I thought it was pretty low that keith had to try and make an innocent call from Jenna to george as something insidious. I guess one can only rant about the importance of an NIE report for so long?

look out mike, theres a coulter ad on the page

Olbermann has the worst toup on television.

It's the same old schtick every night
There's never a guest from the right
Countdown has no merit
The guests always parrot
It's kind of like Daily Kos Lite

Olbermann has the worst toup on television.

Posted by: Larry at December 5, 2007 10:30 PM

He already proved Mark Levin that he doesn't wear a toupee, excuse me, toup.

I get all of my news from Keith Olbermhann, think progress and media matters so I was glad to find this site. I have to watch count down because it is an assignment from my therapist and also because Mr. Olbermhann is one of his patients to. We have met in group and he is actually smaller in person than the one on TV.

Is there a reason Keith has the same agreeable, predicable puppets as guess every night?
It seems he doesn't care for any dissenting view.
Keith is attacking Lou Dobbs? granted Lou's show is about the same things every night.
But Lou actually is trying to make the politicians aware of major problems this country has.
What does Keith do? Try to make us aware every night how much he hates fox news.
That's hard hitting journalism there folks.
ANd this man won an award??

Is there a reason Keith has the same agreeable, predicable puppets as guess every night?
It seems he doesn't care for any dissenting view.
Keith is attacking Lou Dobbs? granted Lou's show is about the same things every night.
But Lou actually is trying to make the politicians aware of major problems this country has.
What does Keith do? Try to make us aware every night how much he hates fox news.
That's hard hitting journalism there folks.
ANd this man won an award??

Posted by: joe at December 5, 2007 11:01 PM

There is no point in having debates if they have no time to think, and 20 seconds to answer. What good is it to debate when a biased host could have the last word or can simply do a follow-up the following day? Not that I think debate is a bad thing, just not fit for hour television with talking heads. I think Keith Olbermann has commented that it gets him sick when everyone shouts over each other on these kinds of shows. I agree since it gets nothing accomplished, especially when the host is almost always ideologically inclined one way or the other (KO to the left and Billo to the right).

Olbermann is just Propaganda for Clinton and Iran.

Trent defends Olbermann for hiding from opposing views. Excuses like "Debates = Shouting" ring false because we we know that debate formats can be conducted in a restrained manner that allows all parties to have their say (Tucker Carlson).

The real reason Olby hates debates is that he knows he is not man enough to withstand the rigors of defending himself, so he has nothing but suck ups, bootlickers ans ass kissers on his show.

Another thing, T the M-- a good reason to have debate formats and opposing views is to hold the host accountable for what he says. If you simply bring on people who are ideolgically disposed to your viewpoint, you can get away with smearing, lying and distortions because no one will hold you accountable-- which is exactly what happens on Meltdown on a nightly basis.

Your brain really doesn't work very well, does it?

"Your brain really doesn't work very well, does it?"

Hie 'brain doesn't work well' just because he doesn't swallow the line that EVERY commentary show on cable has to follow the same format?

> There is no point in having debates if they have no time to think, and 20 seconds to answer.

Once again, the favorite straw man of the Olbypologists: debates are bad.

For the 89th time, you can have different views on a show without making them debates. If he's going to have Rachel Maddow on as a security expert, then why not once in a while have someone from the right to give analysis? He doesn't have to debate them. He can just ask questions, like he does of Maddow and his other puppets. If he's going to have Edwards and Hillary and Obama on for respectful interviews, what's stopping him from having Huckabee or McCain on for interviews? Why is it that he can pot shots at them night after night but they never even get to give their side?

It isn't debates that make Oralmann nauseous. It's the thought of even having to HEAR something that doesn't toe the line with his own biases. That's why Countdown is NOT a newshour. It's a one-sided propaganda fest that refuses to ever let different viewpoints or analysis be heard. So don't play the shopworn, dishonest "debate" card. Countdown is not about avoiding debate. It's about avoiding dissent.

"For the 89th time, you can have different views on a show without making them debates."

And for the 89th time, why can't you just accept a TV show for what it is and stop trying to change or elininate it?

Bill O WPITW for calling the ACLU the forces of darkness? I would say that is about right. He could have called them the slip and fall lawyers who help islamofascist or the NAMBLA defenders.

Factor: The actual words that he used about Bill O were "you are the force of darkness."

Hard to argue with that.

> And for the 89th time, why can't you just accept a TV show for what it is and stop trying to change or elininate it?

What in the wide world of sports are you talking about, Mike etc? How am I trying to Change the show? What power do I have to change it? Is criticism of the Great and Powerful Olb now off limits? You don't believe in the right to criticize a tv show because Olbermann hosts it? Do you extend that same zone of protection to every other tv program, or only Olbermann's?

Sometimes I wonder about the people who show up here to defend the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann.

Trent defends Olbermann for hiding from opposing views. Excuses like "Debates = Shouting" ring false because we we know that debate formats can be conducted in a restrained manner that allows all parties to have their say (Tucker Carlson).

The real reason Olby hates debates is that he knows he is not man enough to withstand the rigors of defending himself, so he has nothing but suck ups, bootlickers ans ass kissers on his show.

Another thing, T the M-- a good reason to have debate formats and opposing views is to hold the host accountable for what he says. If you simply bring on people who are ideolgically disposed to your viewpoint, you can get away with smearing, lying and distortions because no one will hold you accountable-- which is exactly what happens on Meltdown on a nightly basis.

