Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Broadcasting for shut-ins.

Matt that was priceless!

This is just to clear up something from yesterday.

I was a little confused by the word jalopy.

Oh! you mean the 82' Caddy that I had redone? Great Car! Great Ride!

Hey! If ALGORE can run around in his private jets spewing gobs of fuel into the air.

Then I just want to do my part by running my big boat up and down the street while I play Sinatra on the Bose sound system.

Al & I!

Just doing our part for the environment!

Hmm. That comment has a familiar ring to it. Let's see:

"I assume you realize, Cee, that you just said absolutely nothing."
"Thanks once again for offering comments of no value, Lisa Simpson."
"There is so much hatred in this blog."
"I checked in hoping for some intelligent discourse, but mostly ignorant white trash"

Yes, all those comments, and the one above, from the same character, sometimes known as M Schultz, othertimes as Rudy Ramirez or Mrs Philby--those last two had a great time, answering back and forth as if they were two different people. But we know better don't we?

Oh, there was also this one:

"This site may have outlived its usefulness."

Our pal anon/Rudy/Schultz/Philby said that more than 7 months ago. And he's still here playing his games!

philby is as transparent as they come. She was only absent from posting for 3 maybe 4 days after claiming she was leaving and never coming back. Another certain olbyloon made the same claim only to return shortly thereafter. The irony to all of this, they claim WE are the ones obsessing. Oh, the irony.......

Jeff: "they claim WE are the ones obsessing."

Jeff, you ARE the only one obsessing about names, .... unless you count Johnny's obsession with posting ONLY the 'name gaming' of those whom he disagree's with?

DUMBSHIT! I mean Bovine!

Take this message and carry it to your leaders.

JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!
JESUS IS A PUSSY!

Get it through your Bovine skull.
I DID NOT POST THAT CRAP. It was one of your boyfriends, George Bush/Laura Bush/Ann Coulter/Angry Tranny/Ted Nugent/Red Cunt Proud.
Right after I called his bull shit, he's been an altar boy. FUCK! He's being doing his "George Bush" impersonation pretty well lately, alerting us of his communications with the Lord, and spreading the good news that "God is up to something"

WOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAH! Way to go Laura!

unless you count Johnny's obsession with posting ONLY the 'name gaming' of those whom he disagree's with?

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 1:32 PM

No one on "our side" as you call it, mike, changes names every other minute. At least, I haven't noticed it. There goes your theory of my "clairvoyance" right out the window, again.

"No one on "our side" as you call it, mike, changes names every other minute."

Thats pure BS as usual Jeff. I even have mike own personal "mike is a turd" detractor who has been known to change 'names' with every post...and in my opinion, most likely posts under other names when he chooses to do something other than harass me.

Not one on OUR SIDE is obsessed with pinning down posts on the objects of their obsession.

Mike
AAP
Clucker
LMAO
Why don't...
blindrat

Remember, DUMBSHIT! I mean Bovine! You've claimed those above were one and the same poster.

moron paranoid BU$HWIPE!

> I DID NOT POST THAT CRAP.

Yeah, right. Methinks you dost protest too much. I mean, why else would AAP change his IP like most people (except perhaps Olby) change their socks? Sometimes just three or four posts and--poof!--the IP changes. Today's AAP IP is different from last week's, which is different from the week's before. I gave up counting how many times he's switched IPs over here.

By the way, one reason to keep changing IPs is to make it difficult (though not impossible) to tell exactly what items someone posted. Unless, of course, the perpetrator is dumb enough to make it obvious that he did.

because I told you BU$HWIPES it is soooooo easy to fuck what little brains you BU$HWIPES have.

Say, Johnny BU$HWIPE, have you GROWN AN OVARY YET and decided to finally post those "40 or something names" the Bovine says you told him I was using?

Remember, DUMBSHIT! I mean Bovine! You've claimed those above were one and the same poster.

moron paranoid BU$HWIPE!

