Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    Philly wrote: Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. It's not shingles that makes you a ... [more](10)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    October 1, 2007
    Matt Drudge on Limbaugh, Phony Soldiers, and Keith Olbermann


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (266) | | View blog reactions

    266 Comments

    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.

    "Yeah, not liberal at all."

    I believe it speaks more to the fact that journalists see the truth far sooner than the rest of the population....and truth definitely has a liberal bias!

    9:44, classic diversion by the queen of the olbyloons. When debunked, just change the subject.

    I didn't change the subject stupid!

    I believe it speaks more to the fact that journalists see the truth far sooner than the rest of the population....and truth definitely has a liberal bias!

    Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 9:44 PM
    I see.So what happens when they are wrong like the Duke case. I also thought their taught at the outset to be impartial.As that case proves it is dangerous to carry a bias. Oh, and where does it say anywhere that truth has a liberal bias.In your mind?

    "Yeah, not liberal at all."

    I believe it speaks more to the fact that journalists see the truth far sooner than the rest of the population....and truth definitely has a liberal bias!

    Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 9:44 PM


    I wondering how you shield yourself from the obvious conclusion in this statement, Mike.

    ehhhh...These insightful and perceptive people are able to glean truth before other mere mortals... yet they're not moral or courageous enough to report anything that's not signed off by their corporate overlords?...

    These truth-seers will gladly compromise their integrity and push 'non-truth' just to keep a paycheck?

    .and truth definitely has a liberal bias!

    Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 9:44 PM


    Take the above statement with a grain a salt, folks. Mike's view of "truth" is merely the result of PTSD from the Iraqi War.

    Mike hasn't fought in the war, but he claims that before we went into Iraq the philosophy of conservatives George Bush and Dick Cheney was truth enough for him.

    This guy Mike needs therapy and medication. Do they keep sharp scissors away from this guy? They should. His posts remind me of a lunatic that I ran into in a forum at Delphi Forums. Every single post was filled with pure hatred and invective for anyone who disagreed. Name-calling was his specialty and he spewed forth empty rhetoric with no factual underpinnings. Does that sound like Mike? And I've only been here for 10 minutes, oy vey.

    The latest garbage coming from this piece of shit administration:

    "BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The State Department's initial report of last month's incident in which Blackwater guards were accused of killing Iraqi civilians was written by a Blackwater contractor working in the embassy security detail, according to government and industry sources...

    ...A highly placed industry source said that Hanner, who was listed on the report as the TOC watch officer, was working for Blackwater at the time the report was written, just after the September 16 incident occurred. He was to rotate out of Iraq this past week, the source said...

    ...Blackwater -- which provides security to U.S. diplomats -- says its employees responded properly to an insurgent attack on a convoy. The State Department "spot report" underscores that scenario and doesn't mention civilian casualties..."

    It seems like you are more agitated than usual blindrat....is it because you had your head handed to you yesterday on the other thread?

    Blindrat making a "good point"? Oh that's funny.

    Maybe BR's agitation had something to do with the 3rd Q ratings which showed for the 6th YEAR straight, Bill O'Reilly has had the number one rated show on the cable news networks?

    Brandon,

    Stalin was popular as well, son...

    I notice that you girls didn't have any OTHER so-called Olbermann lies after you failed attempt to read Keith's mind, child...

    Sorry blindrat, I noticed after it was clear your attempt at context showed Olbermann not implying a more narrow definition of partisan as that being loyal to a political party, you fled the scene.....The definition stands and it is clear Olbermann is a member of that wonderful class of media partisans.....

    Limbaugh
    Hannity
    Savage
    Olbermann

    He just is not very good at it as the Medved thread shows.....Do you care to take the challenge and prove to all of us that Olbermann is nonpartisan, blindrat?

    And to make sure there is no confusion, blindrat.....

    non·par·ti·san
    adjective
    1. not partisan; objective.
    2. not supporting or controlled by a political party, special interest group, or the like.

    noun
    3. a person who is nonpartisan.


    cee knows that I take the bus out of Washington a little before three. He is simply embarassed that he was thrashed yesterday after I provided context. Perhaps my simple explanation of how to use words was above his head...

    And, for that I am moved to pity...

    I have seen you post later at night before, blindrat, and looked forward to you showing me that Olbermann is nonpartisan. I was disappointed.

    You cannot win an argument you don't control blindrat and it really pisses you off. The tactic failed yesterday. You did not anticipate "partisan" meaning something different than what your arrogant little mind told you it meant....."party loyalist." No, blindrat, partisan has to to with "part," being an adherant or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause....Olbermann has expressed his leftist opinions thousands of times on COUNTDOWN regarding Bush and the Iraq war and you only asked for one example.

    I gave you an example and you tried to change the rules of the debate.....Sorry, I am not going to back down....You lost and if you did not lose, then you should be able to easily prove the inverse of my claim that Olbermann is a partisan.....

    Prove Olbermann is a nonpartisan.

    Come on now blindrat, the bus is a long way off.

    cee,

    I seldom come the the site in the evening. The evening is family time, son...

    >>Prove Olbermann is a nonpartisan.

    Any first-year logic student knows that you can't prove a negative statement like that...

    How old and how educated are you, son?

    Um, blindrat, I did not ask you to prove Olberman was not a partisan.....I asked you to prove Olberman was a nonpartisan. Just like you asked me to prove Olbermann was a partisan yesterday.

    You claim Olbermann did not lie when he said he is not a partisan. I said he did. I gave an example.

    I am making it very easy for you. I'll even give you some synonyms....

    Prove Olbermann is impartial.

    Prove Olbermann is objective.

    Prove Olbermann is fair.

    Prove Olbermann is independent.

    Prove Olbermann is unbiased.

    Prove Olbermann is neutral.

    http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/nonpartisan

    Come on now, blindrat, you started this canard saying, "Believe me, son, I am going somewhere with this..." I am giving you the opportunity to finish it!

    cee,

    Here ya go, son...from May 27th of this year:

    "The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president—if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history—who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;"

    "The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;"

    "The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government."

    "The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831132/

    What th'? Olbermann criticizing DEMOCRATS??? Why, how partisan!

    What th'? Olbermann criticizing DEMOCRATS??? Why, how partisan!


    ###
    Yes blindrat, Olbermann's partisan anti-Iraq war position was shown very clearly by your quote. Excellent!

    And he also showed non-nonpartisan behavior in his unobjective (the opposite of objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased) characterizations of The President, and his personal opinion regarding "the trust of the voters."

    Gee, blindrat, I would assume you would choose an example that would support your view of Olbermann as unbiased and objective....again these are synonyms of nonpartisan.

    You could quote him telling us the date, or perhaps when he tells us who is on after him....he is nonpartisan then!

    But I do like the quote because I am in agreement with Olbermann about the fringe left's ruling class' capitulation....although I know Olbermann only sees it because he wants the war ended (a cause) while I want The United States to remain on the side of freedom and democracy!

    You still goin' somewhere with all this, blindrat?

    Next.....

    cee,

    You see, son. This is why I asked about your age and education. As I stated before, being against something that is wrong is just good sense, not partisan. You, in your feeble wisdom, have defined the word so that it is of no use. Certainly, that is not how the word is defined or anyone with an opinion (ie everyone) would be "partisan".

    You childlike use of language is amusing, son; but, even children learn...what is your excuse?

    "Certainly, that is not how the word is defined or anyone with an opinion (ie everyone) would be "partisan"."


    ###
    Sorry blindrat, no....It is not defined that way. I clearly stated that Olbermann's BEHAVIOR showed he was a partisan. I'll give you an example of a nonpartisan.....

    Jim Lehrer has never given an editorial on his program, I do not know his opinions about Bush, democrats, the war or Bill O'Reilly. He is well respected and described as nonpartisan and I would agree with that assessment. Mr. Lerer always has both points of view on his program, asks excellent questions always couched with context and if the question is of a "controversial nature" he usually asks it in terms of an event....Meaning a hypothetical or actual circumstance that the responder can use for context.

    Keith Olbermann is 180 degress from Mr. Lehrer and hence, not a nonpartisan....or a partisan.....whatever you would like to call him blindrat.

    BTW, The News Hour is the only TV source I watch....I only get stuff about Olbermann from this site or by looking at it at MSNBC.COM.

    So blindrat, next......

    I notice that you girls didn't have any OTHER so-called Olbermann lies after you failed attempt to read Keith's mind, child...

    Posted by: blindrat at October 3, 2007 9:48 AM


    One thing is for sure. You admitted Olbermahn is a liar. More than any other olbyloon has done in recent memory.

    cee,

    Are you saying that Lehrer has never shown an opinion on ANYTHING in his television show? Because, I would imagine that it wouldn't take much to bring that little bit of misinformation down, son...

    This is today's ignorant statement from blindrat....

    "You, in your feeble wisdom, have defined the word so that it is of no use. "


    ###
    How can I define a word? A word as a defintion. I do not define words. I learn and apply defnitions but I do not get to choose the actual defintion. In my speech, I can try to convey (imply) how I am applying a word that has room for interpretation, but I shot that argument down yesterday, blindrat.

    Perhaps in blindrat's arrogant, self-absorbed world he is allowed to always define the word or couch the argument....But in the real world, it just does not work that way.....

    Blindrat, are you really the adulterous sodomist, former President Bill Clinton?....

    "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

    What stupidity.

    cee,

    Are you saying that Lehrer has never shown an opinion on ANYTHING in his television show? Because, I would imagine that it wouldn't take much to bring that little bit of misinformation down, son...


    ###
    Go for it, blindrat. Oh, and BTW, stating the time and date are not opinions.

    Oh and to make myself clear so you do not have create an out that you have been trying to find for a day now.....

    I am saying that Lehrer has never expressed HIS opinion on a cause, a political party or a special interest proup in his television show. As contrasted with Keith Olbermann.

    Go for it and if you find one example, I will gladly bow my head to your abilities, blindrat, allowing the post to remain unanswered.

    You childlike use of language is amusing, son; but, even children learn...what is your excuse?

    Posted by: blindrat at October 3, 2007 11:47 AM


    Don't you mean: "the childrens is learning"?

    Hi Sir Loin of Milquetoast. Did you write your daily, sternly worded letter to The Speaker and Senator Majority Leader regarding Iraq and Afghanistan War funding, impeachment hearings and extradition of Bush and Cheney to The Hague?

    Your ruling elite have been distracted with their worry over a PARTISAN and obese radio host. You must be angry?

    No, but I've called one of my senators to thank him for his vote against the dangerous and fanciful Kyl/Liebermann ammendment, and chastised his counterpart for voting for it.

    On your part; have you ensured that you have sacrificed nothing today - and perhaps even profited in some small way - for the destructive and expensive war your fetish/president loves so much?

    The Rush issue was not a distraction and "worry" has nothing to do with it - it was symbolic tit-for-tat.

    So, what are you saying Mee Maw?

    Mike hasn't fought in this War, although he has fought in a War, but we shouldn't believe him for his lack of service in Iraq?

    So, we believe Bush, Cheney, McConnell, Lott, Rice, Cee, you, all of whom crossed the street to avoid walking directly in front of a Recruiting Office?

    Do something to get the blood flowing before you embarass yourself again, Mee Maw.

    Posted by: LLARRY at October 3, 2007 8:49 AM


    Maybe someday you'll discover what PTSD means, Hee Haw.

    Until then, please note that posting your response three times is unnecessary. Once is way more than enough... :D

    Thanks for the advise Mee Maw. I know lushes tend to forget, so I thought I'd underscore my point.

    Actually, per Mike, he was not in a combat zone in the Vietnam War but was offshore in Germany and perhaps, I might not have this right, Japan.

    Grammie

    Thanks for the advise Mee Maw. I know lushes tend to forget, so I thought I'd underscore my point.

    Posted by: LLARRY at October 3, 2007 9:32 PM


    You're welcome and keep underscoring your point.

    That technique could help you remember your gibberish and it underscores the pertinent fact about you for everyone else. :D

    Do something to get the blood flowing before you embarass yourself again, Mee Maw.

    Posted by: LLARRY at October 3, 2007 8:49 AM

    We all know who the triple poster is. These loons have the 'brittney spears/lindey lohan' syndrome. They do certain things purely for attention, nothing more.

    raise your ego and contribute nothing !

    Posted by: at October 3, 2007 11:18 PM

    This, from the triple poster!

    Janet" "Actually per Mike he was not in combat zone during the Vietnam war but was offshore in Germany, and perhaps, I might not have this right, Japan."

    I'm not sure what instigated this comment but you're technically wrong in both cases: I was actually in Vietnam longer than I was in japan....I visited my dad stationed in Saigon (from my base in Thailand) for 2 days in 1971, and spent exactly 2 hours in Tokyo just passing through.....:)

    First time I've posted in a week.
    You get the award for most times being wrong in a single day !

    Posted by: at October 3, 2007 11:42 PM


    This is the first time I've posted all month, liar!

    Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Picky, Picky, Picky.

    Why don't you set me straight about your service as a combat veteran since I obviously made an innocent mistake in saying "Actually, per Mike, he was not in a combat zone in the Vietnam War but was offshore in Germany and perhaps, I might not have this right, Japan.".

    If you want to know what prompted the statement just read a few comments up.

    Grammie

    "This is the first time I've posted all month, liar!

    Posted by: at October 4, 2007 12:13 AM"

    Chicken Blogger, this may be difficult to hear. If so, I am sorry.

