

What is it that Bobo, Why, New Gal etc always says?

I got it.

TOO DAMN FUNNY!

Grammie

Well, dear, RK has been the man on this point, as you no doubt know.

Time will tell if I spoke too hastily.

Either way, you do use multiple names and RK has proven his ability to detect the frauds among us.

So, he isn't perfect in every suspicion. But every one he has accused, including you, has been ABSOLUTLY (D) guilty.

Grammie

Can somebody explain to me the point to changing names on a blog which is essentially anonymous anyway?

Can somebody explain to me the point to changing names on a blog which is essentially anonymous anyway?

Posted by: Chiv at October 14, 2007 11:56 PM

Look at the poster at 11:10p.

Obviously even the most puerile of folks have an instinctive need to try and hide that fact from others and even from themselves.

"chiv," I suspect you have posted here before you started using "chiv." Just a hunch. As far as changing names, you would have to address your question to mike, aap, why or clucker. Those are just their most recent names. I don't think you will get a straight or even coherent answer, though. A good question that has been asked several times in the past.

Was I right, or, was I right?

Here it goes to you old cunts:

AAP is not Mike.
Mike is not Clucker.
AAP is not "Why..."
Chiv is not AAP.

Now, if you CUNTS want to keep eating DUMBSHIT! I mean BovineQueen's turds.

ENJOY!
Posted by: Average American Patriot at October 15, 2007 12:41 AM

AAP, I'm sure it's your mother's fondest wish that someday you develop emotionally and mentally to the point where you're a bit more eloquent that a 7th grade boy in Alternative School.

I'm soooo glad you brought yourself to this point.

Don't you remember telling Bovine that AAP is not "Why..."

Of course not.

BARTENDER! GIVE Vampiria ANOTHER BLOODY SUCK ASS!
Posted by: FUCK YOU ALCOHOLIC CUNT! at October 15, 2007 12:57 AM

Caps don't make you any more persuasive or coherent, AAP.

Stomping your feet and holding your breath may alarm you mother, but the only effect it has here is to confirm yet again that you're about as stable and thoughtful as a roomful of Beavis' and Buttheads.

Chiv, RK gave you some good advice "you would have to address your question to mike, aap, why or clucker"

Of course if you got an answer you might never know if it was one of them, someone else or one of their multiple personas that actually answered. It is the nature of the beast.

If you are truly interested in their reasons you can go to the the Oct 9 thread and start here @ Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 11, 2007 4:16 PM> and go on down.

You will find Mikey's rationalizations and a few halfhearted efforts from Patsy.

What precipitated this? Mikey saying to Cecelia:

"Cecelia, I haven't argued that posting under multiple names is admirable. That is why I don't do it myself."

Mind you, this is after Mikey admitted to using several names in the past.

My personal favorite from Mikey was this:

Mike: "Except for a couple of one shots in which I immediately regretted, I HAVE posted pretty much exclusively as 'mike' ever since """YOU""" made a fuss about it many months ago.

I offer you no apology!
Posted by: Mike at October 11, 2007 9:20 PM"

My answer:

"Except for the times that I did it, I pretty much didn't do it and I regretted it on those times that I didn't do it except when I was doing it."

Mind you that this is after Mikey went beserk because J$ was so mean as to bring up his past.

If you look it over let us know what you think.

Grammie

Cecelia, Patsy seems particularly distraught tonight.

I do hope it was nothing that we said.

Grammie

Cecelia, Patsy seems particularly distraught tonight.

I do hope it was nothing that we said.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 15, 2007 1:25 AM

hahaha!

More like something RK said, as usual.

You'd think that due to the course of this discussion in the past.... that AAP would be a bit aware that the more enraged and vehement he becomes over RK the more suspicious he sounds.

AAP has only to thank his buddies for being in that circumstance.

"chiv," I suspect you have posted here before you started using "chiv." Just a hunch.

Posted by: royal king at October 15, 2007 12:14 AM

Sorry to disappoint. I have posted a couple of comments in the O.W. Youtube account, but that's it.

---

Chiv, RK gave you some good advice "you would have to address your question to mike, aap, why or clucker"

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 15, 2007 1:22 AM

Not to worry, that was more musing out loud than actually asking the question.

Besides, I'm sure if anyone really cared enough, the webmaster could track them pretty easily, just like I can on my website.

Does anyone know why I have been unable to access OW for quite a while and now that I got here can't get to any other threads?

Thanks,

Grammie

Speaking of which... Grammie, I saw in the sidebar over the weekend that you responded to my question, but I wasn't able to get the actual thread to load. Now that they're loading, I seem to be blind and cant find it, but would like to read what your response was.

Any idea which thread it was in?

I just noticed your sidebar.

Here it is:

Chiv, "Since you appear to be one of the more reasonable people on here"? Thanks for the insult wrapped in a backhanded compliment. :)

No, I don't think the Party has been hijacked. Plus, exactly who is supposed to have stolen it?

The following is the order in which I pick my candidates and party.

!. Defense

2. Stop illegal immigration. (Fairly recent addition)

3. Defense

4. Minimal taxation required to run the country, especially Defense.

5. Minimal regulation of business, industry and people.

6. Social issues and laws.

7. In a tie of the above I would go to overturn Roe V Wade and kick it back it back to the individual states to handle as they see fit.

I believe that the government that governs least governs best. The closest to that has been the Republicans in my adult life. I don't approve of each and every one and every policy and law they make by a long shot but they give me more of what I want than the Dems have or would.

That is a broad outline with general principles with much more to them.

Grammie

PS I'm unable to access some of the threads. Is anyone else having the problem?

Grammie

"You're proud of being a Keith Olbermann supporter? You are a worthless cowardly communist piece of bat shit. Grow some balls or leave this blog."

Wow, that makes me want to be a conservative! Unfortunately, I cannot become that large of a COCK.

I believe calling someone a "worthless cowardly communist piece of bat shit" qualifies you for Derangement Syndrome, only in this case it's Olbermann Derangement Syndrome.

Congratulations.

!. Defense

- GOP, the party of fear

2. Stop illegal immigration. (Fairly recent addition)

- GOP the party of fear

3. Defense

- GOP, the party of fear

4. Minimal taxation required to run the country, especially Defense.

- do you mean minimal taxation applied to defense? or do you mean that the majority of the taxes levied should go to defense, to assuage your largely imaginary, entirely slavish, fears?

5. Minimal regulation of business, industry and people.

- this one clearly appears to contradict #s 2 and 7. What are "social issues and laws" but the regualtion of your compatriots?

6. Social issues and laws.

-irrelevant

7. In a tie of the above I would go to overturn Roe V Wade and kick it back it back to the individual states to handle as they see fit.

-irrelevant