Posted by: Not one on OUR SIDE at October 1, 2007 1:57 PM

You're lying, again, patsy.

mike, how do you "mike is a turd" uses any different names? I had forgotten about him. He is not as prevalent as patsy/why/bob/anon or philby/rudy/clucker/jennifer/anon, though.

moron paranoid BU$HWIPE!

Poor little sick Bovine! It will never learn.

Even after I don't post for days, I stop by to see your Rabid Right Wing idiocy and what do I find?

You two moron paranoid BU$HWIPES, I mean Bovine and Johnny BU$HWIPE trying to pin someone else's post on your humble journalist.

Keep up the good work!

patsy, pinning posts on you and philby could be done by a blind person. It's not rocket science.

patsy, pinning posts on you and philby could be done by any moron paranoid BU$HWIPE. It's not rocket science.
Posted by: BovineQueen at October 1, 2007 2:36 PM

We all know you two moron paranoid obsessed BU$HWIPES, I mean Bovine and Johnny BU$HWIPE, can't get your lies straight much less fire up a fireworks rocket.

Check out this little nugget from the founder of The Daily Kos:

KOS: "We had no such regular voices on the radio until Air America came around, and none on TV until Keith Olbermann."

Wow, Johnny REALLY believes this pathetic personal smear site is worth someone going through the effort of constantly changing an IP just to allow them to change names undetected?

Sorry JD, if I don't take your word for THAT. If fact, what have you ever said or said that should make us trust your word for anything?

James, what exactly is it about that little "nugget" you just posted from the KOS founder that annoys you?

Also, from the other day, you forgot to follow up and tell me who I am, since you claimed you knew, ... what I post under on Kos, since you claimed I did that as well, ... and all of the other stereotypical inuendo you tossed my way?

So tell me again James, who am I? I need another laugh.

The fact is- I wish there wasn't any anonymous posters here... but I do love the fact that someone would actually think its kosher to blog as one name and respond as another. Now (if true) that is the newest definition of a loon. A true schizophrenic loon. Welcome Sybil!

> Sorry JD, if I don't take your word for THAT

Oh, how will I sleep at night? Mike, Chief Olbypologist, doesn't take my word. Let Keith know too. Keep him informed every step of the way. He'll get such a kick out of that: J$ won't sleep at night because he's SO worried about what Mike thinks.

Yeah, and chickens have lips.

> James, what exactly is it about that little "nugget" you just posted from the KOS founder that annoys you?

Gee Mike, are you reading people's minds again, and deciding for yourself what their motivation is? I didn't see James say he found it annoying. I suspect he found it revealing. The Kossacks recognize Olbermoronn as one of them. And they should, seeing as he raises funds for them. You know, in the tradition of Edward R Murrow and the like.

Mike,

The nugget posted by James (KOS: "We had no such regular voices on the radio until Air America came around, and none on TV until Keith Olbermann.") is not so much instructive as it is instructive. Kos claims him as a kindred spirit. On the other hand, Olbermann has always denied that he has any particular political allegience, which even Mike admits is a lie.

Kos' admission that Olbermann is a mouthpiece for his organization puts Olbermann in proper perspective. Olbermann is not only an unapologetic cheerleader for the far left fringe, but he is unoriginal, insignificant and derivative. If Olbermann didn't have Kos, Air America and Media Matters, he would have no material. Whatever Olbermann has to offer is predictable and tedious, we've heard it all before from Kos, Zsa Zsa Puffington and David "Am I Lying Now Or Was I Lying Then?" Brock. No wonder O'Reilly ignores him.

"is not so much instructive as it is instructive."

I meant "not so much annoying as it is instructive" in the post above.

Hank, you and yours are the ones who keep bringing daily Kos into discussions about Olbermann. Some, such as James, even accuse me (Falsly) of being a regular Kos contributer.

I don't personally give KOS or Huffington even 1/10 of the power and influence you give them....and I don't buy for a minute the ridiculous notion that KO gets his material from them. Nor do I believe the statement James just posted can honestly be twisted into an "admission that Olbermann is a mouthpiece for his organization".

I think the problem between us is that I AGREE with most of Olbermann's expressed opinions, and you do not. That does NOT mean I agree with all of them, or that I support everything he says o does. Nor does it mean that I "get my news from Countdown", as so many on here love to keep asserting.