    Your Mama may be able to pick out your Clucking and Crapping from all the other chickens but we are just mere mortals.

    Your clucks and crap is the same as the millions of other chicken's clucks and crap.

    Grammie

    "Mikey, Mikey, Mikey, picky, picky, picky"

    Well, I think it's safe to say my 2 days in a combat zone does beat our president's record. I've never had a DWI either.....:)

    Now before you go and get all serious on me again, don't forget the ":)" symbol I placed in both posts.

    Sorry, Mike, I did miss the smile, ":)", at the end of your comment.

    Other than Japan was I fairly accurate in my memory of what you have said here about your service?

    My dear husband was in the Army (he was drafted at age 26) during the early years of the Vietnam War but served his time stateside. Neither he nor I ever considered him a Combat Veteran.

    Grammie

    Janet: "Other than Japan was I fairly accurate in my memory about what you have said here about your service?"

    You were certainly accurate about Germany. I also spent a year in Takhli Thailand, which was only dangerous if you happened to be a combat pilot, which I wasn't. Other than that, getting rolled outside of a bar, or avoiding the clap were about the biggest hazards most of us faced there.

    That said, the only reason I have ever discussed my military service was to provide a little context on some of my posts. I had a friend who served as a combat medic and ultimately took his own life because of the stress that changed him forever. Young men should never have to go through what he went through.

    Like you and your husband, I understand perfectly that there are veterans, ... and then there are VETERANS!

    That said, I'm quite certain that your husband would have answered the call proudly if he had been called to combat.

    "I had a friend who served as a combat medic and ultimately took his own life because of the stress that changed him forever. Young men should never have to go through what he went through."

    So whom do you propose serve in the military Mike? Old men and women? Or do you prefer completely abolishing the military altogether? Or is it that you wish for our military to stop defending our country completely?

    If I may, Brandon...

    I would send the adult offspring of neocons who clamor for war. If neocons are old enough, I'd send them as well. They might get a little perspective on what they are inflicting on the lower economic classes, son...

    And how would we identify the neocons, blindrat?....

    A gold "N" on their coats?
    Tattoo id numbers on their arms?
    Lists kept by the FBI accessable by the government?

    On another subject....

    How about Jim Lehrer's example of being a partisan, blindrat?

    Writer's Block: Do We Really Look This Dumb? By: Jay Gravholt

    "Everyone is "aghast" at what the other party is doing. It's great theater, great ratings and great political spin. Bill O'Reilly loves it and so does Keith Olbermann. In this era of instant information and continuous scandal, each side is so involved in digging up dirt on the other that they've lost focus on things that actually matter."

    http://www.yankton.net/stories/100407/ope_205167061.shtml

    cee,

    Prowar folks should identify themselves. My guess is that most of the weasels will not, however...you?

    As for your idiocy on Lehrer, I'll post something and you'll claim that it is not a strong opinion and you'll drag it out. Why? 'Cause you've got nothing...

    But, let's go through the motions anyway, Dense...

    ...''We're about to elect a president of the United States at a time when we have young people dying in our name overseas, we just had a report from the 9/11 commission which says we are not safe as a nation, and one of these two groups of people is going to run our country,'' Mr. Lehrer said. ''The fact that you three networks decided it was not important enough to run in prime time, the message that gives the American people is huge.''...

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E7D8143DF935A15754C0A9629C8B63

    Strong opinion? Certainly, son. Now, weasel away, child and show us all how little integrity you've got...

    "Prowar folks should identify themselves. My guess is that most of the weasels will not, however...you?"


    ###
    Funny you should bring that up....it is interesting that the last time the political ideology of the military was objectively examined, we saw this....

    "According to a Military Times survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat (the same 10 percent that MSNBC has on its speed-dial). Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent."


    ###
    So the pro-war people do identify themselves by volunteering to protect our nation in numbers disproportionate from one political philosophy.

    Like it has always been.

    BTW, the above information is from Sir Loin of Milquetoast's theorized transgender PARTISAN, Ann Coulter.....The latest is a hoot!....

    http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

    I stated yesterday the following.....

    "I am saying that Lehrer has never expressed HIS opinion on a cause, a political party or a special interest proup in his television show. As contrasted with Keith Olbermann."


    ###
    I agree, it is a very strong opinion, blindrat...one from a very serious journalist with regards to how his profession is being handled by his competition.

    What cause is Mr. Lerher advocating, blindrat....The Party for Airing Debates on Network TV during Primetime (PADNTUP)?

    Everything else he stated were facts supporting his opinion that it is important the media air political debates....No political figure was targeted, no political party was targeted, no ideology was targeted....I guess you could argue Lerher is part of the anti-corporatist ilk who alleges the networks are run by faceless fascists.....

    But then you would be making partisan, as a word, useless.

    No, I think Lerher is acting as a nonpartisan journalist very interested in his craft....that being allowing the facts and statements of newsmakers stand for themselves for the public to decide whether to....

    "accuse"
    "call for resignations"
    "cut war funds"
    "start impeachment hearings"
    etc.....

    I think I did more than "weasel," blindrat. Good points, though. Have a nice day.

    Oh, and just in case you are going to say I am being a weasel...please see what self-inflicted your assignment was....

    "cee,

    "Are you saying that Lehrer has never shown an opinion on ANYTHING in his television show? Because, I would imagine that it wouldn't take much to bring that little bit of misinformation down, son..."


    ###
    Please note...."in his television show?" I think that clears things up?

    "According to a Military Times survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat (the same 10 percent that MSNBC has on its speed-dial). Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent."

    I LOVE showing you to be the idiot that you are, child. Just because prowar folks make up the majority of service members DOESN'T mean that the majority of prowar people are, or have been, in the military...

    Are you really this stupid? Shall I put it into terms that you understand, boy? Let's say that you had a hundred people and thirty were in favor of building a dam. So, five of them set to work on the dam. The majority on the dam are probably in favor of its production; however, thirty-five others have nothing to do with actually building it...

    It's like trying to talk to a child...

    And, thanks for weaseling out on the Lehrer thing. I just wanted everyone else to see it, child...

    Ah, but blindrat, you claimed that the prowar people should be the ones to go and I responded that it already seems to already be the reality.

    'Just because prowar folks make up the majority of service members DOESN'T mean that the majority of prowar people are, or have been, in the military..."


    ###
    That is all well and good, blindrat but just because you choose to concentrate on one statistic while I choose to concentrate on another equally valid measure of patriotism and sacrifice for a particular group does not justify your smugness.

    Show me the percentage of anti-war leftists that volunteer to protect our nation and I'll await your research.

    Please read both your post and the response before you try the arrogant son/child creepy pedophile stuff.

    Oh, and again both my post and your post about Lehrer voicing opinion was top show an example ON HIS TV SHOW....your example was a from a forum he was participating in.....

    "In a particularly uncomfortable moment, the three men found themselves on the wrong end of a lecture on Sunday about their networks' paltry convention plans in a panel discussion at Harvard University. Stern words came from the PBS anchor Jim Lehrer and the CNN anchor Judy Woodruff, both of whom work for networks that are offering many more hours of coverage."


    ###
    Funny how you left that part of the story out of your rant, blindrat.....

    Sorry ma'am....you lose, again....what's that now, 4 times in a row?

    Wanna try again?

    Brandonisms:

    "So whom do you propose serve in the military Mike? Old men and women? Or do you propose abolishing the military alogether?"....I "propose" using our military responsibly and not invading and occupying countries that did not attack us. Or ss that a concept just too difficult for you to grasp?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Or is it that you wish for our military to stop defending our country altogether."....Duh Brandon! Defending our country is exactly what I want it to do.

    You're one of those rubes buying the fantasy that we have been "defending our country" in Iraq, are you?

    Yeah, son...

    I lost. Because when you are in an argument with an idiot, you'll never convince him.

    I point out your illogic and you keep jumping around ignoring your exposed stupidity. Apparently, you are as stupid as royalking, child. Zealots end up like that because they have to defend the undefendable...

    Too bad...

    Oh and Loin's theorized transgender PARTISAN, Ann Coulter's latest essay has some other nice snippets regarding those absolute moral authorities....

    "In addition to famous fake soldiers promoted by the anti-war crowd, like Jesse MacBeth and 'Winter Soldier' Al Hubbard, even liberals with actual military experience are constantly being caught in the middle of some liberal hoax.

    "Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. 'I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later,' he told Vanity Fair. And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months. Although to his credit, Gore did not put in for a Purple Heart for the carpal tunnel syndrome he got from all that typing.

    "Speaking of which, John Kerry claimed to be a valiant, Purple Heart-deserving Vietnam veteran, who spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia -- until he ran for president and more than 280 Swift Boat Veterans called him a liar. We've been waiting more than 20 months for Kerry to make good on his 'Meet the Press' pledge to sign form 180, which would allow the military to release his records.

    "Then there was Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the phony National Guard documents; Scott Thomas Beauchamp, The New Republic's fantasist anti-war 'Baghdad Diarist'; and Max Cleland, whose injuries were repeatedly and falsely described as a result of enemy fire.


    ###
    And about her latest book....

    "In my experience, having prominent Democrats censure you on the Senate floor is the equivalent of 50 book signings. Or being put on the cover of The New York Times magazine 20 years ago when people still read The New York Times magazine. They should rename Senate censure resolutions 'Harry Reid's Book Club.'

    "Liberals are hopping mad because Rush Limbaugh referred to phony soldiers as 'phony soldiers.' They claim he was accusing all Democrats in the military of being 'phony.'

    "True, all Democrats in the military are not phony soldiers, but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats.

    "If we are to believe the self-descriptions of callers to talk radio and the typical soldier interviewed on MSNBC, the military is fairly bristling with Moveon.org types.

    "The reality is quite the opposite. While liberals have managed to worm themselves into every important institution in America, from the public schools to the CIA to charitable foundations, they are shamefully absent from the military."


    ###
    Nice, uh blindrat?....Allow me to requote Coultergeist....

    "True, all Democrats in the military are not phony soldiers, but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats."


    "I point out your illogic and you keep jumping around ignoring your exposed stupidity."


    ###
    I point out your inability to frame an argument is what gets you in trouble and you change the subject.

    You are so easy to beat, ma'am....your logic only consists of what argument you have planned out in your own pea brain and when someone challenges you, you get all hot and bothered....screw up, and then continue to dig yourself into the hole.

    blindrat, you going to pick up your ball and go home now with a puss of your face?

    cee,

    A lot of you chickenhawks complain about Kerry's purple hearts; however, you can't say much about his bronze and silver stars. Even one of the smearboat vets who claimed nothing happened ended up with an "under fire" medal for that day. He claimed that he never read the citation...

    You girls have cowards as heroes and treat heroes as cowards. No wonder the country sees you for the frauds that you are...

    My father served in Vietnam. That adds to my disgust of you pieces of shit, son...

    Hey, there's a legless veteran, girls...better go smear his service...

    Pathetic...

    ?"....I "propose" using our military responsibly and not invading and occupying countries that did not attack us.

    posted by mike for the 100th time!

    We get it mike. Please, get yourself up to speed on the far left talking point highway. Yours is old a very tired. Shoot on over to your favs, kos and mm and grab yourself a new one. Wait, maybe click on npr real fast and get yourself one, wait, are they still on the air?

    blindrat once again retreats to the absolute moral authority argument.....Just as I thought he would.

    Even with profanity! Nice.

    Hey blindrat, if you are referring to Senator Cleland (who was not a very good Senator for his state by the way), is it not right to be FACTUAL and not claim an injury was combat related
    when it was the result of a very tragic accident? I thought leftists were rational, factual people....

    Oh yeah, only when it suits them....otherwise demogouery and emotinalism is the order of the day!

    Speaking of emotionalism and irrational debate.....

    How is your ruling elite's tactic on going after the obese PARTISAN going? I here his ratings are up and the ad revenues for the stations he is on are up! Oh, and he is even getting ad revenue from anti-war groups.....talk about a silly cycle!

    Attack the man for what he says.....write a sternly worded letter asking for an apology...run ads on his stations....make him richer and more likely to remain the biggest radio program in the country....up to 20 million listeners.

    Mmmm. I think 2008 may not look so bad if this is how the left is going to behave.

    1:37 was cee

    "1:37 was cee"

    We figured that out. There couldn't possibly be two such rabid opinionated, and outspoken believers of fantasy based Neoconish logical fallicies on the very SAME discusson board.

    What was factually wrong in my post, Mike?

    Cleland's injuries that the democrats claimed were obtained in combat under enemy fire when they were actually the result of a terrible accident while he served?

    In Cleland's own words: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate." That is why Cleland didn't win a Purple Heart, which is given to those wounded in combat.

    I wouldn't press the point except that Democrats have deliberately "sexed up" the circumstances of Cleland's accident in the service of slandering the people of Georgia, the National Guard and George Bush. Cleland has questioned Bush's fitness for office because he served in the National Guard but did not go to Vietnam. And yet the poignant truth of Cleland's own accident demonstrates the commitment and bravery of all members of the military who come into contact with ordnance. Cleland's injury was of the routine variety that occurs whenever young men and weapons are put in close proximity — including in the National Guard.*

    *(Another good source from Sir Loin of Milgquetoast's theorized or fantasized transgnder PARTISAN, Ann COulter)

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter021904.asp

    or....

    Cleland was a mediocre Senator for Georgia and rightly defeated based on his record....not the famous "ad."

    or....