Your brain really doesn't work very well, does it?

Posted by: at December 5, 2007 11:34 PM

Does having on opposing views cause Hannity or O'reilly to stop smearing or lying? no.
Tucker? "civilized"? I seem to remember a little show called Crossfire. Now he's more civilized because he got his ass handed to him by Jon Stewart on Crossfire.

I doubt you even have a brain.

Once again, the favorite straw man of the Olbypologists: debates are bad.

Posted by: johnny dollar at December 5, 2007 11:40 PM

" Not that I think debate is a bad thing, just not fit for hour television with talking heads. "

Posted by: Trent the Marxist at December 5, 2007 11:15 PM

I'll just pretend that you didn't happen to see this part of my comment.

"You don't believe in the right to criticize a TV show because Olbermann hosts it?"

I never questioned your "right" to criticize anything or anybody.

I'm just questioning why you have so much trouble accepting a TV show as it is?

You can criticize and I can question why you're so obsessed with this guy and his show that nobody has to watch?

Criticize away! After all, thats why you're here.

> " Not that I think debate is a bad thing, just not fit for hour television with talking heads. "

Well since we are talking about Olbermann, and his show is an hour long, and does have talking heads, ergo you think debates are bad for Olbermann. Am I going to fast for you?

And for the 90th time, why do you keep bringing up debates? Does Tim Russert only interview people who agree with him? George Stephanopoulos? Did Edward R Murrow refuse to interview anyone who didn't share his politics? Stop using the "debate" straw man to defend someone who runs a broadcast more one-sided than Radio Korea.

> I'm just questioning why you have so much trouble accepting a TV show as it is?

I'll believe that when you start questioning why Oralmann has so much trouble accepting O'Reilly's tv show as it is, and start questioning why Olby is so obsessed with it.

"Sometimes I wonder about the people who show up here to defend the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann."

And you don't think they wonder about you as well?

I'm just questioning why you have so much trouble accepting a TV show as it is?

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 12:07 AM

I just accept the show as it is being billed!!!!

If it were called the Left Wing Spin Hour, or Keith Olbermann Reads Media Matters Propoganda, there would be no need for this site.

I just accept the show as it is being billed!!!!

Posted by: Kansas Flyer at December 6, 2007 12:20 AM

I meant to say CAN"T accept the show as it is billed.

Factor: The actual words that he used about Bill O were "you are the force of darkness."

Hard to argue with that.

Posted by: Mike at December 5, 2007 11:50 PM

Mike for the 89th time, why can't you just accept a TV show for what it is and stop trying to change or elininate it?

And for the 89th time, why can't you just accept a TV show for what it is and stop trying to change or elininate it?

Posted by: Mike at December 5, 2007 11:45 PM

So, you accept Savage's show for what it is? O'Reilly's show for what it is? Beck for what it is? Rush for what it is? Levin? Hannity? Ingraham? You accept all of them?

Sometimes I wonder about the people who show up here to defend the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann."

And you don't think they wonder about you as well?

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 12:12 AM

Why don't you lead by example, Mike.

Why don't YOU accept this site the way it is, and decide to essentially "turn it off" by treking on down the road... and we'll marvel over how you're a guy who practices what he preaches... while we break out the champagne...

Sometimes I wonder about the people who show up here to defend the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann."

And you don't think they wonder about you as well?

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 12:12 AM

Why don't you lead by example, Mike.

Why don't YOU accept this site the way it is, and decide to essentially "turn it off" by treking on down the road... and we'll marvel over how you're a guy who practices what he preaches... while we break out the champagne...

"Why don't you accept this site the way it is,"

Oh but I DO accept it exactly the way it is.

I also accept my right to criticize it.

Got a problem with that?

Well since we are talking about Olbermann, and his show is an hour long, and does have talking heads, ergo you think debates are bad for Olbermann. Am I going to fast for you?

And for the 90th time, why do you keep bringing up debates? Does Tim Russert only interview people who agree with him? George Stephanopoulos? Did Edward R Murrow refuse to interview anyone who didn't share his politics? Stop using the "debate" straw man to defend someone who runs a broadcast more one-sided than Radio Korea.

Posted by: johnny dollar at December 6, 2007 12:08 AM

Listen, I understand that you really dislike Olbermann. If his style of his show were of the style that someone like Russert uses and he only interviewed liberals, maybe I could understand where you are coming from. It's a totally different format, and an obviously biased one at that.
Your assumption is that Olbermann won't interview a conservative, therefore he must be scared of dissent. Is that not a straw man?

Well since we are talking about Olbermann, and his show is an hour long, and does have talking heads, ergo you think debates are bad for Olbermann. Am I going to fast for you?

And for the 90th time, why do you keep bringing up debates? Does Tim Russert only interview people who agree with him? George Stephanopoulos? Did Edward R Murrow refuse to interview anyone who didn't share his politics? Stop using the "debate" straw man to defend someone who runs a broadcast more one-sided than Radio Korea.

Posted by: johnny dollar at December 6, 2007 12:08 AM

Listen, I understand that you really dislike Olbermann. If his style of his show were of the style that someone like Russert uses and he only interviewed liberals, maybe I could understand where you are coming from. It's a totally different format, and an obviously biased one at that.
Your assumption is that Olbermann won't interview a conservative, therefore he must be scared of dissent. Is that not a straw man?

And yes Jeff...I DO accept your right wing shows for what they are. I don't waste one minute of my time watching them or going to sites critical of any of those shows to read or pile on either.