The reason I jumped on James's post earlier because any admission by a left wing organization that someone might just be speaking for them is taken as a kind of a 'gotcha' moment....instead of an acknowledgement of today's reality that there are FAR more outspoken media voices on the right than there are on the left, and there actually NEEDS to be some more balance.

By the way, I just heard Mark levin on the radio for the first time the other night since our local right wing water carrying radio station switched from bortz to him.....WOW.....What a demogogue HE is! The only thing missing was the obligatory 'amens' from the congregation. He spent a solid half an hour telling people how to think, who to hate, and why they should think or hate that way.

If you can begin to understand the anger people like me feel every time we hear this kind of tripe being blasted at us over our own publicly owned media airways....then, and ONLY then, will you begin to understand why would support a voice like Keith Olbermann.

If you can begin to understand the anger people like me feel every time we hear this kind of tripe being blasted at us over our own publicly owned media airways....then, and ONLY then, will you begin to understand why would support a voice like Keith Olbermann.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 6:52 PM

Okay. Keith Olbermann is as partisan as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, only a whole lot less intelligent.

Fine.

Now kindly cut the moronic arguments that his intentions are misinterpreted.

Mike: "today's reality that there are FAR more outspoken media voices on the right than there are on the left, and there actually NEEDS to be some more balance."

Are you kidding, Mike? How much more do you liberals want? You already control ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, Air America, The New York Times, The LA Times, USA Today, Time, Newsweek, and most of the internet. Heck, even your evil nemesis Fox News has a boat load of liberals giving their two cents. So when you and your friend Markos cry about how their aren't enough liberal voices, you are either blind or disingenuous.

Mike and company will never complain about liberally-biased reporting, only that which they perceive to be "conservative" bias, which to them, is reporting any story that is not a butt-kissing celebration of the Libs. Got it?

"Okay, Keith Olbermann is as partisan as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, Only a whole lot less intelligent."

Now THAT was a "moronic" statement, but we all do it occasionally.

"You already control ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN"

Anybody who buys the notion that the above mentioned corporate owned and controlled media outlets are "liberal" obviously leans SO far to the right that their vision is hopelessly distorted.

Anybody who believes ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are not liberal, is moron. All of these networks used Media Matters as a source. Media Matters was formed by Hillary Clinton.
"We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network, uh, in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress. " Hillary Clinton

Mike you are now a proven moron. Your welcome. You were always a coward.

You already control ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN"

Anybody who buys the notion that the above mentioned corporate owned and controlled media outlets are "liberal" obviously leans SO far to the right that their vision is hopelessly distorted.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 8:09 PM

Anyone who believes that the media is largely composed of journalists who take orders from CEO and stockholders is hopelessly distorted.

Would private ownership make media outlets more or less likely to be balanced Mike?

Factor, every new post you make, along with your moronic posting name, PROVES you are a moron...and I'm supposed to take seriously your calling me one?

As for calling me being a "coward", how many on here would lay odds that Factor would call me that to my face?

"Anyone who believes that the media is largely composed of journalists who take orders from CEO's and stockholder is hopelessly distorted.": Never made that claim. I simply stated those particular outlets are NOT liberally biased. On the other hand, to assume the corporate bosses exert NO influence whatsoever is also "hopelessly distorted".

"Would private ownership make media outlest more or less likely to be balanced Mike?": I don't know the answer to that question. However, I know how it worked out in the case of Fox.

So you've gone from calling it distorted to think the media is "corporately controlled" to saying it's distorted to think the CEO's don't exert SOME influence.

I'm fine with "some" influence because I don't believe the media is replete with editors who compromise themselves utterly by dancing on strings controlled by CEOs. I don't believe CEO are solely influenced by the bottomline but are also swayed (for a time, anyway) by programming that is deemed prestigious or news shows wouldn't exist.

So that's a balancing act.

What I don't find a balance for is the massive number of editors and reporters in the industry who are liberal and who would themselves have no difficulty discerning that concern of mine if instead of "liberal" I said "white" or "heterosexual".