    The Limbaugh saga that was cooked up by the fringe left and Olbermann source MEDIAMATTERS that has actually benefitted all involved financially but really shows your ruling class is frustrated by not accomplishing their fringe base's agenda?

    Come on Mike....what is fantasy here?

    There couldn't possibly be two such rabid opinionated, and outspoken believers of fantasy based far leftiish logical fallicies on the very SAME discusson board.

    Posted by: Mike at October 4, 2007 1:54 PM


    Funny, we used to think the same thing about people like you!

    Jeff: "Funny, we used to think the same thing about people like you!"

    Good to know you don't feel that way anymore.

    Nice spin, mike. To the contrary.

    "A lot of you chickenhawks complain about Kerry's purple hearts; however, you can't say much about his bronze and silver stars. Even one of the smearboat vets who claimed nothing happened ended up with an "under fire" medal for that day. He claimed that he never read the citation..."

    ...and I remember back when the "Swiftboat" controversy was hot, prior to the last election, that the venerable Bob Dole joined in on the smear-fest, claiming that Kerry was awarded "[T]hree Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds."

    All respect for the bastard left me at that moment. I had read Dole's book by that time, and I recalled his remembrance of his own first purple heart:

    'As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg -- the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart.'

    ...and yet he eagerly joined in on smearing Kerry for having experienced precisely the same thing. Poor addled old fart. Only decades in the Republican party could suck the integrity out of a WWII hero in such a way.

    Cee: "Come on Mike, what is fantasy here?"

    Most of what you post!

    Loin, John Kerry threw fake medals over a fence as a protestor and as member of a pro-communist and radical anti-war group. Years later he has his real medals displayed on a wall in his Senate office....

    What symbolism....throwing away the symbols of valor and respect when it suits his political agenda and display them for the same reason....No, Loin, Senator Kerry is not even close to the real hero Senator Dole who never accused his fellow soldiers of war crimes, threw away his medals, associated himself with phoney soldiers and supported victory for the leftist totalitarians in Vietnam.

    Senator Kerry is a politican first, war hero way down the list....he did it himself and continues to do it as a leftist anti-American who does not support the troops in their valid mission now.

    Senator Kerry used his service to try to further his political career and the American people saw it for what it was in 2004.....he lost miserably to the National Guard pilot from Texas.

    This is how the left tries to use military service and it is pathetic.

    "Senator Kerry is a politican first, war hero way down the list"

    I fully agree with you on this point; I about shit a brick when Kerry came out at the convention with his "reporting for duty" angle, and later as he strove to forget everything he once appeared to have learned in Vietnam.

    ...but this calculation on his part did not in any way legitimize the outright lying from your lot in regard to the established record of his service.


    ...and you have an amazing load of gall to call anyone "phoney soldiers", Phari-cee. Get your chicken ass over to Iraq NOW.

    This is how the left tries to use military service and it is pathetic.

    Posted by: cee at October 4, 2007 4:12 PM


    Not as pathetic as making it up out of whole-cloth, Phari-cee:

    “I’ve been to war. I’ve raised twins. If I had a choice, I’d rather go to war." George W. Bush to Houston Chronicle, January 27, 2002.

    Big talk from a home-guard deserter.

    "phoney soldiers"


    ###
    Educate yourself, Sir Loin of Milquetoast....

    http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=Keys

    "The deception extended to the VVAW leadership. Executive secretary Al Hubbard claimed to have been an Air Force captain wounded piloting a transport over Da Nang in 1966. Hubbard was actually a staff sergeant who was never assigned to Vietnam.

    "Kerry was a leader, fund-raiser, and spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), an organization that staged mock mass murders of civilians to dramatize American atrocities, and handed out flyers that read "if you had been Vietnamese" American infantrymen might have "burned your house" or "raped your wife and daughter" and "American soldiers do these things every day to the Vietnamese simply because they are 'Gooks.'

    "The Winter Soldier Investigation was financed by pro-Hanoi radicals such as Jane Fonda and Mark Lane, who hoped to undermine American support for the war by framing American soldiers as mass murderers. At the same time, the North Vietnamese military was torturing American prisoners of war to make them confess to identical crimes. At least one former POW has stated that Kerry's testimony was used by North Vietnam to demoralize American prisoners during interrogations.

    "John Kerry has denied any association with Jane Fonda, but he attended the 1970 VVAW leadership meeting that chose Fonda and Executive Secretary Al Hubbard to do a national speaking tour to raise money for the VVAW and launch new chapters. Fonda was also the primary source of funds for the Winter Soldier Investigation, where Kerry was a moderator.


    ###
    Al Hubbard claimed toi be something he was not.....he was the phony soldier I was referring to.

    So take your tired chickenhawk argument to your next anti-war rally and discuss with the rest of the fringe who think it is an intellectually honest issue.

    "The VVAW signed the People's Peace Treaty during Kerry's tenure -- the VVAW even sent a delegation to Hanoi. The document was a laundry list of North Vietnamese bargaining points, including the key concession that the United States must agree to withdraw all troops before any negotiations could take place for the return of American prisoners.

    "The VVAW was at the heart of the propaganda effort that so effectively smeared American servicemen in Vietnam as murderous, drug-addled psychotics that returning veterans were cursed and spat upon in the streets. In fact, as shown in B.G. Burkett's book "Stolen Valor," Vietnam veterans are more psychologically stable and successful than their civilian counterparts.

    "The VVAW was a radical and potentially violent organization that formally considered assassinating prominent supporters of the war. As reported in the New York Sun by Thomas Lipscomb, during a November 1971 meeting in Kansas City the VVAW leadership and chapter coordinators voted down a plan to murder several U.S. Senators, including John Tower, John Stennis, and Strom Thurmond. Two VVAW members who were present, Randy Barnes and Terry Du-Bose, place John Kerry at that meeting, as do the meeting minutes and FBI records. Kerry claims to have resigned from the VVAW at the meeting or shortly thereafter, but there is no evidence that he ever informed authorities about the conspiracy. Kerry continued to publicly represent the VVAW until at least April of 1972."


    ###
    Wow, a conspiracy to murder US Senators.....What a brave and pro-American guy that John Kerry was......

    And he was the left's candidate to become President of The United States!.....

    Did you vote for him, Loin?.....How about you Mike?....

    Leadership from the left!

    "No, Loin, Senator Kerry is not even close to the real hero Senator Dole"


    I also agree with you here - Dole served years in a war against a real existential threat; and it was in only his own power to diminish that record. Sadly; he did just that in his partisan attack on a fellow veteran.

    Cee: "Come on Mike, what is fantasy here?"

    Mike: "Most of what you post!"


    ###
    I was asking you to specifically show how I was making anything up, but, again, you demure.......

    Why am I not surprised.....more than 20 posts remain unaddressed by you regarding Vietnam, Iraq, the rise of the radical left in our country and its affect on our national security policy...

    Tsk, tsk.

    Al Hubbard claimed toi be something he was not.....he was the phony soldier I was referring to.

    So take your tired chickenhawk argument to your next anti-war rally and discuss with the rest of the fringe who think it is an intellectually honest issue.

    Posted by: cee at October 4, 2007 4:37 PM


    Well, you are taking the same dodge that Rush has been attempting. You clearly stated "Phoney soldiers" in the plural, and then when challenged dredge up from some other context one example to hide behind.

    ...and yes, I am getting tired of admonishing you to step up and put your money where your mouth is. You are an amazingly stubborn apron-clad malingerer.

    The American troops and civilians of Afghanistan and Iraq NEED doctors:

    - 10,853 U.S. physicians and dentists served in Korea, fewer than half via the "doctor draft."

    - 30,000 U.S. physicians and dentists served in Vietnam. Only 100 had been drafted.

    - Today, the U.S. Army has 4,200 physicians on active duty worldwide.

    - There are 32 active U.S. military doctors serving the 25,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

    - There are 96 physicians, 18 general surgeons, and 9 orthopedic surgeons serving the 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

    - The U.S. Army has 2 pediatric surgeons.

    - 20 children are seen at the Bagram Air Base hospital in Afghanistan each month.

    - The U.S. National Guard is offering health care professionals $30,000 in bonuses for three-year commitments.

    - Canada offers medical officers enlistment bonuses of up to $225,000.


    Have you absolutely NO sense of responsibility? Honor? Obligation? Are you really a doctor? Are you really an American?

    Limbaugh has always made fun of our soldiers and it is clear he is against them. SLOB is right, it is clear based on Limbaugh's past history of not supporting our soldiers that Limbaugh meant to call our service people "pnony soldiers". Now Olbermann on the other hand really supports the soldiers, that's why he wants the money cut off. So when Olbermann takes MoveOn.org's side in the General Petrayus uproar it is justifed because Keith is a real patriot, Limbaugh is the true traitor.

    Cee to me: "more than 20 posts remain unaddresses by you regarding Vietnam, Iraq, the rise of the radical left in our country and it's effect on our national security policy.
    tsk tsk."

    Because I have more important things to do than shoot down every deluded revisionist post you continually flood this board with.......You don't listen anyway.

    As SLOB said, you're nothing but a chickenhawk, and I have absolutely no respect for either you or the Neoconish fantasies you stand for. Thinking such as your's is a cancer on our nation that needs to be cut out.

    Cee to me: "more than 20 posts remain unaddresses by you regarding Vietnam, Iraq, the rise of the radical left in our country and it's effect on our national security policy.
    tsk tsk."

    Because I have more important things to do than shoot down every deluded revisionist post you continually flood this board with.......You don't listen anyway.

    As SLOB said, you're nothing but a chickenhawk, and I have absolutely no respect for either you or the Neoconish fantasies you stand for. Thinking such as your's is a cancer on our nation that needs to be cut out.

    cee practices hypochristianity

    cee defends restroom republicans

    cee supports genocide

    cee engages in pot & kettle politics

    cee is a whore monger!

    to cee, words and context are like the squares of a rubic's cube, mix and match however he likes, as long as his 'side' comes out looking better.

    cee displays his rampant paranoia by calling anyone and everyone who disagrees with him a:

    leftist / marxist / socialist / communist / secularist and whatever other 'ist' he believes is the boogy-man of the month.

    cee lives a life of quiet desperation, spending all his time on a blog railing against a TV personality because it makes him feel better about himself and his place in the world.

    cee is pathetic.

    "Thinking such as your's is a cancer on our nation that needs to be cut out."


    ###
    Oh wee...I was told. Mike likes to ignore facts and evidence and instead dismiss, out of hand, research and rational debate.

    Mmm. Like I see with all leftists....Mike, you are no more tolerant or "mainstream" as the board's communist, Sir Loin of Milquetoast. I wonder if it is even true you run your own business. Your incuriousness would be a hindrence to growth.

    You seem fanatical and close minded over what you see as open and shut history while others continue to ask the hard questions of the polilitical and academic establishment.

    You know what you want when you say, "Thinking such as your's is a cancer on our nation that needs to be cut out," Mike? Mmm....sounds just like those wicked facists in the 1930's that you accuse me and others of being like....Burning the very same books I used to open the discussion about American pro-communist support for anti-war protests, etc. would be an effective way for you to accomplish your dream!

    Nice, Mike....Little by little we all see who you really are...Not the moderate, compassionate and practical voice you wish to portray but an intolerant, ignorant, arrogant and hypocritical ideologue. Perhaps the "real" Mike is struggling to get out and OLBERMANNWATCH is teasing the lil' guy out?

    I'll continue posting facts Mike, and wait for you to refute how I prove those things you said I could not prove....I have some books and old newspaper articles somewhere regarding the spitting the brave vets endured at the hands of the anti-American left in the early seventies.....I will post it all when I find them.

    G' night.

    to cee, words and context are like the squares of a rubic's cube, mix and match however he likes, as long as his 'side' comes out looking better.

    cee displays his rampant paranoia by calling anyone and everyone who disagrees with him a:

    leftist / marxist / socialist / communist / secularist and whatever other 'ist' he believes is the boogy-man of the month.

    posted by patsy

    Oh, sheit! I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type! Thanks, patsy!!!

    Sleep safely, Phari-cee; you insulated, self-entitled bourgeois chickenhawk.

    I would like to talk about my friend who was a combat medic in Vietnam. Though not his real name, I will just call him Paul to protect his identity. Paul once told me he was the only front line medic who survived the full tour in his unit....and I believe him. You see, Paul is no longer with us.

    I first got to know Paul back in the early 1980's when I managed a large production run of electrical items for my former company, and he was assigned temporarily to the project. I first assigned him to repair units that needed to be reworked.

    To my surprise, he flatly refused to do it, which is something I had never had anyone do before. When I called him aside to find out what the problem was, he told me that putting the broken units back together again reminded him of the horrors of piecing together the broken bodies of his buddies and that he just couldn't do it. It didn't make a lot of sense to me but I just brushed it aside and gave him another job.

    I got to know Paul much better after that. We became friends. Paul was by everyone else's definition a misfit. He completely lacked social skills and all the women we worked with hated him, .... while never bothering to try to understand the demons he was fighting. In addition to the PSD he was fighting, he also had Malaria, which he had also brought back with him from Nam.

    Paul never talked about Vietnam to me except for ONE time. Most of the time he simply could not bring himself to do it. However, I will never forget the one time he DID discuss it.