Any more dumb questions?

"there is no point in having debates if they have no time to think, and 20 seconds to answer. What good is it to debate when a biased host could have the last word or can simply do a follow-up the following day? Not that I think debate is a bad thing, just not fit for hour television with talking heads. I think Keith Olbermann has commented that it gets him sick when everyone shouts over each other on these kinds of shows. I agree since it gets nothing accomplished, especially when the host is almost always ideologically inclined one way or the other (KO to the left and Billo to the right)."

Posted by: Trent the Marxist at

You have to have somebody on the show that already has an opinion on the subject or is a so-called expert and is prepared. Thus, we wouldn't have the same people on every night after night.

I've seen many debates and if it takes you 20 seconds to answer then you lose on that point. Last word isn't always the best. I've seen Chris Mathews and Bill have the last word many times but still lose a debate.

If they lose the debate and do follow ups the next day is fine with me, let the viewer decide what the host is really trying to do.

A 10 min debate or opposing view can definitely fit in a one hour show. If it gets Olbermann sick to shout, then he can set the ground rules or not shout over his guess, that's an easy one.
That seems like an excuse to me for Keith to use the entire show for his view points and his view points only.

I'm not criticizing him for not having debates but for not having any opposing view points, and trotting out the same yes men night after night.

> Your assumption is that Olbermann won't interview a conservative, therefore he must be scared of dissent. Is that not a straw man?

There is no "therefore" in what I said. Who knows whether he's scared, or if he's afraid of losing his blue blog audience, or if he somply loathes people who dare to disagree with him. The fact is he runs a show that is the most biased and one-sided in all of television news, if one can be generous enough to use that genre to describe The Hour of Spin. I don't make a claim to know why in his heart he feels that he can attack people night after night and never give them a chance to reply. I have no idea why he got up in arms repeatedly when people he doesn't like raised issues about Obama's Muslim past, but when a Democrat working for Hillary Clinton does it not only does he give him a pass, he doesn't even report the story! Still, even though I don't know WHY his does a show that is so preposterously one-sided, I DO know that it IS one-sided.

my post at 1am

"Why don't you accept this site the way it is,"

Oh but I DO accept it exactly the way it is.

I also accept my right to criticize it.

Got a problem with that?

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 12:43 AM

No, folks he really does not at all sense any irony in this remark as compared to the ones he made about the site and Olbermann critics.

BTW, Mike,

I never questioned your "right" to come here and criticise this site (although it's not a right, it's an opportunity afforded you by your host), I'm asking you your own question --- why are YOU are so obsessed with a site that you don't have to visit.

ou say you accept this site as is, yet you're here complaing about our views and motives and attempting to persuade us that they should be different--"And for the 89th time, why can't you just accept a TV show for what it is and stop trying to change or elininate it?"---
well, we don't do anything differently here when it comes to Olbermann.

What's your beef? We're no different with him, than you are with us...

I don't waste one minute of my time watching them or going to sites critical of any of those shows to read or pile on either.

posted by mike

Outright lie. He knows it, too.

And yes Jeff...I DO accept your right wing shows for what they are. I don't waste one minute of my time watching them or going to sites critical of any of those shows to read or pile on either.

Any more dumb questions?

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 12:46 AM

Yeah. What the hell do you think you're doing here, if not going to a site that is critical of a cable news show?

Johnny,

Keith made the Idiot Box at radaronline again.

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/12/not-horsing-around-olbermann.php

Yawn...another recap without bringing up the issues in the "Media Matters Minute".

There is a reason why the "Media Matters Minute", or Worst Persons, exists: its to expose the idiocy and hypocrisy in the world today.

Instead of bashing the three choices KO makes, saying that it is biased, why dont you come up with your own daily list? Oh, you dont.

How about instead of just saying [DING] for every right wing fringe dope that KO picks, why dont you DEFEND your right wing Worst Persons? Oh you cant, because they hypocrites.

The simple solution to the debate above is for all to recognize the fact that Keith Olbermann is a "comedian" along the lines of his critique of Rush Limbaugh. He spouts his opinion and presents various "other source" tape to back up his schtick and has guests that parrot his line....The only thing missing is the call-in but Olbermann would be incapable of dealing with this little aspect.

Olbermann is a partisan product for MSNBC to market to people who enjoy the echo chamber stuff ON THE LEFT....the counterpart to Hannity and Limbaugh. Olbermann just tries the satire/sardonic stuff of Limbaugh along with the same arrogance and smug attitude.

It is NOT journalism, it is NOT objective and it is not informative....just like the other side's partisan marketing.....it is entertainment.

Writes Trent:

"Listen, I understand that you really dislike Olbermann. If his style of his show were of the style that someone like Russert uses and he only interviewed liberals, maybe I could understand where you are coming from. It's a totally different format, and an obviously biased one at that.
Your assumption is that Olbermann won't interview a conservative, therefore he must be scared of dissent. Is that not a straw man? "

END QUOTE

What is it with you liberals. Olbyloon is a biased partisan hack. It's all about:

A. NBC/MSNBC has taken a far left stance in hopes of crawling out of last place.

B. NBC/MSNBC are attempting to be the left's answer to FNC. The problem with that is FNC is fair and balanced.

C. In the end it's all about money ace. I hate to break it to you but that's what politics and racial equality is all about.

D. In the end, these assholes int eh name of making money and pandering to left wing morons they are placing the lives of all Americans in danger.