70% of the American people believe the media slant left. Dan Rather used phony documents to attack George Bush before and election. Mike you live in a fairy tale dream world or you are just a liar. We know you lied about voting for George Bush if you think the media is balanced. The media has been proven to be liberal time and time again. You just had Slippery Shuster use a Daily Kos tactic to attack republican using faulty information. Grow up Mike and stop being dishonest. We know you hate George Bush but don't try and push lies about the corrupt media.

No Cecelia, I've "gone" nowhere. Your interpretations are what keeps changing.

Mike,

Suppose we wanted to do an investigation, a study, of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and FNC to determine what, if any instituional biases were present. How would we do that? Your thoughts, Mike.

Factor:

"70% of the American people believe the media slant left.": A majority of the American people still believed Saddam had something to do with 911 at the time to the 2004 election. 40% still do. A majority of high school students believe we fought on the side of Germany during WWII. I could go on and on.

"Dan Rather used phony documents to attack George Bush before and election.": And boy did we pay for it! Rather was fired and that one incident could possibly have cost Kerry the election. Phony stories about Kerry's Vietnam record were perfectly OK though, because Rather didn't do them.

"We know you lied about voting for George Bush if you think the media is balanced.": HUH!!!!

"The media has been proven to be liberal time and time again.": By Bill O'Reilly?

"Grow up Mike and stop being dishonest": There's not a dishonest bone in my body, and I 'grew up' a long time ago after finding out that everything isn't as it seems.

"We know you hate George Bush": Not really, but I sure hate the damage he has done to my country.

"but don't try to push lies about the corrupt media": I've only stated the truth about how corrupt and biased Fox is.

I don't have a clue how we would do that Rico.

I think that since Mike is a proven Olbermann appologist, he would say that any media members who don't say that George Bush should be impeached is a "right winger".

"70% of the American people believe the media slant left.": A majority of the American people still believed Saddam had something to do with 911 at the time to the 2004 election. 40% still do. A majority of high school students believe we fought on the side of Germany during WWII. I could go on and on.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:58 PM

Hold the phone Mike. You have been preaching on this site night after night that we should withdraw from Iraq based on poll data. Now you say that we should ignor polls because the American people are dumb or just because you don't like the poll data. More dishonesty from Mike.

No Cecelia, I've "gone" nowhere. Your interpretations are what keeps changing.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:41 PM

Oh, NO DOUBT you'll have a creative "interpretation" for what you meant by....... ***"corporate owned and controlled media outlets"****. but forgive me for thinking that you going from THAT description to saying it's merely distorted to think that corporations exercise "no influence", is a bit of a sea change...

Not at all Factor, I've been "preaching" on this site that we should withdraw from Iraq....because we SHOULD withdraw from Iraq, not because of poll data.

I'm sitting here right now sharing Dan Abrams utter incredulation that we MAY actually be planning for an attack on Iran. The same incredulation I had during the lead up to the Iraq invasion.

Gee Cecelia, I just scrolled back up to try to find where I said parent corporations exercised "no influence", and I couldn't find where you got that from.

Are you sure you aren't just making things up Cecelia?

So tell another lie Mike, you have never pointed to polling data when making your cowardly arguments against the Iraq war? Just like when you claimed you voted for George Bush in 2000.

Mike,

You "don't have a clue how we would do that?" That's not good. It also means that you could never say that any of those aforementioned TV networks are biased in any way. But you have already done that , have you not? If you don't know how to determine if any of them are biased, but have stated in the past that Fox is biased, then you are a two faced liar and hypocrite.
Not good, Mike.

Gee Cecelia, I just scrolled back up to try to find where I said parent corporations exercised "no influence", and I couldn't find where you got that from.

Are you sure you aren't just making things up Cecelia?

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 10:26 PM

You didn't find it because I never said you said it, dolt.

I said you went from calling it distorted to think the media is liberal, because the media is "corporately controlled" to saying that it's merely distorted to think that CEOs "exert no influence".