    He took on an intensity I had never seen or heard before. His eyes were almost glazed over as he described with a shaking voice intermixed scenes of sheer horror....unthinkable things like large pieces of flesh blown completely away from someone who had minutes before been a human being he had been sharing laughs with. Of trying to keep coils of intestines inside of a dying soldiers body while desperately waiting for evacuation, of desperately trying to keep all the blood from pumping out of a buddy's body.....all the while expecting to be the next one laying there torn to pieces. He spoke in rambles and disjointed phrases. I couldn't tell when one event ended and the other began, but I will never forget the intensity....the sheer pain and emotion of it all. This man lived this torture day in and day out for the rest of his short life. Most of the time he kept all this to himself and shared it only with his bottle.

    Paul's father died unexpectedly one day and left him a sizable sum of money. For anyone else, this would have been a blessing, but for Paul it turned out to be a curse. He apparently needed the structure of having to report to a job every day. After quiting, he began playing the stock market and drinking heavily. That became his entire life...him, his bottle, the market, and the demons trapped inside of his head. He eventually lost all his money and took his own life shortly thereafter.

    You see, Paul could never fit in with the real world after the horrors of Vietnam. It never got better for him. Time didn't help. I knew quite a few Vietnam veterans, but none of the others were forced to endure what Paul had endured....and most of them adjusted well to normal life.

    Paul was not alone. Vietnam produced many 'Pauls'. Far more than the 58,000 who were killed outright and the many more than that permantly disfigured. My guess is the majority of the TRUE combat veterans like Paul probably did manage to adjust reasonably well and return to a productive life, but many did not.

    THAT is what war is! It's not about glory, honor, or heroism. It's about survival for those few that are forced to live it. THAT is why we owe it to every young American who serves our country that we not throw them into these kind of situations unless absolutely necessary. And THAT is exactly where GWB let them all down, and continues to do so.

    How many more 'Pauls' are we creating out there right now in Iraq? How long before we fully understand the REAL cost of this latest war that could have been so easily avoided?

    THAT is why the Cee's of the world discust me! Cee believes we should have continued the Vietnam war indefinitely, creating many, many thousands of additional 'Pauls' in the process. Cee thinks it's about "freedom, democracy, and honor", when it's really about egotiscal politicians coupled with blind nationalism and pride. And yet Cee steadfastly refuses to offer HIS service, or even put his money where his mouth is....but ironically feels no shame in flooding this blog with lectures about imposed "freedom and democacy", all the while demonizing the "far left" as having supposedly causing all of America's problems.

    A classic chickenhawk...in the flesh!

    Same response to the changing name at 7:56 that I just posted to Mike....never do I see any point by point rebuttals from either of these tolerant and curious individuals....just vindictive....At least my labels are based on the ideology I see posted with the names....I am sorry that using actual words like leftist, sodomist, adulterer, liar, etc. makes you uneasy but they are accurate. I never curse or wish people death, harm or foul....Yet, I receive such slings and arrows with a smile because I know such crazy talk, anti-religious talk, intolerant talk is a sign that....

    1) I am getting under your skin.

    2) You are insecure and not prepared to defend your world-view and

    3) Likely hiding some fact about yourself from this board that makes your position even more hypocritical than it already is.

    Even arrogant blindrat cannot control himself, shows his frustration with the profanity and I check off in my mind another victory.....It is a sad commentary on the education and sensibilities of many on the left side of the political, economic and/or social spectrum.

    Especially those who choose to return to OW and try to defend their bankrupt values and ideology.

    This is really goodnight, now.

    Cee: "Especially those who choose to return to OW and defend their bankrupt values and ideology"

    None more bankrupt than your own!

    It would be laughable if it were not so pathetic the way Cee floods this board again and again with the same delusional revisionists arguments that have been successfully rebutted dozens of time....and then taunts his ideological opponents like a spoiled child when they are reluctant to give him yet ANOTHER "point by point" rebuttal.......the chickenhawk.

    floods this board again and again with the same delusional revisionists arguments that have been successfully rebutted dozens

    posted by mike

    Just our daily dose of hypo......

    Jeff: "Just our daily dose of hypo....."

    It just never occurs to you that you sound just like a talking pull string doll and nothing more, does it Jeff?

    And some people wonder why I likened you to a potential Nazi?

    And some people wonder why I likened you to a potential Nazi?

    Posted by: Mike at October 4, 2007 8:58 PM


    Actually, they did. When asked why, you ducked and ran.

    Have you ever heard the phrase "Hard cases make bad law"?

    The heartbreaking story of your friend Paul falls into that category.

    Societies can not chart their course based on extremes as Paul obviously exemplified with no regard for the greater good for the greater number.

    Blind Rodent wants we "neocons" marked in some way. As Cee asked him what did he propose, a golden N on our clothes, a tattoo or what?

    Patsy and the sheits use dehumanizing terms such as bovine, fascist pigs, inbred morons etc.

    Mike wants us excised like a cancerous growth.

    If you guys get together you might be able to form your very own Third Reich and do battle with SLOB representing the inferior eastern slavic peoples who embraced Stalinism.

    I will admit up front that that is the harshest and nastiest thing I've ever written.

    If you want to go the route of denouncing those that disagree with you as so morally inferior that they are subhuman, should be marked as such and should be excised what do you expect in return?

    Grammie

    Jeff: "Actually, they did. When asked why, you ducked and ran."

    I just SAID they did, you dolt! And I also just answered the question as to why I did it...again....you moron!

    Janet: "Mike wants us excised like a cancerous growth."

    Is your name Cee?

    Are you ALSO advocating that the Vietnam War should have been continued indefinitely?

    Conservatives complain about being grouped as monolithic thinkers but then so many of them act like THEY TOO have been personally insulted if one of the most radical of their members is demeaned.

    Whats up with that?

    Janet: "Societies cannot chart their courses based on extremes as Paul obviously exemplified with no regard for the greater good for the geater number."

    But there is the rub, isn't it? The "greater good" would have mean't leaving both Vietnam and Iraq alone, and it certainly would not have been served by staying even longer in Vietnam.

    It is interesting to see you throw around socialistic terms like "the greater good" though.

    "I will admit up front that that is the harshest and nastiest thing I've ever written."

    No, Janet, it is not. Remember your very first message to me, in which you gratuitously accused me of viewing pedophilic, necrophilic, and beastiality porn? That was pretty harsh and nasty.

    Janet: "I will admit up front that is the harchest and nastiest thing I've ever written."

    I've tried to be as insulted as you seem to think I should be, but somehow it just didn't resonate.

    Non responsive, Mike.

    To argue that what you say every time only applies to the very specific person you addressed it to is specious at best. Lets not play games. If you believe that comments by anyone are only applicable to one specific person we all need to withdraw from life and limit our contact with the world to a very small number of people.

    Cee and I don't agree down to every dotted I and crossed T but we do, along with others here, share a generally harmonious philosophy.

    Just as you share a generally harmonious philosophy with others on this site that I referenced above.

    You went to the mat to defend your assertion that RK deserved a Sig Heil and on this thread you have claimed that Cee should be excised like a cancerous growth. Sounds like you share some of the Third Reich's philosophy to me.

    Grammie

    SLOB, I didn't think I had kept it but looked anyway. Here is our history:


    "Mike and cee,

    The very first interaction I had of any kind on this site with Grammie involved her popping up out of the blue and accusing me of lurking on beastiality, incest, scatophlia, and homoerotica websites. Don't feel sorry for this old battle-axe's wilting sensibilities.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at January 1, 2007 09:25 AM"
    I just have to respond to SLOB cherry picking and being abusive and misstating facts again. I did a little research and here is the chronology. It is both connotatively and connotatively accurate and is directly quoted from us both.

    The first two are the first two posts made by SLOB.

    "I just found out about this pathetic site. ...Do you want Keith to stop talking ...

    Well, you're out of luck. Crawl away - crawl back up O'Reilly's ass where you can curl up in steamy comfort with his most salient thoughts.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 10, 2006 08:27 AM"

    "...you pack of deluded fascist goons.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 10, 2006 08:35 AM"
    It didn't take SLOB long to become slobish, did it?

    "Anonymous posted:

    "but I know that you guys are way above name calling"---Posted by: codas at October 12, 2006 03:56 PM

    but apparently your kind isn't:

    irrational bumblefucks
    bloodthirsty paranoid rat-finks
    Kiss my ass you stupid fucking neocon freak
    sick, lazy, banal examples of the worst humanity has to offer
    violent xenophobia
    worthless pieces of heartless shit
    REPRESSED homos
    murdering cocksucker
    jackass
    retard

    and all this just since 1247pm today!"

    I think this is most unfair! You are extrapolating this this list of vile curses and harsh epithets as being the agressive effluent of every progressive posting at this site; but this is absolutely not the case!

    If I'm not mistaken each and every one of those well deserved labels were from my posts, so don't give these other guys credit where its not due (just kidding, TJ, coda, et al..you guys are great.)

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 12, 2006 05:35 PM"
    SLOB went on to flesh out his raison d'etre:

    "...and I don't post here to defend KO - I just like to express hatred of America's right wing and its leveraging America into fascism.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2006 03:03 PM"

    Yeah, I hate. Your side makes me seethe with rage, and the concommitant feelings of intellectual superiority..... Of course, the Democrats make want to puke with their equivocation and self-interest, desoite the fact that their party's core principals demand better of them. You should read some of my hate mail to Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and now that little turncoat Sherrod Brown.

    But there are, in fact, a lot of Americans who don't give a flying fuck for either established party, and we will get our country back.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2006 04:09 PM"

    "Oh No! I'd hate to get banned from this bitter little site where no facts shift anyone one iota from the positions they come in with! I only post here for the catharsis I experience by expressing my visceral hatred to some of the right wing dipshits that are destroying our country and world....
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2006 01:24 PM"

    "Anon,
    I don't come here to defend Olbermann .... I've said it before, I come here to vent my spleen on you stupid fascist bumblefucks who are voting your country into ruin. Its very cathartic.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2006 09:23 PM"

    "The people left in Bush's camp aren't conservatives - they're psychotic leader-worshippers. Bush could tell them to slaughter their own children....and these fools would probably do it.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2006 09:30 PM"

    This has been my conclusion f.... recent discussions have been with Wolfie's relatively more circumspect and polished associates Crash and cee): the dregs of the Republican base - those that still remain loyal to the Dear Leader - at heart crave a redemptive race-war. They mix ancient history, cardboard cut-out "realism", and bronze-age mythology in their cluttered rationales advocating the conventional or nuclear annihilation of entire populations of innocent ....-muslims. They willfully ignore clear evidence that they are wrong,.... because they literally desire this war .... televised carnage ......

    Go back to licking your own hairy nutsack, wolfie.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 15, 2006 11:43 PM"

    Having never addressed SLOB before I posted the following slanderous lying comment:

    "Just a thought. Lets let Sir Rotten Loin of Beef talk to himself and ignore him. If no one will play his little game he might confine himself to porn sites where he can rhapodise (sic) to his heart's content about body cavities, his mother and/or father, animals, toddlers, young boys, nubile girls, corpses and whatever else he is obsessed with.

    I think Winston Churchill said if you let your opponent change the topic of the debate you've already lost. And for myself, I don't like the topic being constantly changed by his obviously sick mind.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 16, 2006 03:21 PM"

    And, in his inimitable style SLOB responded:
    "Some sick bitch called "Grammy" posted this:

    "Just a thought........ changed by his obviously sick mind.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie"

    "Change the topic"? It wasn't me that started talking about body cavities, inscest, beastiality. necrophilia, etc.

    Wanna get together?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 17, 2006 08:53 AM"

    Sir Rotten Loin, this is the SICK BITCH GRAMMY (sic). So I was wrong about the necrophilia. What's a little hyperbole to such a reasoned, nuanced man like you.

    From five posts by you in a few hours:

    How deep into your own navels can you crawl?

    Packed into the mother fucking Crystal Cathedral fighting over the youngest altar boys

    How many gay male prostitutes work for Olbermann Watch?

    (in red states that would be fucking too many of the dogs himself)

    its wierd and oedipal

    I am convinced at some point you will lose your super human restraint in the face of such provocation and throw in necrophilia. How dare anyone disagree with such a superb intellect and debater? Shameful!

    Poor little baby. Grammie hates to treat potty mouthed little boys harshly, but sometimes she must for their own good.

    Now, if you can stop crying and whining Grammie will give you some cookies and juice and put you down for a nice little nap.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 17, 2006 03:50 PM"

    ...and now you defend some old perverted bat in your midst from my reaction to her tarring me with the smelly brush of her own sick fantasies.

    Poor Grammie! How could mean old Sir Loin of Beef say that Grammie is a "sick bitch", after she hurled gratuitous accusations of pedophilia, incest, beasitality, necrophilia at him for his holding opposing political views!

    This is very similar to your blaming the Democrats for Denny Hastert and John Boehner covery up the child-predation of Mark Foley.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 17, 2006 09:52 AM

    Clinton, virgins, volcano....stop it! You're making Grammie hot.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 17, 2006 10:02 AM

    Aw Grammy, you barbaric old cunt, chill out. We can all take a little ribbing.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 17, 2006 04:51 PM


    Grammie

    It is interesting to see you throw around socialistic terms like "the greater good" though.

    Posted by: Mike at October 4, 2007 9:36 PM

    Mike is right, Janet: its "Bootstraps! Bootstraps!" not "the greater good".


    A very good catch, Mike. Illustrative of the garbled hash of sound-bites and frequently-used terms that these righties mistake as a theortical framework.