Wake up Alice, this aint Wonderland.

The people who think that Fox is to the right are the people wh do not watch Fox and have no idea what they are talking about.

BTW, that Obama story has been covered in some print media and the blue blogs just got crazed over the coverage....It seems such tactics goes against the image the left would rather have the public see....a tolerant and inclusive party....

Well, I think bigotry over many attributes is not lacking on the left....including that which resulted in the tactics used against Mr. Obama.

Perhaps HRC should do a purge of her staff?

"...considering Countdown is MSNBC's news show of record" - Keith Olbermann

"I'm not politically biased" - Keith Olbermann

"I am politically neutral" - Keith Olbermann

I watched that clip of Olby trying to show he doesn't wear a toup and it proved nothing. The stage hand grabbed the side of head and barely touched the top. Olby's toupee has been the worst kept secret in TV since Charles Grodin's rug. Watch clips of Olby away from the studio, which are rare, but he always wears a baseball cap- and not b/c he's just a fan. It may not be a full-fledged toupee, but he does have some kind of hair appartatus on his head.

My favorite part is every time hillary missteps, she claims ignorance and blames it on her campaign staff. This does not hold water. Not to mention these idiots on her campaign staff will assuredly be promoted to her white house staff if she is elected... so she should be held accountable for all the assinine things she has done the past two months.

Anyone but Hillary in 2008!

For all those that bash Bush on the NIE report.

Thomas Fingar, the Deputy Director of Analysis for the National Intelligence Estimate made this statemnt to the congress 4 montsh ago. FOUR MONTHS AGO!

QUOTE: "Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States' concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran's neighbors.

Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution.

We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons."

Explain to me why Olbermann and the loons give so much credence to the new report four months later... and bash Bush for having it wrong since 2003. Hello! The NIE reported 4 months ago that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapons"

Get off the high horse and let this play out. The sanctions need to stay in place until the entire Iran nuclear program is abandoned.

"There is no point in having debates if they have no time to think, and 20 seconds to answer. What good is it to debate when a biased host could have the last word or can simply do a follow-up the following day?"

Except host like O'Reilly does give the opposing view the last word.

"Not that I think debate is a bad thing, just not fit for hour television with talking heads."

But one-sided partison propaganda shows are?

"I think Keith Olbermann has commented that it gets him sick when everyone shouts over each other on these kinds of shows. I agree since it gets nothing accomplished, especially when the host is almost always ideologically inclined one way or the other (KO to the left and Billo to the right). "

KO doesn't like them because, unlike O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes, doesn't like to put his money where his mouth is and answer his critics. Instead, he'd rather have his 48 minute soapbox to say whatever he wants unchallenged while his guests are there just to reinterate *his* viewpoints.

1101 Was me.... my apologies, Benson

Come now anon 11:01AM....ONLY George Bush and Dick Cheney put ideology over facts.....People working in the State Department all of their lives with particular worldviews would ALWAYS be objective and truthful.....Only evil NEOCONS are ideological!.....Bush and Cheney would be the only two men in all of Western Civilization not to be capable of interpreting the collective intelligent ESTIMATES and come to a rational policy with regards to radical islamic terrorism and the availability of WMD!

Remember....ONLY Bush and Cheney have lied about intelligence....Those NIE's that back them up were, "cherry picked."

Cecelia: : "Yea, what the hell do you think you're doing here, if not going to a site critical of a cable news show?"

Still don't see the difference in going to a site in defense of the ideas of someone you appreciate, and don't want to see run off the air by detractors who hate the airing of those same ideas, .... and going to a site just to run down someone you COULD completely ignor if you chose to?

Hint: One concept is positive in nature and the other one is totally negative.

RK: "Outright lie. He knows it to"

Oh yea? Think you can prove my 12:46 AM post is a lie?

"Remember....ONLY Bush and Cheney have lied about intelligence...."

There is an immense difference between a acting on potentially unreliable intelligence in accordance with differing worldviews in relatively benign everyday situations.....and making such grave decisions as unleashing elective wars.

IF you choose to launch a war.....You damned well BETTER be right!!!!

THAT'S the difference Cee...Sorry you're having SO much trouble grasping that difference.

Anon,
I have heard people calling Bush's policy on Iran flawed because it was based on false intelligence. (Not true in light of the 1101 post)

I have heard that Bush and the US has lost credibility because they have asserted there is a nuclear weapon plan in place in Iran (Absurd- in light of the NIE report 4 months ago)

The NIE changed their report in 4 months, and the Bush administration is taking heat for it. Doesn't that seem absurd?

Tonight on COUNTDOWN......

“They’ve produced absolutely nothing that I can see that’s of benefit or consistent with the promises that they made when they went out and ran for election,” Cheney said.

[...]

Cheney, in a seemingly relaxed and unhurried mood, chatted in his shirt sleeves, not wearing glasses, with his big chair swiveled to the side to meet his visitors.

His private office was dominated by a Christmas tree decorated with berries, pine cones and birds.

"Murtha “and the other senior leaders … march to the tune of Nancy Pelosi to an extent I had not seen, frankly, with any previous speaker,” Cheney said. “I’m trying to think how to say all of this in a gentlemanly fashion, but [in] the Congress I served in, that wouldn’t have happened.”

But his implication was clear: When asked if these men had lost their spines, he responded, “They are not carrying the big sticks I would have expected.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7234.html

###
Oh my....the man knows another testicle lock-box when he sees it!

Too bad Speaker Pelosi took impeachment off the table, heh?