Cecelia, YOU put the remark in quotes and then called me a "dolt" because I wanted to know where you got the quote from. Got a mirror Cecelia?

To tell the truth, I don't even know what we are arguing about here. The media is corporate owned, and therefore subject to corporate control. And I've already said I think you would have to be a fantasy believer to think CEO's and stockholders do not ever exert ANY control.

Where in the hell are you going with this? The mainstream media is NOT liberal, ... unless your perception of it happens to come from the extreme right.

On the other hand, to assume the corporate bosses exert NO influence whatsoever is also "hopelessly distorted".

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:15 PM

Did you not write the words "no influence" above?

NOW read the post I wrote before this one.

"To tell the truth, I don't even know what we are arguing about here. The media is corporate owned, and therefore subject to corporate control. And I've already said I think you would have to be a fantasy believer to think CEO's and stockholders do not ever exert ANY control.

Where in the hell are you going with this? The mainstream media is NOT liberal, ... unless your perception of it happens to come from the extreme right.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 11:07 PM"

I addressed your claims about corporate influence with an argument that corporate interests are more balanced and have more inherent check and balances than do the "interests" dictated by the biases of the rank and file.

Try reading for a change.

"Then you are a two faced liar and hypocrite"

Excuse me Rico for forgetting in the heat of the other discussions that all of your simplistic "questions" demanding narrative answers are really nothing more than a set up for a vicious personal attack.

And THAT coming from from a poster who stated on this very blog that he was fine with it if we embarked on a genocide program against all Muslims.

Factor: "you have never pointed to polling data when making your cowardly argument against the Iraq war": You want to try to explain to us exactly what is "cowardly" about arguing against this irrational war? I have another defintion of "cowardly"....that would be calling another poster a "coward" on an anonymous blog, knowing full well that poster can't deck you for doing it.

"Just like when you claimed you voted for George Bush in 2000": I DID vote for Bush in 2000...and trust me, I'm NOT proud of it chickenheart.

I DID vote for Bush in 2000...and trust me, I'm NOT proud of it chickenheart.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 11:53 PM

You liar!

"....that would be calling another poster a "coward" on an anonymous blog, knowing full well that poster can't deck you for doing it.

posted by mike

By your own admission, that makes you a coward, right? Or, does it only apply to us "common folk?"

Cecelia, It just doesn't become you to call a person of whom you have already praised their honesty by saying "I believe him because he said it" a "liar" about something you cannot possibly prove.

Why does the thought that a 'liberal' war hater might have voted for a GWB that was staunchly against nation building threaten "you people" so much? I don't think I'm alone.

"By your own admission, that makes you a coward right? Or does it only apply to us "common folks"?"

An amazing ability for twisting words into provocations against those whose ideas you dislike.

Why does the thought that a 'liberal' war hater might have voted for a GWB that was staunchly against nation building threaten "you people" so much? I don't think I'm alone.

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 12:08 AM

Al Gore--- higher taxes on the wealthy, nationalized health care, an expansion of Social Security benefits, environmental reforms

Bush-- none of the above and drilling in Alaska...

Perhaps you're right. You're not irrational, you're schizophrenic.

Cecelia,

I'm so confused. Are you saying that Mike did not vote for Bush in 2000, or are you saying that he really is proud of doing so? I believe him on this topic.

Cecelia,

I'm so confused. Are you saying that Mike did not vote for Bush in 2000, or are you saying that he really is proud of doing so? I believe him on this topic.

Posted by: Rico at October 2, 2007 12:18 AM

Your choice, but you'd be wrong.

Did you GROW AN OVARY TODAY?

Cecelia, you just labeled me a classic liberal by identifying me as being against drilling in Alaska, increased SS benefits, and an extremist regarding environmental issues, and you'd be WRONG on all of the above!

Thanks for bringing that up so I could shoot a hole in your stereotypes.

So, you just assumed that being against the war and for national healthcare would also make me pro-gore and anti-conservative.

You seem to be getting dumber as the night advances!....Are you drinking?

Cecelia,

I am sure that you are a lovely lady, but you are sounding like a guy tonight. And you have got me feeling guilty about all of this Mike bashing. The poor guy is outnumbered tonight.