    "You went to the mat to defend your assertion that RK deseerved a Sig Heil aqnd on this thread you have also claimed that Cee should be excised like a cancerous growth."

    Only Cee's thinking, not the man himself. I'm sure he has some redeeming social value, although I haven't seen it yet.

    Radical ideas about warmonging such as Cee's were rightfully pushed to the periphery after the Vietnam war. I for one thought they would stay there at least for the foreseeable future.

    That kind of thinking has unnecessarily gotten us bogged down in a second Vietnam meaning we just aren't very good at learning the proper lessons from history.

    Don't read me wrong....the answer does NOT lie in censorship, but in an educated, interested, and vigilant public, something we have been sorely lacking in recent years.

    Bringing back the draft just might help us in that regard.

    Out of all the comments I have made here you want to hang me with one sentence to accuse me of being a SLOB counterpart.

    Try again.

    We lost 500,000 plus men in WW II. At that time if we had given Japan the hegemony they sought in the Pacific neither Japan nor Germany could have affected us at that time other than economically.

    The right (in every sense of the word) thing to do for the greatest good for the greatest number (not just us but worldwide) was to do what we did.

    Not quite the same thing as being a Stalinist who starved millions of Ukrainians to death and the untold other millions.

    Grammie

    Janet: Are you STILL trying to justify the Iraq invasion by comparing it to pre WWII Europe and Japan?

    Talk about dishonest analogies!

    Oh, ONLY his ideas?

    Just how do you guys limit this to ONLY ideas?

    How does Blind Rodent's identification system work on ONLY ideas?

    How does the dehumanizing phrases work on ONLY ideas?

    How do we excise ONLY ideas?


    Grammie

    "The right (in every sense of the word) thing to do for the greatest good for the greatest number (not just us but worldwide) was to do what we did."

    Hold on just one minute. The right-wing in this country was clearly leaning toward Hitler and his rabid anti-communist, anti-semitic, and anti-democratic rhetoric. The names of the 1930's Nazi-sympatizers read like a who's-who of wall street at that time, and "Bush" appears very near the top alphabetically.

    If the accusations are true that FDR to some degree allowed Pearl Harbor to occur, then it was to get America into the war on the APPROPRIATE side, and to foil the designs of the well-heeled AMerican fascists.

    Oh, sheit! I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type! Thanks, patsy!!!

    Posted by: royal king at October 4, 2007 8:14 PM

    Well, at least you're not spitting up on your keyboard. Apparently, unlike Grammie, You still have your teeth. Which is a bit surprising, since you mount cattle for pleasure, I would have thought all your teeth would have been kicked out by now.

    And please, don't give AAP credit for my posts shredding you morons, he smacks you from the left side, I smack you from the right.

    But, by now, you must be so punch-drunk it all feels the same.

    Cheers!

    ...And you can hardly type when you aren't laughing...

    Refreshed and ready....I see the self assigned moral authorities, prepared to administer chemotherapy to our great nation, had little new to say despite a great beginning initiated by Grammie.

    Mike's inability to see the totality of the true history of Vietnam which included the behavior of the anti-American left in the mid-60's and that influence on the war is either self-deluding or intentional....I am starting to believe it is the latter.....The wounded and killed could be placed at the feet of the American left's sympathetic activity that caused the leftist NVA and Viet-Cong to believe they could win even though they were militarily outmatched and the anti-war insurgency in America was the real motivation for these terrorists to continue to fight and die against the forces of freedom....No, Mike refuses to even entertain such a possibility because it involves those, like himself, who embrace the idea that The United States was an evil imperialistic power in Vietnam. So, again, ideology poisons the ability to objectively pursue truth...questions are called "revisionist attempts" and the chemo is administered....Oh how the rabid left likes to work.

    No Mike, after the behavior of the anti-American left, if I had power in 1974 I would have simply continued a small force to protect the central government of South Vietnam and allowed the Paris agreement to be enforced and the north would have allowed the partition to continue and I would have NEVER cut off funding to the South, maintained their training, and would have kept a large naval presence there just in case the north decided to attack again. But the real problems lie in LBJ's term and not he not being forceful rhetorically to his laftost base, showing that the minority of anti-American leftists that was then, protesting the war....a minority that was pro-communist and anti-American, was wrong and for American defeat (just as McGovern admitted in one of my posts you ignored)....And Bush has done 180 degrees from LBJ....continued the difficult political tract to a second term, unlike the coward LBJ in 1968 and now we see a progressing Iraqi security force, violence down and hopefully, continued political progress....If the rabid left get their wish to cut fund off now and withdrawl troops....that will stop....but Bush will not let that happen.....Thank goodness...freedom of thought and religion remains in Iraq unlike South Vietnam.

    Guess what whiner Mike....you, along with Sir Loin of Milquetoast, will be the only two imbeciles included on my ever growing honor roll of quotes.....Aren't you special?

    Stop the war!....Cut the fund now!

    And this is my post today, the 1,579th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    "You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to wage this war. You're not supporting them. You're keeping them in harm's way." CINDY SHEEHAN

    "There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

    "People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there." OSAMA BIN LADEN

    "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda--worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
    KEITH OLBERMANN

    "Thinking such as your's is a cancer on our nation that needs to be cut out." MIKE posted 10/4/07 7:02PM


    Cee:

    "I see the self assigned moral authorities.".....Who assigned YOU?

    "Guess what Mike....you along with Sir Loin of Milquetoast, will be the only two imbeciles on my ever growing homor role of quotes....Aren't you special?".....No problem, at least I'll be in good company with one exception. It is in keeping with your self delusional character to believe that anyone actually bothers to read them.

    "So again, ideology poisons the ability to pursue pure truth":"....As you prove anew with each and every new revisionist post you make.

    "...freedom of thought and religion remains in Iraq, unlike Vietnam": I suggest you go to both places and then attempt to exercise your so called freedoms in both places, but make sure you are outside of the Green Zone when you do it....And THEN get back to me. Make sure you do Vietnam first though, because you just might not live through the attempt in the majority of Iraq.

    It's nice to know you feel smug and secure on your comfy couch as you continue to cheer sending OTHERS to die for your delusional and nationalistic causes, even as you rationalize away the sanity of failing to pay for a war that is being financed largely by a far more dangerous ideological enemy than the one we are engaging now. Why is it no one on your side ever wants to address THAT?

    And Cee, The delusional Monday morning quaterbacking personal 'plan' you just revealed to 'save' Vietnam, had you been in power in Vietnam in 1974, would not have worked to prevent Vietnam's enevitable reunification under less than ideal conditions any more than the 'plan' that actually was in place.

    Your pontifications disgust me!

    "Your pontifications disgust me! "


    ###
    That's a common effect from cancer, Mike. It goes along with your metaphor quite nicely.

    With respect to your continued chickenhawk canard....keep it up....the above applies.

    Oh, and there is no freedom of religion in Vietnam...I would be arrested if I publicly discussed my personal religious beliefs or invited people to my church if it was not approved by the state....

    http://studentnewsdaily.com/lawyered_over.shtml


    ###
    Oh dear, the radical leftist whiner Mike shows us all once again his true ideology....

    Secular state power over all....religious freedom denied and The United States is evil!

    I will think of you when I attend church this Sunday, Mike, and I pray that all people of the world will be able to practice their religions without state interference!

    Wow!

    "It is in keeping with your self delusional character to believe that anyone actually bothers to read them."

    posted by mike

    I read them and thoroughly enjoy reading them, over and over again! They are from your side, why would you not read them? Denial? Things that make you go, hmmm.....

    Hey everyone!...lookie here...Mike defends the one party, secular leftists Vietnam regime who imprisons political opponents and religious freedom fighters!.....

    "I suggest you go to both places and then attempt to exercise your so called freedoms in both places, but make sure you are outside of the Green Zone when you do it....And THEN get back to me. Make sure you do Vietnam first though, because you just might not live through the attempt in the majority of Iraq."


    ###
    Hurrah! Mike has FINALLY come out of the closet to join Sir Loin of Milquetoast and the other anti-religion cand anti-America crowd! We are blessed to witness this event!

    And please, don't give AAP credit for my posts shredding you morons

    posted by why/bob/patsy/anon


    Exactly, when did this occur? The "shredding" part?

    Jeff:

    "I read them and thoroughly enjoy reading them over and over again.":....I know. Morons are like that. They like repetition.

    "They are from your side":....Not all of them. And none of them show full context, making them irrelevant.

    "why would you not read them. Denial?".....Because I HAVE read them, but with full context and long before your ideological armchair hero decided that repeating them every post was a brilliant idea?

    "Things that make you go hmmmm.":....Just morons like you.

    Cee:

    "Hurrah. Mike has finally come out of the closet to join to join Sir Loin of Milquetoast and the other anti-religion and anti-America crowd! We are blessed to witness this event.":

    Uh, WHERE exactly did I do that?.....Oh brilliant anti--American history revisionist?

    It would be hillarious if it were not so pathetic the way many on your side just makes things up when nothing of substance is available to them.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Hey everyone....lookie here everyone! Mike defends the one party, secular leftists Vietnam regime who imprisons political opponents and religious freedom fighters."

    Something else you just made up!

    Congratulations Cee! You've just joined the moronic Joker and Jeff mentality of making things up about who 'defends' who.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's also SO revealing to see how you love to string together silly adjectives in an attempt to label, package, and shelve all of your political opposition into one neat and manageble little negative package.....Precisely the way the old Soviet Union's Communist News Agency Task used to do!

    Cee:

    "I will think of you when you attend church this Sunday, Mike."

    And I will think of all your religious hypocrisy as well that defy all the Methodist Christian principles I was brought up to believe, such as 1) - Self sacrifice over selfishness, especially for causes you truly deam to be worthwhile. 2) - Your willingness to ignor irrefutable Biblical instructions about caring for those less fortunate than yourself. According to the Bible, you ARE your brother's keeper. 3) - Your willingness to send OTHERS to sacrifice themselves for causes you profess to believe, but would never consider risking your OWN hypocritical neck to achieve.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "and I pray that all people of the world will be able to practice religious freedom without state interference."

    And I pray that too many more people in the world will not have to die because of the foolish and self destructive Neoconish dreams of a few self delusional professed patriots to forcefully expand our own culture and value system.

    Mike wonders about the following....

    "Hey everyone....lookie here everyone! Mike defends the one party, secular leftists Vietnam regime who imprisons political opponents and religious freedom fighters."

    Mike rsponds: "Something else you just made up!"


    ###
    Um, no Mike....

    You said...."Make sure you do Vietnam first though, because you just might not live through the attempt in the majority of Iraq."

    And one can assume by your post that I would be able to express my religious beliefs publicaly in Vietnam and I posted facts that showed that was not the case. You actually believe the one-party leftists in Vietnam provide freedom of thought and religion to their citizens?

    You see Mike, your pathetic ideology and hatred of America comes bubbling to the surface then you try to hide it again by accusing me of making it up....Oh but the posts don't lie....

    Iraq, however violent, has constiotutional protections for all religions to be practiced....Al Queda does not like this, neither do the Shia extremeists. Our men and women are fighting to maintain this important principle for all people of faith. I support them in their struggle.

    You obviously think it is ok for the communists in VIetnam to jail people for publicly discussing their faith or their opposition to the one-party rule with your quote above.

    You know what, I would rather die trying to practice my faith then stop in because if fear of imprisonment (your pathetic Vietnam/Iraq example above)....this includes the work I do for the poor and disadvantaged in my community and as a professional, oh Christ's behalf.....

    I guess you would be ok with doing what the secular, anti-faith state tells you to do, eh Mike?

    Once again, a new computer....2:33PM was cee

    Cee: "You obviously think it's OK for the communists in Vietnam to jail people for publicly discussing their faith"

    No I don't, but I obviously think it is not our place, either legally OR morally, to militarily overthrow such a government either.

    That said, a recent agreement with the government of Vietnam was just reached in 2005 addressing that very concern. THAT is how you attempt to address injustices in other countries....by diplomacy and example.

    That said, leading by "example" would NOT include approving and justifying such barbarism as torture.

    Try again some other time...Pharass-Cee, but I'm done for today......Bye, you false patriot.

    Just showing your ignorance Mike....There are thousands of people in Vietnam jails and you stated I would be ok to go over to Vietnam and practice my faith.

    And guess what, this is the government the American left supported in the 1960's and 1970's.....despite your attempts to ignore those facts. Freedom and justice are values worth fighting and dying for. Leftist totalitarians are immoral and unjust, yet, when America is actively fighting them, some believe America is the evil and wrong power.

    Sorry Mike, you once again show your radical and pathetic world-view. Have a nice weekend and enjoy the freedoms you obviously take for granted and feel are not the right of every human being despite culture or creed.

    Scandal Brewing at Oral Roberts U.

    TULSA, Okla. - Twenty years ago, televangelist Oral Roberts said he was reading a spy novel when God appeared to him and told him to raise $8 million for Roberts' university, or else he would be "called home."

    Now, his son, Oral Roberts University President Richard Roberts, says God is speaking again, telling him to deny lurid allegations in a lawsuit that threatens to engulf this 44-year-old Bible Belt college in scandal.

    Richard Roberts is accused of illegal involvement in a local political campaign and lavish spending at donors' expense, including numerous home remodeling projects, use of the university jet for his daughter's senior trip to the Bahamas, and a red Mercedes convertible and a Lexus SUV for his wife, Lindsay.

    This You Tube piece by Matt Drudge is on target. Keith O is an idiot and his ratings prove it.