Like I predicted, the administration would continue their policies unhindered by the weak and pathetic leftist ruling elite....despite the rhetoric.....

Cheney looks good, BTW....nice rosey cheeks!

I suppose you mean intelligence on Iraq in 2001.
The CIA said Saddam had a chemical and biological weapons program

France said Saddam had a chemical and biological weapons program

England said Saddam had a chemical and biological weapons program

Turkey said Saddam had a chemical and biological weapons program

Israel said Saddam had a chemical and biological weapons program

Iran said Saddam had a chemical and biological weapons program

And best of all Saddam said he had a chemical and biological weapons program

Lets not pretend the entire world believed there was a 100% chance that there was a mass destruction weapons plan in Iraq. Hindsite is 20/20... but the facts remain.

"unleashing elective wars"

###
What? Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMD including nuclear weapons funded by the UN oil for food program, according to the 2002 NIE....He was supporting Hezbollah against Israel and attacks against Lebanon. He was in violation of multiple UN resolutions AND attacking US Troops patroling the skys of "the no-fly zones."

Very good reasons to remove the despot....and ample warning was given for him to voluntarily step down.....what happened, Mike?....Oh yeah.....he refused and even fought the invading forces....killing unarmed British prisoners!

Nice, Mike....you still believe it was a moral choice to leave Saddam Hussein in power with the available intelligence overwhelmingly showing he was pursuing WMD AND the fact that he was supporting radical islamist terrorist activity AND was a war criminal who killed his own people with WMD?

OK...stick with that worldview....it suits you!

Oh yea? Think you can prove my 12:46 AM post is a lie?

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 11:31 AM

"I have better things to do!" to quote a certain spolbyloon. You've admitted countless times to watching Fox News (#1), listening to Rush (#1) and all the others.

Yea yea Jeff, you think that because I've admitted I ONCE listened to Limbaugh and I ONCE watched Fox News....and that I don't do it anymore....that it makes me a liar?

You see, unlike you, I learn from my mistakes...and let bygones be bygones.

So once again, for your benefit alone; I DON'T listen to the hypocritical drug addict Rush....I DON'T watch Fox.....and I DON'T visit Web Sites critical of political pundits I dislike.

Got it? ...hypocrite!

This bit about Olbermann getting "sick" over vehement debate is a canard.

Good grief! Meet The Press, Face The Nation, PBS Newshour, etc...all manage to air both sides of an issue and both liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats, on the the air without the results being similar to an old CNN Crossfire episode.

I'd wager that the vast majority of the shout fests on tv news happen because producers encourage them to happen rather than occuring naturally.

Does anyone think Goebbelsmann could formulate a response in 20 seconds? The writers would have to scan Media Masters and Daily Kos for a response and enter it into the teleprompter. Then Queef would have to rehearse his outrage before taping his response. Realistically, it would take 4 hours to tape a 1 hour show.

the main problem with olbermann is not that he is (very) biased, is that every "point" he makes is a personal attack. it's so juvenile.

bitch all you want about FNC and their tabloid approach to news but hannity, et al dont directly insult people.

sure, o'reilly calls people pin-heads and its lame. but which is more despicable: calling sometime a dope or pin-head, or dubbing them "the force of darkness".

the main problem with olbermann is not that he is (very) biased, its that every "point" he makes is a personal attack. every WPITW is followed up some some juvenile insult.

bitch all you want about FNC and their tabloid approach to news but hannity, et al dont directly insult people.

sure, o'reilly calls people pin-heads and its lame. but which is more despicable: calling sometime a dope or pin-head, or dubbing them "the force of darkness"?

Billy,
Like Faux News, Fixed News, Fox Noise monikers don't make you laugh everytime he spews one?

That little habit alone makes his show more of a sham than a news show. And I imagine Soros chuckles everytime KeithO spits one out.

Maybe just maybe Keith Olbermann. Jenna Bush knows that her dad a busy man and didn't want to take him away from a important meeting of some sort. That's all it was. It was a sweet little moment between Bush and his daughter and Keith Olbermann has to make something more. What a jerk.

Also just now on Fox news said in the NIE report that the reason why Iran stop it's nuclear weapons program is because they saw what happen to Iraq and they didn't want that to happen to them. Let's count the minutes in till Keith Olbermann reports this story. This is going to be a long wait.

ALLAH AKBAHIEEEE

I AM MULLAH MIKE RULER OF OLBERMANN WATCH

BOW BEFORE ME AND MY TIRED BLOVIATING

KNEEL BEFORE MY LEFTIST RANTS

AND WATCH ME WITH ONE HAND IN MY PANTS AS MOM FEEDS ME MY BEEF JERKEY AND SMOKES FROM THE PIGGLEY WIGGLEY

ALLLAH AKBYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Like Faux News, Fixed News, Fox Noise monikers don't make you laugh everytime he spews one?

That little habit alone makes his show more of a sham than a news show. And I imagine Soros chuckles everytime KeithO spits one out.

Posted by: at December 6, 2007 2:18 PM

It shows the mentality of him AND his viewers.

Actually Soros is busy getting a proposed gold mine in Romania shut down. Soros has investments in rival gold mining companies. He cost the poor country of Romania thousands of high paying gold mining jobs. He is a swell guy.

"I suppose that is what one calls business. I am sure you wouldn't understand."