Would you be talking that way to Mike if Grandmama were here to watch?

You seem to be getting dumber as the night advances!....Are you drinking?

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 12:33 AM

As though THAT would stop anyone here from best you...

So after all of the posts about corporate greed, taxes benefits for the wealthy, nationalized health care, global warming, that nothing is wrong with Social Security other than its money being misappropriated, and a higher minimum wage..... the best you can do is say that I called you an environmental extremist, ignore that Bush campaigned on an alternative to SS that you have very recently decried, and call me a drunk.

You're a liar. :D

Rico: "the poor guy is outnumbered tonight"

Thats no problem Rico. That stuff used to bother me, but those days are long gone.

Rico: "the poor guy is outnumbered tonight"

Thats no problem Rico. That stuff used to bother me, but those days are long gone.

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 12:43 AM

He long given up about having a coherent argument.

Do I see shades of Sibyl here tonight as we had a few days ago?

Grammie

Damn Cecelia, you are getting more and more irrational AND hysterical:

1) - WHERE did you ever see a post of mine disussing Global Warming?

2) - Your first post accused me of wanting expanded SS benefits, but now you just backed it off to being for the status quo, like MOST Americans.

3) - Where are my minimum wage debates?

Then you say "you're a liar (for the third time, no less): Thanks for showing me and everybody else on this blog who you really are tonight, although I'm not really happy about it. I actually thought more of you than THIS.

"He long given up about having a coherent argument"

This one is it's own response.

Would you be talking that way to Mike if Grandmama were here to watch?

Posted by: Rico at October 2, 2007 12:39 AM

Good lord, yes! My Grandmother would have called him a liar and a jackass from jump street.

I am going to apologize for this one though, Mike.

That you would have voted for Bush flies in the face of nearly everything you have written on every issue, but that is not proof enough to call you a liar in this regard.

This one is it's own response.

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 12:57 AM

That pretty nearly sums up the only response you have to anyone.

Cecelia: "That you would have voted for Bush flies in the face of nearly everything you have written on every issue, but that is not proof enough to call you a liar in this regard."

I appreciate your apology, as tempered as it was.

What I don't think you really understand is how some of us feel about the war, ... and how it dwarfs every other issue. To me, if the war represents the number 10, then the next issue would only rate a 1 at best in importance.

Mike,

That's right, Iraq "dwarfs every other issue" for you. Of course, I use a different set of words than you. But I won't use them tonight, because I'm going to be a compassionate conservative until tomorrow.

Don't forget that you owe me one tonight. Cecelia gave her "apology" because of my interjection. But we will have long since forgotten it by tomorrow. '

Peace, 'bro!

"Your first post accused me of wanting expanded SS benefits, but now you just backed it off to being for the status quo, like MOST Americans."

No, I "accused" Gore of wanting an expansion of SS benefits, which would include disability benefits as well.

You want complete govt subsidized medical coverage for everyone but no increase in disability insurance for the disabled or their dependents?

You may argue that you don't want expanded coverage, you certainly don't want what Bush campaigned upon-- a change in the entire system. You've already argued against that.

I've apologized, don't push it. Because we both know you're about as credible on this claim as Cee would be on the converse.

"Then you say "you're a liar (for the third time, no less): Thanks for showing me and everybody else on this blog who you really are tonight, although I'm not really happy about it. I actually thought more of you than THIS.
Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 12:53 AM"

If I had a nickel for the times you've stated this or shrieked "Bitch", I could pay for your proctology bill, rather than your making everyone else pay for it.

What I don't think you really understand is how some of us feel about the war, ... and how it dwarfs every other issue. To me, if the war represents the number 10, then the next issue would only rate a 1 at best in importance.

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 1:10 AM

Oh please! You've gone off on the same sort of screeds about uncaring Republicans when it comes to health care and gasoline prices.

Evidently "WE CARE!" meant W in '00 to you.... but as I said... don't push it, pal.