    Cee sez to me: "Have a nice week end and enjoy the freedoms you take for granted.":

    The best answer I have for that is that I wore the uniform of this country, and Cee didn't....and Cee won't, even though Cee could.

    Nuff said about that!

    The only defense you both have for the ideologicial choices your ilk make is to personally attack me, someone you hardly know and someone who could easily lie on a blog and say I am somekind of war hero....BTW, Mike, your defense of your position by claiming you served has been shot down with the behavior of such Vets like Murtha and Kerry....both once good men who served but now use their records only for personal and selfish political purposes....kind of like yourself.

    No, Mike, I like to stick to the facts and issues....You ignore the fact that you endorced a nation, Vietnam, that has a one party government (leftist like yourself), jails polititcal and relgious dissenters yet you want to desert a country striving to emulate the best in all men....freedom and respect for other's beliefs. That is what is going on in Iraq and successfully, I might add....violence continues to decline and AL Queda is no the run.

    No Mike, you retreat to the chickenhawk argument because that is all you have. I will not retreat to such demeaning and unintellectual areas because I know I rest on fact and prinicple. You even want to silence free thought as shown with your famous cancer remark. You are a pathetic and lost ideologue!

    Please look in the mirror and realize that as you dismiss, out of hand, different thoughts as yours, you only contribute to your own ignorance. I have waited 3 days now to see your rebuttal to facts and quotes of history and all I get from you is "you're a cancer" or "you're a chickenhawk"? This is debate?

    Come now, you can do better than that!

    ANd for the chaning name moron....Try to read my specific posts and refute any fact I presented instead of the pathetic way avoid fact and thoughtful debate.

    And this is my post today, the 1,580th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    "You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to wage this war. You're not supporting them. You're keeping them in harm's way." CINDY SHEEHAN

    "There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

    "People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there." OSAMA BIN LADEN

    "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda--worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
    KEITH OLBERMANN

    "Thinking such as your's is a cancer on our nation that needs to be cut out." MIKE posted 10/4/07 7:02PM

    Freedom and justice are values worth fighting and dying for.

    Posted by: cee at October 5, 2007 12:23 PM

    .....Just as long as it's someone else other than me doing the fighting and dying.

    ....Just as long as it's someone else's kid doing the fighting and dying.....not mine.

    I'm not happy unless a republican president is waging war somewhere in the world. I don't care how many Americans have to die.

    Posted by: Cee on truth serum at October 5, 2007 12:25 PM

    Posted by: Why don't you think at October 6, 2007 2:06 AM


    Leftist totalitarians are immoral and unjust, yet, when America is actively fighting them, some believe America is the evil and wrong power.

    Posted by: cee at October 5, 2007 3:14 PM


    Right wing totalitarians are more to my taste. Right-wing totalitarianism has typically supported and enforced the private ownership of industrial wealth which is the base of the republican party.

    Posted by: Cee on truth serum at October 5, 2007 3: 16 PM

    "Cee on truth serum" is an incisive and perceptive anlayst. Kudos.

    Once again, Loin, your personal attacks on me simply show you are intellectually incapable of addressing the numerous posts since Thursday outlining the poisonous effect the anti-American left has had on our culture, our principles and on the defense of freedom of religion and thought through-out the world. Keep it up, I feel more vindicated with every chickenhawk argument that replaces a thoughtful rebuttal to....

    McGovern stating he wanted The United States to lose the war....

    Kerry's association with the pro-communism anti-war organization that used actual PHONEY SOLDIERS to advance their anti-American agenda.

    North Vietnams' admission that they relied on anti-war protest and even met with the radicals in their pursuit of imposing communism upon the South.

    Minh's obvious communist connections well before partition AND the myth that the Vietnamese were "nationalists."

    Oh no.....you just lazily call me a chickenhawk....sorry, no dice....I know the truth that you and your anti-American ilm cannot easily defend your hypocracy and hatred for democracy and freedom for all.

    Keep it up, Loin....it really is getting good results in reality thus far.....

    Surge....
    War funding.....
    No impeachment or war crimes trials in The Hague.....

    Your radical agenda is languishing!

    OK, Pharicee, you cowardly chickenhawk, I will adress your issues:

    "Kerry's association with the pro-communism anti-war organization that used actual PHONEY SOLDIERS to advance their anti-American agenda."

    You mentioned one counterfiet soldier from that group the other day - are there more? If not, why the plural? And Kerry is irrelevant to the antiwar movement today - he removed himself from its sphere of influence when he voted for the 2002 enabling act, and his subsequent statements ot the contrary have been recieved as offered - cynical politcal ploys.


    "North Vietnams' admission that they relied on anti-war protest and even met with the radicals in their pursuit of imposing communism upon the South."

    I'm sure the NV did appreciate anti-war sentiments in this country. Why wouldn't they? As for "imposing communism on the South", in the spring of 1956 it was a foregone conclusion that Ho was going to win the national reuinification elections (our intelligence estimated with at least 90% of the vote!) decreed two years previously in Geneva, and agreed to by all parties present except for the US. So we and our instant-allies in the South chose to cancel the elections and initiate 20 years of escallating conflict! What a great option to communism.


    "Minh's obvious communist connections well before partition AND the myth that the Vietnamese were "nationalists.""


    ...and North Vietnam's open warfare with China and the Khmer Rouge following the American retreat shows the ephemeral nature and intrinsic irelevancy of these "connections", which had been fluffed into comic-book fears of "monolithic global communism" by assholes like you.

    I hate peole like you; who ecstatically create fictional enemies for my country, and cheer while real corpses are created out of our troops and innocents in other countries - anyone but yourselves.

    The best answer I have for that is that I wore the uniform of this country, and Cee didn't....and Cee won't, even though Cee could.

    Nuff said about that!

    Posted by: Mike at October 6, 2007 6:30 AM


    Hell, not only could Phari-cee wear the uniform, he could save countless American and Iraqi lives and limbs as a military physician, if one takes him at his word.

    Of course, he's probably not even a doctor, as he claims to be - I bet he sweeps the floor in a pharmacy, where he chides customers for looking at the condoms.

    Yep, personal attacks continue...mixed in with leftist propaganda and lies.

    Poor Loin, you just can't break out of your prison of hatred. I feel sorry for you. You see, the conlcusions you make regarding the communists and their wish for economic and social supremacy is what makes you irrelevant in any objective discussion....It was not and is not a fairy tale. You want it to be because of your world-view....but wanting it does not make it truth.

    Minh was a despot and was not for represetative democracy....North Vietnam never guaranteed religioss or political freedom....why Loin? Why is the secular left afraid of people choosing what to believe and how to think?

    Please try not to be emotional....that what leads to spitting on people and other violence. Just try to answer my many questions respectively and intelligently.

    Please try not to be emotional....that what leads to spitting on people and other violence. Just try to answer my many questions respectively and intelligently.

    Posted by: cee at October 6, 2007 11:46 AM


    Fuck you. Why would I want to give a cowardly and deluded chickenhawk like you that degree of respect? If you don't like it, just don't engage me. If you want to discuss things with me, be prepared to accept insults indicative of my heartfelt disgust for you.


    "You see, the conlcusions you make regarding the communists and their wish for economic and social supremacy is what makes you irrelevant in any objective discussion....It was not and is not a fairy tale. You want it to be because of your world-view....but wanting it does not make it truth.

    Minh was a despot and was not for represetative democracy....North Vietnam never guaranteed religioss or political freedom....why Loin?


    You are wrong. My position is in regard to the treaty made in Geneva between the North and South; and the documented fact that the South pulled out of the agreed-upon elections at our urgings and because of the clear indications that the Viet Minh would win. You attempt to make this about your own perception of the North Vietnamese without any consideration of treaty obligations or the process of democracy, both of which being given strong lip-service in your usual demogogic spiel regarding Vietnam.

    "Why is the secular left afraid of people choosing what to believe and how to think?"

    Dipshit - it was the US and their proxies that for the benefit of a small urban elite in the south demolished the agreed-upon elections! Do you dispute this?

    Mmmm, again, personal attacks while ignoring the facts of the week....(I'll repost the week in politics).....

    The Senate Democrats spent valuable time and effort writing a sternly worded letter that accomplished nothing substantive for the republic....it only makes the leftists flakes crazed and donate more hard-earned money to political campaigns...

    This is why Elizabeth Edwards commented on it.....she is always fund raising....

    I am sure Ann Coulter's new book will be a gold mine for the left's fund raising as well!

    This is why MEDIMATTERS lied about the comment in the first place....it is a new cycle for fund raising and their candidates need new lines for their letters.

    Oh, and all it also does is increase Limbaugh's audience and sponsorship because of his success in the ratings....so Edward's pseudoboycott tact is knowingly false....she knows Rush is the biggest media personality and will remain so.....she needs money for her husband's pathetic campaign.

    So, once again, the fringe is lead around by the nose....Rush is unpatriotic and a drug user, send us your money!

    All the while, President Bush continues leading the nation honorably and successfully, vetos legislation that would encourage more entitlement expectations, while the left wastes time on Limbaugh.....he continues the fight for freedom in Iraq without any threat of fund cuts and there is still NO mention of impeachment despite torture allegations, habeus corpus suspension and lies for war.....

    Only a sternly worded letter this week from 41 democrats with nothing better to do for the nation! A letter that was rebuffed...oh another failure for the left's ruling elite!

    Yep, bad ol cee needs to be attacked while the real leaders worry over obese PARTISANS and are writting letters to get them off the air! Oh boy, you guys don't seem to concerned that Iraq continues the road to peace and stability under Bush's leadership while your leadership is worried about Rush Limbaugh!

    I'll laugh at you again....he, he, he.

    Damn! M respect for Cee gets bigger with ever post you libnuts throw at him. He's holding the fort.

    Loin of Queef whines about the canceled elections in viet nam, but he ignores the fact that the votes were going to be based on commie propaganda. There was no chance that that was going to be a fair or informed vote, and we had no responsible choice but to stop it. It was a chairade.

    Yes I do, Loin. The intention of Minh was not democracy or open markets. The imposition of an interem goverenment while the mechanisms for a constitutional democracy could be fashioned were attempted but the terrorism began and the fighting started. You wish to only see how the US and The South were at fault while excusing the hidden agenda of Minh and his communist backers. No way are you going to convince me that terrorist attacks on civilians is justified while the avenues of diplomacy and compromise to achieve human rights in the protections of freedom of religion and thought are put aside. The Viet Cong killed entire villages in the south to spread fear and impose their ideology on otherwise peaceful people. Communist cohersion tactics brought Minh to prominance....NOT democratic ideals or openess.

    You see Loin, your belief that the United States imperialism is at fault is your error. Although mistakes were made, Minh was using violence, terror and other cohersive tactics to get his power and The US was right to not allow him to achieve his goal. Ideology is the test and if one is not for open thought and religious expression, they should not be allowed to put their thumb upon a nation ready to establish these basic human rights.

    "Let me add my disgust on top of Sir Loins, to person who is part of the problem, not part of the solution.( to put it mildly)"


    ###
    Personally attackin me is all you are capable of, mental midget....Realize that those 58,000 did die in defeat because of the anti-American left....South Vietnam could have remained free and a democracy if the democrats did not cut off funding and allowed freedom to remain....oh, but they did not and committed those 58,000 only to be used by mental midgets like you in demogogic retorts containin no substance or facts.

    Yep, along with spitting on the soldiers and calling them war criminals, baby killers, and other horror, the left use their dead comrades for bumper sticker responses....

    Try reading my lengthy posts since Thursday and factually refute one item....I dare you, mental midet!

    Spitting....
    McGovern stating he wanted The US to lose the war....
    etc....

    Just one.

    "The intention of Minh was not democracy or open markets."

    Big fucking deal. The intention of the 1954 Geneva Convention - signed by North and South Vietnam, the French, Germans and British, Chinese, etc. was to establish a process by which reuinification could be achieved peacefully. All signatories at that time agreed that Vietnam was one country; that the partition was temporary, and that a referendum would decide it.

    Your listing of the ways in which you percieve Ho's philosophy and methods as being unlike those preferred by you as valid grounds for pulling out of the Geneva agreement exposes you as someone who has no understanding or respect for democracy. How many tmes on this boad have you lamented the "will of the mob" on this board, you Straussian apprentice?


    "You see Loin, your belief that the United States imperialism is at fault is your error. Although mistakes were made, Minh was using violence, terror and other cohersive tactics to get his power and The US was right to not allow him to achieve his goal."

    No proof, of course, merely your wishful belief. It has also been credibly charged that the CIA killed many civilians across the south prior to 1956 using car-bombs blamed on the North - analogous to the British SAS agents caught in 2004 in Basra with a car-bomb and a sizable of handful of dead Iraqi policemen.

    In the end - who pulled out of the election process and why?

    The South backed by the US because there was no legal guarantee for human rights and open markets....A valid reason and one I would hope anyone with a conscience would support because these fundamental rights should be in place and quaranteed for all people.

    Your leftist storyline assumes what motive on the part of those wanting continued partition in the face of communist takeover, Loin?

    Try reading my lengthy posts since Thursday and factually refute one item....I dare you, mental midet!

    Spitting....
    McGovern stating he wanted The US to lose the war....
    etc....

    Just one.


    Posted by: cee at October 6, 2007 12:47 PM

    Phari-cee, I've handily destroyed every one of them that I've noticed, and you don't even blink - you just move on to another issue.