###
No we all understand just fine....just like we understand you....

No Mr. blank-FLUCKER, Factor is simply pointing out Mr. Soros' greed and hypocricy, and you obviously are just as hypocritical....

But those one the board already knew that, Mr. lay minister blank-FLUCKER......Remember your cymbal and gong reference?.....

Loser.

I suppose that is what one calls business. I am sure you wouldn't understand.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 6, 2007 3:39 PM

Ah yes, when left wing sugar daddy Soros causes others to suffer in the name of expanding his financial worth, it is all okey dokey since this is just "business". But when you leftys see headlines about CEO's making multiple millions annually to lead the giants of industry, then you start wailing about "robber barons" and "fat cats" and how many low level employees get laid off while the CEO continues to collect his big salary. But I suppose if said moneybags CEO underwrites the presidential candidate of your choice, then all is forgiven and the sympathy for the working stiff evaporates.

Soros used his Open Society Institute in Romania, working hand-in-hand with several non-Romanian NGOs to use "enviromental" concerns to get the progect squashed. So he is using his socialist front groups to strong arm their agendas so he profits. Much like he does in the United States.

Ah yes, when left wing sugar daddy Soros causes others to suffer in the name of expanding his financial worth, it is all okey dokey since this is just "business". But when you leftys see headlines about CEO's making multiple millions annually to lead the giants of industry, then you start wailing about "robber barons" and "fat cats" and how many low level employees get laid off while the CEO continues to collect his big salary. But I suppose if said moneybags CEO underwrites the presidential candidate of your choice, then all is forgiven and the sympathy for the working stiff evaporates.

Posted by: hank at December 6, 2007 4:06 PM

Well said!

And that to our ever insightful Capon, who in the midst of asserting himself as an independent-minded non-zealot, managed to cast the usual aspersions on a cable news channel, enaged in the usual denial of interest in Countdown even though he has made himself a fixure on a blog that criticizes the man, and implied that his political opponents are Nazis....

Self-awareness, ain't his forte...

Olbyloon Ed 101

http://www.examiner.com/a-926027~The_sleazy_tactics_of_George_Soros.html

Here's a new reason for Keith to rail at all things Murdoch -- The New York Post reported this morning that NBC boss Jeff Zucker is planning major management cutbacks at MSNBC:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12062007/business/peacock_purge_42933.htm

It's hard to believe anyone's actually managing "Countdown" -- Keith's production expenses are about $1.50, since he never leaves the studio for on-site reporting, his bookers never put on anyone but the same motley crew of reliable talking head regulars, and the Internet connection to Media Matters is more important that the AP wire. But it will be interesting to see how this shuffle plays out, and if having regular NBC News management personnel having to take greater charge (and responsibility) for "Countdown" could mean either a little more accountability on Olby's part, or finally an admission from the network that the show is not a news show but a commentary platform (which there's nothing wrong with, but Keith and NBC right now want us to believe "Countdown" is in the same vein as the "NBC Nightly News", rather than "The O'Reilly Factor").

Olbermann has to make up for Shuster's poor ratings on Monday....special comment tonight!

Special Comment TonightPosted: Thursday, December 06, 2007 3:10 PM by Countdown

Tonight at 8p ET tune in to Countdown for one of Keith's Special comments regarding the revelation that the President knew about the possible suspension of an Iranian nuclear program in August. We'll have an excerpt posted later...stay tuned!

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/

This is a John Fund article about the mine controversy. While he does come down on the side of the anti-Soros people, he does present some balance. I realize that my dear knee-jerking, knuckle-dragging, goose-stepping friends at this site want anything but the facts, desire balance not at all, but I have given you the opportunity to see more broadly, to judge more wisely. For that, no thanks are necessary.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 6, 2007 5:23 PM

hmmmmm..... Your response to criticism of Soros (before you found the Fund piece, I'd bet) as wanting the mine shut because it was in competition to mines he owns was, "I suppose that is what one calls business."

NOW, you tell us it's what one calls ENVIRONMENTAL business...

You're wrong when you say that thanking you is not necessary.

In fact, THANK YOU, for being an object lesson in how to reflexively...knee jerkingly....shoot your mouth off, dear disingenuous friend... :D

> Tonight at 8p ET tune in to Countdown for one of Keith's Special comments regarding the revelation that the President knew about the possible suspension of an Iranian nuclear program in August.

Glad I have the night off!

ANON realizing that he cannot frontally attack his critics who have lambasted his defense of the despicable left wing sugar daddy Soros, resorts to the incoherent argument that his critics (Factor, Cecilia, Cee, myself) are not intereted in facts (although he cites nothing that is false about our criticism)and that we have failed to apply a more "balanced" approach.

ANON's banal sophistry is seen for what it is and ultimately fails to contradict this one central premise: that the factual basis for our criticism of Soros (and by extension you) is valid and truthful. You defend this greedy and unprincipled man while denouncing similar wealth maximization efforts by CEO's who have chosen not to underwrite left wing fringe movements.

Of course, it cannot be doubted that you would ingratiate yourself Soros style to these other CEO's if they were to write checks to fund far left causes irrespective of their alleged disregard for the "little guy" and his welfare.

Wow, check out Keith's ratings as posted by TV Newser.

(http://tinyurl.com/273rsz)

1.2 million overall, and 409k in the key demo. Not O'Reilly territory, but tops of the non-FOX newsies, and likely his best ever. Think he's catching on?