Cecelia:

"Oh please! You've gone off on the same sort of screeds about uncaring Republicans when uit comes to health care and gasoline prices": "GASOLINE PRICES!.....LOL! When did I do THAT Cecelia?

Krazy Keith might as well change the name of his show to "The Bill O'Reilly Show, starring Keith Olberman". He's got O'Reilly on the brain. It's an obsession. What a douchebag is Olby.

Oh please! You've gone off on the same sort of screeds about uncaring Republicans when uit comes to health care and gasoline prices": "GASOLINE PRICES!.....LOL! When did I do THAT Cecelia?

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 1:30 AM

Oh, you've said it my friend.

It's been awhile since you voted for G.W. Bush/Dick Halliburton Cheney, for sure...but you've said much since.

You will again too. :D

Mike,

That's right, Iraq "dwarfs every other issue" for you. Of course, I use a different set of words than you. But I won't use them tonight, because I'm going to be a compassionate conservative until tomorrow.

Don't forget that you owe me one tonight. Cecelia gave her "apology" because of my interjection. But we will have long since forgotten it by tomorrow. '

Peace, 'bro!

Posted by: Rico at October 2, 2007 1:21 AM

Truer than you know, Rico.

If it weren't for you I might never have considered the wonderful advantages of understanding that Mike was just fine with George Bush and Dick Cheney were it not for the Iraq War. The War has had a disturbing effect upon him, indeed, but then, you knew that.

Honest and transparent sort that you are... you made it clear to me. I appreciate the fact that you believed Mike and therefore understood and believed that the war has been so profound upon his psyche that it's even affected how he feels on virtually every issue now.

Evidently, if Bush is for it, Mike's now against it.

Sort of puts his words about Cee being irrational on the subject into perspective, doesn't it.

Thanks, Bro...

Cecelia: "Oh you've said it my friend"

No I haven't. I have never made a single post on this blog decrying gas prices. I defy you to find one.

You know, I could honestly call you what you called me 3 times earlier tonight, but I won't on the chance that you actually believe some of the falsehoods you just posted.

"evidently if Bush is for it. Mike's now against it."

You're losing it Cecelia. RK like Ignorance doesn't become you.

"evidently if Bush is for it. Mike's now against it."

You're losing it Cecelia. RK like Ignorance doesn't become you.

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 2:12 AM

Hard words from a guy who's admittedly lost it enough to change most of his views based upon his reaction to the Iraq War.

Rico and I feel your pain, Mike. We really do.... :D

Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 2:18 AM

oops!

Jump on her Jeff!

Its not all about the war, although the war is intrinsically linked to most of the Bush administrations shortcomings. Recent polling shows that economic conservatives and business-people have ditched the GOP in droves; citing specifically the ridiculous faith that Bush demands in regard to the power of tax-cuts. Business owners realize that public infrastructure is essential to their livelihoods, and are actually demanding to pay enough in taxes to keep our society healthy. All that's left of the GOP base is a cluster of monarchists, racists, and religious fanatics.

Among CEO's, while something like 58% identified themselves as Republicans in 1998, today that is right around 30%. Most of these defectors identify Hillary as their chosen candidate, and have given her and other Dems tons more money than the GOP has recieed.

Things look bad for the GOP, and I think the Dems need to be watched closely for the signs of undue influence.

K.O. absolutely gets his scripts from Media Matters and talking point of the DailyKos... And if he isn't reading that crap verbatim, they are certainly the outlines he uses.

However, I wouldn't expect any of you liberal drones to do any research. Just regurgitate the lies and character assassinations... that is what you are best at...

Where in the hell are you going with this? The mainstream media is NOT liberal, ... unless your perception of it happens to come from the extreme right.

Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 11:07 PM
72% of Americans believe that news organizations have a tendency to favor one side. "The media has been proven to be liberal time and time again.": By Bill O'Reilly?
Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:58 PM Try MSNBC MSNBC took a look at 144 journalists who donated political contributions from 2004 to the start of the 2008 campaign:

...according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans.
That number can be rounded off to 87% of those journalists on the list giving to causes and politicians on the left side of the aisle.

Yeah, not liberal at all.