    If you want to go around making toothless demands of those heaping insults on you, you need to ante-up first. Why don't you answer my repeated question - Who trased the reunification elections of 1956 and why?

    No you did not, Loin...you simply repeated the opposite opinion or attacked a plural "phony soldiers," big deal....If you read my posts about the mock trials and Winter Soldier investigations, you will see that the anti-war radical's claims were never verfied or prosecuted....They simply made up atrocities for their minions to chant about.

    The basic fact that John Kerry participated in the fraud that was the anti-war movement is dismissed by you because he voted to authorize force in Iraq....You did not refute any allegation about his rhetoric in the 70's and the ties of his organiztion to Communist groups.

    I answered your question about the blocking of reunification and Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ agreed with me.....But LBJ screwed it all up by not calling his base what they were....

    Pro-communist, anti-American radicals....

    Then he chickened out of the 1968 elections and left it for Nixon to deal with....and he did a good job until the democrats cut off all support for the democratic south and allowed the leftist totalitarians victory.

    Read Mark Moyar's "Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954 –1965" I bet you will have a different perspective after seeing the facts, Loin.

    The South backed by the US because there was no legal guarantee for human rights and open markets....A valid reason and one I would hope anyone with a conscience would support because these fundamental rights should be in place and quaranteed for all people.

    Your leftist storyline assumes what motive on the part of those wanting continued partition in the face of communist takeover, Loin?

    Posted by: cee at October 6, 2007 12:58 PM


    Well, the markets thing was basically what the agree-upon election was supposed to decide. Your excuse here would justify Blue States seceeding and initiating civil war beause of some GOP-friendly polls prior to an election, and the fact that they didn't like faith-based initiatives.

    Human rights? Are you holding South Vietnam up as a paragon of human rights? Can you explain specifically how any human rights were precluded by the North prior to the election that never happened? ...and how, in turn, these same rights were ensured by the oligarchs of South Vietnam?

    ...but DeGaulle threatened to become a Societ puppet if we opposed his country's retrieval of its colonial possession, and we rebuffed Ho and backed the petulent French horse until Bien Diem Phu (1954), at which point the French quit and we took their doomed colonial conquest as our own. All because of chickenshit dreamers like Phari-cee.

    Excuse me, but why was my posting of the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence a few moments ago deleted? As threatening as it may be to right-wing war-mongers, it was highly relevant to the discussion being held between Phari-cee and myself. Cowards.

    Based on all communist regimes in the 20th century, Loin, freedom of religion and thought along with open markets were not allowed....Minh was from this cloth. I can assure you Eisenhower and JFK saw the same fate for the Vietnamese with Minh that we saw with Mao, Stalin and Castro.

    Please, Loin, your world-view that holds capitalism and democracy in such contempt allows you to swallow the grabage fed to you by the elite leftist academia in our country. Try a totally different point of view for once and try to evaluate the conventional wisdom you accept as truth. And stop the demogoguery....I do not accept splitting The US because our consitution and those under it currently guarantee the human rights I mentioned....but I know you doubt that reality as well.

    Despite his reverance for Jefferson, Minh was a communist...In 1930 Ho Chi Minh founded the Vietnamese Communist Party, which dedicated itself to securing independence and political power. By 1941 he was heading the Communist Viet Minh, after being trained in Moscow shortly after the Russian Revolution.

    .

    This is the address as it was delivered, as attested to by OSS officer Archimedes Patti, who had served as in-country ally and liason to the Viet Minh during their battles against the Japanse. I see many statements of dedication to human and civil rights here.

    ...but DeGaulle threatened to become a Soviet puppet if we opposed his country's retrieval of its colonial possession, and we rebuffed Ho and backed the petulent French horse until Bien Diem Phu (1954), at which point the French quit and we took their doomed colonial conquest as our own. All because of chickenshit dreamers like Phari-cee.


    Phari-cee, do you have anything analogous to this declaration from the oligarchs of the south, exhibiting their intention to ensure human rights, that you can share with us?

    Despite his reverance for Jefferson, Minh was a communist...In 1930 Ho Chi Minh founded the Vietnamese Communist Party, which dedicated itself to securing independence and political power. By 1941 he was heading the Communist Viet Minh, after being trained in Moscow shortly after the Russian Revolution.

    .

    Posted by: cee at October 6, 2007 1:35 PM


    Of course he was a communist. He was also a nationalist. In 1949 he also offered Truman the use of Cam Ran Bay as a US military base, in the hopes that this would cement Vietnamese/US relations. But Truman didn't want to piss off the baby DeGaulle, and Ho's offer was rejected. We commenced funding 80% of France's insipid re-conquest within a year.

    Ever wonder what might happen in a communist nation that we would actually befreind - or at least not go out of our way to destroy?

    And what did Minh do after, Loin? Terrorism, guerilla warfare, and today, Vietnam does not allow different political parties and freedom of religion. Minh was disengenuous in his speech and ready to impose a Soviet style society on the penisula.

    Why did Vietnam reflect the very state Eisenhower predicted it would if Minh succeeded....You faith in Minh is misplaced, Loin. He was trained by the Soviets and backed by the Chinese. Many in the South did not want to become communist and I agree with them....

    It is a poor system, a totalitarian system and an immoral system of governance.

    This is the problem with the left....radical ideology is ignored. The man was an avowed communist.

    Ever wonder what might happen in a communist nation that we would actually befreind - or at least not go out of our way to destroy?


    ###
    We have example all around us, Loin....The North Koreans who are dying of starvation. The Cubans who still construct rafts to flee their nation. The Chi Coms who send us their wares while still imprioning religious people and those who do not agree with their political philosphy.

    These places do not allow free religious expression. Why? Why do communists (leftists) tend to do this?

    You see, Loin, the fall of the Soviet Union was because we held firm, spent millions in nuclear weapons that stopped them in their tracts (mutually assurred destruction) while good people wanting relgious and political freedom worked from inside to make it all fall.

    Secular leftist ideology leads to despotism, and should be challenged in everyway...economically, diplomatically and yes, with force when necessary.

    The same goes with radical theorcatic totalitarianism in the form of radical islamic terrorism.

    So Loin, I still do not see your point. Minh was a communist intent on personally dominating all of Vietnam...no freedom of religion of though....whether with the help from his communist backers and or from capitulation from the Western Democracies.

    Your acceptance of the party line from the leftists in academia only continue....I again stress the need for you to read someone like Moyar.

    "And what did Minh do after, Loin? Terrorism, guerilla warfare, and today, Vietnam does not allow different political parties and freedom of religion."

    The tragedy of the self-fulfilling prophesy that stains American foreign policy throughout the latter half of the 20th century. How does one launch a guerilla war in the absence of an occupier, after all?

    ...and what God-damn business is it of ours the form of government implemented by sovereign nations half the world away? "Physician, heal thyself!"


    Backed by the Chinese?... to the degree that his offers to become an American client, which I mentioned above, occurred in the same year as Moa's victory. Backed by the Chinese to the degree that the two nations were at war for five years following our retreat. Global communism was as big a boondoggle as the "Islamofascist Caliphate" that has all of you medieval christianists sweating in your slippers.

    Phari-cee, you are walking evidence for your favorite argument that ideology is the root of all evil in the world.

    We have example all around us, Loin....The North Koreans who are dying of starvation. The Cubans who still construct rafts to flee their nation. The Chi Coms who send us their wares while still imprioning religious people and those who do not agree with their political philosphy.

    We fought the North Koreans ferociously when they had not attacked us. We invaded Cuba when they had not attacked us, and have irrationally marginalized them from our markets. I must admit that I am unaware of any overt attacks made by us on the growing power of Moa, but you must admit that his movement, like that of Castro afew years later, was in reaction to decades of brutal western mercantilism.

    Nothing breeds totalitarianism like a looming existential foreign threat. Our 1919 invasion on two fronts of the insipient Soviet Union, our threatening posture towards Castro's Cuba, our pointless war in Korea, and our deluded war in Vietnam all promoted closed, rigid patterns of leadership in those countries.

    ...are you aware, Phari-cee, of Ho's attempt at standing as delegate to the Versaille following WWI, naively thinking that Wilson's call for "self-determination of all nations" included non-white, non-European nations? His delegation was bluntly rejected, because of France's colonial claims on SE Asia. He then turned to Russia for support against the undeniably brutal French occupation of his country.

    Can you propose another strategy he might have followed?

    and Phari-cee, I have not seen your response to my request for some citation of evidence identifying South Vietnam's assurances of human rights to its people prior to 1956. Could it be that such does not exist?

    Since you seem unswayed to look upon Minh as anything other than a victim of Western hegemony an/or idealist I will direct you to the following alternate view.....

    https://secure.vanstockum.nl/product/6520704/Triumph-Forsaken.html#top

    Further evidence of Ho’s commitment to Communism came from his single-minded and unswerving dedication to one objective: the imposition of Communist government on Vietnam and the rest of the world. Ho’s long career as a practitioner of Marxism-Leninism started in 1920, when he became a founding member of the French Communist Party. Three years later, the Soviets summoned him to Moscow to learn Leninist organizational methods and work for the Comintern. When Lenin died, in January of 1924, Ho waited in line to see the corpse for so long that his fingers and nose became frostbitten. In a tribute to Lenin, Ho wrote that the Asian peoples “see in Lenin the personification of universal brotherhood. They feel veneration for him which is akin to filial piety.” At the end of 1924, the Soviets transported Ho to Canton via the Trans-Siberian Express. Carrying orders to organize Vietnamese émigrés and other Asians into revolutionary groups, Ho was to work under the guidance and financial auspices of the Comintern. In Canton, he started a Communist organization called Viet Nam Thanh Nien Cach Mang Hoi, meaning Revolutionary Youth League. In conformity with Lenin’s theories, Ho sought temporary alliances with non-Communist Vietnamese. As he wrote in the Revolutionary Youth League’s journal, “we must destroy the counterrevolutionary elements,” but only “after having kicked the French out of our borders.” Ho enrolled some of his most gifted followers in a Chinese military academy, including several who would later become his top generals.


    ###
    Sir Loin of Milquetoast, your indoctrination seems complete. Believing in the inevitability of socialist structure in replacement of colonial/aristocratic oligarchy as the only just outcome is and was flawed from the start. It takes a fresh look at history to see that totalitarianism must be faced no matter what their source.

    I do not have a reference for The South's stated commitment to American-style democracy and assurance of the freedoms all men should have...

    The freedom to worship as they please
    The freedom to think as they please

    But I see the results of the North taking over the entire country of VIetnam and the demicide for political and relgious views. That is all I need to know I am right and you are wrong in thinking The United States is an imperialistic force only without any value in the principles of freedom and democracy.

    Especially since you continue to believe that all communism and despotism is because of The United States' actions or those of the evil capitalists.

    Especially since you continue to believe that all communism and despotism is because of The United States' actions or those of the evil capitalists.

    Posted by: cee at October 6, 2007 3:03 PM


    No; communism is one result of societies' attempts to rectify unjust and unsustainable economic inequities; despotism is the result of a debased and ignorant population terrified into abdicating their rights to a self-proclaimed protector.

    ...and thanks for pasting that tripe and answering my specific questions with your worn-out tautologies.

    Enlist, Chickenhawk!

    Especially since you continue to believe that all communism and despotism is because of The United States' actions or those of the evil capitalists.

    Posted by: cee at October 6, 2007 3:03 PM


    No; communism is one result of societies' attempts to rectify unjust and unsustainable economic inequities; despotism is the result of a debased and ignorant population terrified into abdicating their rights to a self-proclaimed protector.

    posted by slob

    Isn't that what cee just said?

    I give up....Fine....The United States is the cause for ALL the evil in the world and I will join you in encouraging its defeat as a national entity both domestically and internationally....

    Those on both fringes on left and right looking to partition the country....Vermont for the Left and the south for the right, have a great idea! Perhaps the coasts and the midwest can be divided as well!

    Those on both fringes on left and right internationally have a great idea.....Lets move billions of people to different places and split the world into either theocratic/paternalistic oligarchies or socialist/secular oligarchies....

    Chuck representative democracy and The Bill of Rights that insures expression of religion and thought....those are such 17th century ideals! The ignorant masses do not deserve such....I want what the 19th and 20th century secular thinkers came up with!

    An elite few can tell us all what to think....

    Bruce Springstein can be their lyricist.

    "Since you seem unswayed to look upon Minh as anything other than a victim of Western hegemony..."

    The right acts as if it is a ridiculous proposition to suggest that centuries of European colonialism - the carving up of less technologically advanced, largely tribal regions of the world into subjected Westfalian nation-states, with the expressed intention of acquiring the natural and human resources of these regions for the benefit of a distant homeland - may have had a deliterious effect on those so colonized.

    Yet they act as if launching a four-year (and lengthening) 700-billion dollar (and rising) war to combat a loose network of criminal cells comprised of "dead-enders" and "lurking evil-doers" who "hate us for our freedoms" is the most sensible, unmpeachable action a superpower could undertake.

    These people are certifiably insane.

    Jeff at 3:48: "Isn't that what Cee just said?"

    No, you dolt, that WASN'T what Cee just said.

    Cee sez: "You even want to silence free thought as shown with your famous cancer remark."

    In the quote above, Cee was referring to another one of his collection of out of context quotes?

    Just for the sake of reintroducing SOME context, take note that Cee was referring to my personal characterizations of how destructive Neoconservative thought has been to America when fully embraced at the highest levels of our government without disent.