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - It appears that lurking in the political shadows with billionaire philanthropist and Democratic financier George Soros is a tar pit of old-fashioned sleaze. It’s hard to conclude otherwise in view of two recent election fraud verdicts against political activist groups heavily financed by Soros.

I suppose I have a more balanced and nuanced approach to this and other issues. That seems to irk the two (2) of you more than anything.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 6, 2007 6:57 PM

Oh, this is brilliant.

You read several posts where George Soros is being accused of messing over some Romanians in order to protect his own business interests and then enter a defense of the man by responding, "I suppose that is what one calls business." and now you say you have been misinterpreted by we close minded folks... :D

Well, it might have been more plausible had you STARTED your comments on Soros with the words "I personally do not find Soros particularly likable or admirable. I applaud some of the good work he has done, but I fail to see much value in his political outreach. I am aware of other questionable dealings."

It might have been more plausible too, since you now say that you are aware of "other questionable dealings" if you hadn't referred to the critics of this particular dealing in terms that allude to Nazis....

Oh, you're quite the balance provider, Capon. In your defense you say that you merely didn't wish poor Soros to be compared less favorably to Lucifer.

However, if in defending the man who you don't "particularly find likable" from such (imaginary) comparisons.... if you have to compare his critics to the people who gassed Jews, well...hey... just so much the better...

We stand in awe of your sense of balance and fair-mindedness, dear friend...

Johnny Dollar, you're not going to do a show recap on "Special Comment" night? You could have had a lot of fun ripping Keith's arguement to shreds by talking about how NIE author Thomas Fingar said this on July 11, 2007:

"Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons."

Mike and Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker are past masters of the art of implying every opinion and sentiment while always denying they ever actually said it.

As Spock would say "fascinating"!

Grammie

Good lord, not another special comment.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Guess he needs another book and this is the only trick his pony can do.

"Mike and Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker are past masters of applying every and sentiment while always denying they ever actually said it."

And you unquestionably are a master of obsession in attempting to parse every word and phrase you believe anyone you disagree with ever said....ie., the "gotcha" game!

Problem is that you aren't even very good at it.

Why is he yelling? Did his spit short out the microphone?

Did he just call Bush a moron? Erin Burnett had to apologize for calling Bush a monkey. Is there ever any thought of this guy having to apologize for his words? Why does he get a pass?

You know, FGB, he could make a point better if he presented a well-thought argument and remained calm. He sounds like a freaking lunatic which negates anything worthwhile he was trying to say. Face facts, this was a ratings and attention ploy and you've been suckered.

He just told the president "You, Mr.. Bush, are a bald-faced liar."

So NBC is OK with this? The network that is run so well it's going through another round of job cuts. Hmm...

Have you no shame, you deranged psychopath.

"He just told the president "You, Mr. Bush, are a bald face liar.""

- So you believe in censorship?
- You don't believe the president is the servant of the people?
- You think it's OK to call other people liars...but not OK to call Bush one just because he is the president?

In case you haven't been paying attention, a lot of people have been calling the president a liar over this, including many conservatives....just not quite as passionately.

In case you haven't been paying attention, a lot of people have been calling the president a liar over this, including many conservatives....just not quite as passionately.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 10:07 PM

Mike, please name the many conservatives who have called Bush a liar on this matter and in what forum.

Mike, has anyone ever thrown human feces at you in disgust of your political point of view?

I am confused how one goes from this simple statement:

"He just told the president "You, Mr. Bush, are a bald face liar." So NBC is OK with this? "

To interpreting to mean this"

"- So you believe in censorship?
- You don't believe the president is the servant of the people?
- You think it's OK to call other people liars...but not OK to call Bush one just because he is the president?"

That was a mild questioning statement that indicates a questioning and probably disapproving view that the statement was inappropriate.

Two shakes of a lamb's tale and Mike is talking "censorship", questioning the commenter's view of the constitutional role of the President and decalaring the commenter is fine with calling others liars but not the Predident.

A great deal to take from such a small statement.

Grammie

Well Cecelia, I just watched Tony Blankely and Pat Buchanon do it on Abrams.

SQUAWK!!! immediate liberal defense posture now! You're all NAzis! SQUAWK! BOOK BURNERS!!!

....just not quite as passionately.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 10:07 PM

Cecelia, here is his escape route, those 5 words.

"Mike, has anyone ever thrown human feces at you in discust of your political point of view?"

Uh, no McCool...but then again, I don't work in a prison or an asylum.

Now I'm starting to see where you are getting so much of your filth from.

When is lights out?

"Cecelia, here is his escape route, those 5 words."

You keep deluding yourself into thinking I need 'escape routes'.

Well Cecelia, I just watched Tony Blankely and Pat Buchanon do it on Abrams.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 10:37 PM

That's two. Did Abrams have any defenders on air?

YOu wrote the post about "the many" at 10:02, an hour after Abrams.

Anyone else?

Well Cecelia, I just watched Tony Blankely and Pat Buchanon do it on Abrams.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 10:37 PM

Transcripts, please.

Mike said
"- So you believe in censorship?
- You don't believe the president is the servant of the people?
- You think it's OK to call other people liars...but not OK to call Bush one just because he is the president?"

As a private citizen KO can say anything he wants. I question NBC's judgement in allowing one of the "newsmen" to call anyone names. As was stated earlier, if Erin Burnett, a CNBC employee, was forced to apologize to the president for calling him a monkey I am surprised that his label by Olbermann is overlooked.