    I can only look at the immense amount of damage brought directly onto our great country by the twin lies that enabled both the Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin), and the Iraq (WMD and "mushroom clouds") to prove my point.

    I can only view the hundreds of thousands of Americans, who's lives were tragically and needlessly altered or ended forever to prove how dangerous unopposed Neoconservative thought can really be when unleashed at the highest levels of our government.

    I can only look at the millions of lives ended or tragically altered forever by unhindered neoconservative thought can be when all semblance of sanity is checked at the door in the halls of power.

    I can only look at the untold billions and billions in foreign held debt that my country has allowed itself to sink into in pursuit of it's continuing Neoconish fantasies to reinforce the inevitable conclusion that this kind of thought cannot be allowed to continue to dominate in the seats of power.

    Cee falsely characterized that as a call for censorship. I call it an appeal for reason and a return to true representative government of the collective will of ALL the people, which almost invariably turns out to be the wisest course.

    There is no question about it.....Cee is an extremist, and Unfortunately for America, extremists are still at the helm.

    I noticed the recurrance of a familiar pattern regarding Cee, and his responses, or lack thereoff in the last couple of days:

    - If Cee is uncomfortable with a ligitimate question, he simply dismisses it a "personal attack":......Got some news for you Cee,.....truth is NOT a "Personal attack"!

    Cee doesn't like the FACT that recent events have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that decisions about war and peace can never be left entirely up to those who have never served themselves again.

    - While taunting his less extreme ideological opponents for 'avoiding' his own questions, he continually avoids any and all legitimate questions posed to him that he dislikes as well.

    - Cee has this funny way of twisting his opponent's words into something they aren't, and never were.....For example; Mainstream America's COLLECTIVE acceptance of reality regarding Vietnam magically became the "left supporting Ho Chi Minh and the communists" in his twisted mind.

    Make no mistake.....Cee is the extremist!

    Mike, I am interested to know. A person with your mindset and political views, which candidate would you be happening to endorse?

    Well R. Feingold, as you might have guessed, my first choice would have been a candidate with your internet namesake, but since he didn't have the funds to make a serious run, I guess I'm just stuck with one of the other Democrats, aren't I?

    That's your answer? Anyone with a (D) after their name? No one in particular? Views and voting record have no bearing? Just affiliation?

    It's about THE DAMNED WAR Mr. Feingold! What is it that some of you don't seem to get about that?

    Name me someone with an (R) after their name who hasn't endorsed it except for Ron Paul?....And he doesn't stand a chance because he has been marginalized by his own party.

    Mike, if you don't have a clue who you are backing, just say so. No need to get all defensive.

    There was nothing "defensive" about my response. It is true that some, if not most seem to shrug off the war issue as if it were just another issue. For me, it is THE issue....it is the ONLY issue....and in my opinion, it SHOULD be the major issue for every American when their country decides to go to war, whether they support it or not.

    My personal preference is for either Obama or Edwards, since one opposed it when it counted, and the other has publicly acknowledged making a mistake. However, it looks like we may be stuck with Clinton as the nominee...and that is still 10 orders of magnitude better than any republican except Ron Paul (who clearly has no chance).

    Hillary will have to have a running partner. It will be one of your candidates, Osama or Eddie. I wouldn't give up so fast on Paul. It's true he has an upstream battle ahead of him, but, he had the highest number of votes (text votes) at the last Republican debate (29%). It was swept under the carpet by the msm and Fox News. His own party isn't backing him based on his war stance. The man has some good ideas, though.

    he had the highest number of votes (text votes) at the last Republican debate (29%). It was swept under the carpet by the msm and Fox News. His own party isn't backing him based on his war stance. The man has some good ideas, though.

    Posted by: R. Feingold at October 7, 2007 5:25 PM


    Similarly, Kucinich keeps winning the internet network polls following Democratic debates, and this fact never gets any mention. The corporations controlling the media will offer us only the two dynasties;Clinton and Bush. Since the Republicans have no chance this time there is no Bush in the race, and CLinton is being presented as the only option.

    Poor Mike, Loin and mental midget are going to have to hold their noses and vote for the corporate owned HRC.....4 years of this polarizing figure will make George Bush look like FDR...

    Yes, HRC....the democrat's version of Richard Nixon....it will be fun to watch....more political intrigue, more corruption, more partisanship...

    Unity?...doubtful, and the reason I would never vote for her.

    Obama, on the other hand, has my ear and open mind, despite many of his views....He could actually be a unifying force for the deeply partisan country right now. Oh, but the one thing I know makes him persona non grata to the likes of wannawipe, Sir Loin of Milquetoast and the rest of the fringe left base is when he says things like the following....

    "Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."


    ###
    Ohh, this is just not allowed in the vetting process of chief executive....God and Christ's influence, publically discussed!

    Yep, this is why the kook primary voters of the democratic party are not giving this man more than 30% in any poll this early...He is clearly the best, brightest and most idealistic, especially compared to the manufactured HRC, yet he is shunned....We will see if he can inspire the practical and sane portion of the party to come out and thwart the kooks, but I am not sure we will see another Howard Dean outcome again....

    But hope springs eternal.

    HRC has the base wrapped around her little finger and is making it seem (like W did in 2000, BTW) that she is the inevitable candidate....

    In fact, she is following W's plan....the fundraising was the story in 2000, and Bush made it clear he had it all taken care of prior to New Hampshire....he had a little scare there but his machine came roaring back....I predict HRC will continue to follow the evil Bush's tactics....

    And the fringe left will not say a word.

    Oh well guys, enjoy the Bush bashing while you have it...I look forward to January when we see you all become HRC boosters.....and we see the nation split down to a percent supprt 40's/40's between the party candidates....

    Especially if Rudy gets the nomination.

    Yeah, keep claiming the democrats are going to roll over the republicans....I do not agree that will be the case with the candidacy of HRC. Obama could deiliver such a shift, but not a Clinton. As early evidence, just look at some of the more conservative democrat held districts that have worries about HRC on top of the ticket....they are worried she will drag down their candidate.

    Why is this, gents?

    Poor Mike, Loin and mental midget are going to have to hold their noses and vote for the corporate owned HRC.....4 years of this polarizing figure will make George Bush look like FDR...

    Yes, HRC....the democrat's version of Richard Nixon....it will be fun to watch....more political intrigue, more corruption, more partisanship...

    Unity?...doubtful, and the reason I would never vote for her.

    Obama, on the other hand, has my ear and open mind, despite many of his views....He could actually be a unifying force for the deeply partisan country right now. Oh, but the one thing I know makes him persona non grata to the likes of wannawipe, Sir Loin of Milquetoast and the rest of the fringe left base is when he says things like the following....

    "Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics," Obama said. "Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power's sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God."


    ###
    Ohh, this is just not allowed in the vetting process of chief executive....God and Christ's influence, publically discussed!

    Yep, this is why the kook primary voters of the democratic party are not giving this man more than 30% in any poll this early...He is clearly the best, brightest and most idealistic, especially compared to the manufactured HRC, yet he is shunned....We will see if he can inspire the practical and sane portion of the party to come out and thwart the kooks, but I am not sure we will see another Howard Dean outcome again....

    But hope springs eternal.

    HRC has the base wrapped around her little finger and is making it seem (like W did in 2000, BTW) that she is the inevitable candidate....

    In fact, she is following W's plan....the fundraising was the story in 2000, and Bush made it clear he had it all taken care of prior to New Hampshire....he had a little scare there but his machine came roaring back....I predict HRC will continue to follow the evil Bush's tactics....

    And the fringe left will not say a word.

    Oh well guys, enjoy the Bush bashing while you have it...I look forward to January when we see you all become HRC boosters.....and we see the nation split down to a percent supprt 40's/40's between the party candidates....

    Especially if Rudy gets the nomination.

    Yeah, keep claiming the democrats are going to roll over the republicans....I do not agree that will be the case with the candidacy of HRC. Obama could deiliver such a shift, but not a Clinton. As early evidence, just look at some of the more conservative democrat held districts that have worries about HRC on top of the ticket....they are worried she will drag down their candidate.

    Why is this, gents?

    I will not vote for Hillary. My hope is that Dobson and the other fascist christianists make good on their threats to form a third party of witch-burners. At that point a fourth party constituting the leftward majority of Democrats will feel confident enough to finally split from their mercenary mother party and will carry the day. Who will be the candidates? No telling. Fiengold, I hope.

    ...and maybe Hagel and Bloomberg will take the opportunity to split the Republicans yet again.

    What a pipe-dream! A five party system! Vibrant, unpredictable, necessitating significant cooperation and shifting coalitions of widely disparate interest groups in order to get anything done. America would be back.

    Sorry Loin, HRC's support by the fringe left makes such a split unlikey.....I hope you are sincere in your statement you will not vote for Hillary....I doubt I will see the same conviction from the other OW leftists.

    Relying on Dobson or any from the right to give up their influence in The Republican Party is a hope, but one that still does not address my contention that even in the democrat party, there are many conservatives in disgreement with the left in regards to the war on terror, abortion, gay marriage and entitlements. The '06 election showed that and the fact that the democratic leadership only pays lip service to the goals of the far left backs up my view. Your admission that the democratic party plays fast and loose whith your support, Loin, backs me up further.

    Why do you avoid mentioning Obama, Loin? His his very emotional, public and policy influencing expression of faith in God a problem for you?

    From the sentiments I've seen displayed on the liberal message boards, even they can't stand her and they seem truly mystified as to who is answering these polls which show her as the leading contender in the Dem race. Most say they'll hold their nose and vote for her or not vote at all.

    Cee,

    Black atheists are a rarity. It is politically incorrect to bash Obama for his faith. I'll be curious to see who is going to touch that story.

    ...plus even mentioning Bush and FDR in the same sentence shows what a QUACK you are.


    Posted by: Why don't you think at October 8, 2007 10:57 AM


    This coming from someone who posts under 40 some odd names, maybe more! Another one of "mikes" defenders outed as a fraud, shocker!

    How ironic and hypocritical that you (why/40 some odd others) have been here on a daily basis screaming "Bush is a liar and fraud" all the while you were denying posting under other names. I would say you define hypocrisy, wouldn't you think? :)

    Yes, I "censored" you for posting an off-topic cut-and-paste that was a violation of copyright (the lyrics to a hit song). The next time RK posts the copyrighted lyrics to a hit song, please let me know. Just because you may be a thief doesn't mean you're going to make this site one as well.

    "How ironic and hypocritical that you (why/40 some odd others) have been here on a daily basis screaming "Bush is a liar and fraud" all the while you were denying posting under other names. I would say you define hypocrisy, wouldn't you think? :)
    Posted by: royal king at October 8, 2007 1:08 PM "

    The nominations for The Best OW Quote of the Month are rolling along this month.

    RK, I nominate this one for the Gold.

    Grammie

    why/40someoddothers, your desperation is showing, again.

    But remember he's "not gay" ! He just votes AGAINST gays !
    A proud republican !

    Posted by: Why don't you think at October 9, 2007 8:19 PM


    If voting against gays means voting for the Defense of Marriage Act, I suppose you think it's best to be a dem politician and SAY you're for gays while "voting against them", eh... Chucky.

    Cecelia,

    I hear the anger of some of the commenters here and wonder how many of them during their high school years antagonized those who they thought were gay, how many of them were the bullies on the playground, how many were cowards when someone needed a friend to come to his/her aid.

    Sharon, you are simple. Why do you think adolescents are cruel to "fags" in the first place? It is the explicit stigma placed on that status by society.

    You always tend to argue around the edges of an issue, are you aware of that? It tends to get you into areas that you obviously haven't thought through very well, and makes you look foolish.

    You avoid makiing firm statements on real issues - the war, for instance - but your peripheral commentary clearly conveys your position as an ardent supporter. Is it your religion that makes you so timid in this regard? Are you ashamed of the brutality and mayhem you support in this world?

    You avoid makiing firm statements on real issues - the war, for instance - but your peripheral commentary clearly conveys your position as an ardent supporter. Is it your religion that makes you so timid in this regard? Are you ashamed of the brutality and mayhem you support in this world?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 10, 2007 6:12 AM


    Actually, Loin, simplicity is not connoted by a reluctance to make a "firm statement" on an issue.

    I was marveling the other day at your view on the piece by Chris Hitchens. Because Hitchens is "for" the war, any sort of hesitation or regret the he expressed over its course, was characterized by you as an attempt to weasle out of his position.

    It's interesting that the same people who have fits over Bush's "if you're not for us, you're against us" tact, live by that same standard in, if not all matters political, at least about the war.

    Hitchens made no such attempt. The issue of his responsibility had been raised by a newspaper, and he wrote the piece to clear his image and conscience. He asked the question at the outset, and attempted to relieve himself of responsibility by praising the dead and reporting on the graciousness of the bereaved family.

    Never in the piece did he look at the bigger picture of his cheerleading for the war at large - it was all about the one soldier.

    Sorry for the confusing first sentence of post above - I garbled my reading of Cecelia's message:

    Of course I think that Hitchens attempted to weasel.

    Mr. ANon,

    Just keep on worshipping SLOB, the deity. Yes, I am well known to be a hateful person in my community, have always been was one of the worst offenders of publicly humiliating others. Who is on the high horse?

    SLOB,

    I am sure all of those poor people you worked with would not be offended by your crass comments about Christianity. They would understand that you were only debasing the religion to a bunch of hypocrites.

    Leave a new comment