But nice try at spin, Mike. Keep defending this guy. What do you get for that, especially since you say you're not the fan?

"Mike, has anyone ever thrown human feces at you in discust of your political point of view?"

Uh, no McCool...but then again, I don't work in a prison or an asylum.

Now I'm starting to see where you are getting so much of your filth from.

When is lights out?

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 10:41 PM

Nice try but no.
Its just that your special blend of arrogance and ignorance brings out my ugly side

Cecelia: "Thats two. Did Abrams have any defenders on air."

No. I doubt if he could find any, but you and a few others here on OW might want to send him your phone number.

"YOu wrote the post about "the many" at 10:02, an hour after Abrams."

Thats IT! We live in alternater universes! It's only 10:11 right now and Abrams only ended 11 minutes ago.

- So you believe in censorship? - No. Unlike you and your friends on Daily Kos who try to get conservatives fired or boycotted, and suspend registered users who say anything non-liberal.

- You don't believe the president is the servant of the people? - Servant? He's not a damn housekeeper. His responsibilty is to keep America safe and prosperious. Not to do the bidding of partisan bloggers.

- You think it's OK to call other people liars...but not OK to call Bush one just because he is the president? - I'm sure if that President was a Democrat, you would take offense. Wouldn't you, Mike? If somebody is going to call a President a "bald faced liar", then they should have all their facts straight first. Keith doesn't. As usual.

"It's just that your special blend of arrogance and ignorance brings out my ugly side."

Sorry but I don't have a damn thing to do with your terminal ugliness.

Thats IT! We live in alternater universes! It's only 10:11 right now and Abrams only ended 11 minutes ago.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 10:56 PM

Translation: he can't back his words, again.........diversion!

So you believe in censorship? - No. Unlike you and your friends on Daily Kos who try to get conservatives fired or boycotted, and suspend registered users who say anything non-liberal.

- You don't believe the president is the servant of the people? - Servant? He's not a damn housekeeper. His responsibilty is to keep America safe and prosperious. Not to do the bidding of partisan bloggers.

- You think it's OK to call other people liars...but not OK to call Bush one just because he is the president? - I'm sure if that President was a Democrat, you would take offense. Wouldn't you, Mike? If somebody is going to call a President a "bald faced liar", then they should have all their facts straight first. Keith doesn't. As usual.

Posted by: James at December 6, 2007 10:57 PM

WHAT HE SAID!!!
Mike sucks

Bernie Ward, a popular liberal San Francisco radio talk show host and former Catholic priest, has been indicted on federal child pornography charges, authorities said today. Ward's attorney said today that the charges are based on incidents that occurred more than four years ago and were part of research for a book. "As everybody knows, Bernie, for over 20 years, has been a progressive, opposed to insensitive authority - he has been a champion of charities, nonprofits for the homeless," said Doron Weinberg, who appeared in federal court today as Ward's lawyer.

Wonder when Olby will be busted for something similar?

"No, unlike you and your friends at daily Kos"...Jeepers! I have "friends" at daily Kos? Maybe I should try visiting that site to see if you're right.

"I'm sure if the president were a Democrat, you would take offense."....Uh, not if that president lied about intelligence to the American people while hyping something as grave as war.

Cecelia: "Thats two. Did Abrams have any defenders on air."

No. I doubt if he could find any, but you and a few others here on OW might want to send him your phone number.

"YOu wrote the post about "the many" at 10:02, an hour after Abrams."

Thats IT! We live in alternater universes! It's only 10:11 right now and Abrams only ended 11 minutes ago.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 10:56 PM

Well, then, at your own insistence, you posted that "many conservatives" have called Bush a liar while you were watching Abrams show and when asked listed the two conservatives that were on the show you were viewing...

Name the "many" more.

In case you haven't been paying attention, a lot of people have been calling the president a liar over this, including many conservatives....just not quite as passionately.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 10:07 PM

Mike, please name the many conservatives who have called Bush a liar on this matter and in what forum.

Posted by: Cecelia at December 6, 2007 10:22 PM

Well Cecelia, I just watched Tony Blankely and Pat Buchanon do it on Abrams.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 10:37 PM

>

YOu wrote the post about "the many" at 10:02, an hour after Abrams.

Anyone else?

Posted by: Cecelia at December 6, 2007 10:48 PM

It's just that your special blend of arrogance and ignorance brings out my ugly side."

Sorry but I don't have a damn thing to do with your terminal ugliness.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 10:59 PM

Oh but you do.
I was a fairly good natured person until I read in frustration the repeated head in the sand hypocritical nonsense you regularly spill from that two sided mouth. Even WHY doesnt aggravaye as much as you do and I do believe its the obnoxious air of superiority you attempt to project which while laughable is highly annoying

Well you can count out Buchanan, who has been anti-Bush from the get-go, and who is hardly conservative on a host of issues. So one of your "many" conservatives is a pseudo-conservative at best who is a longtime Bush opponent. Quite a catch there, Mike etc.

As for Blankley, I'd like to see the clip where he says "Bush is a liar". I'm betting he didn't say that. But I don't watch Abrams so I'm just speculating. I turned off Abrams when he brought on a panel to discuss Mike Huckabee--a panel of three Democrats and zero Republicans!

"Translation: He can't back his words again.......diversion!"

You are absolutely the most humorless troll that I have ever encountered. I'll bet you're the life of every party. Humor, satire, irony, and sarcasm zooms right over your head every time.

All mooing and no playing makes Jeff one dull boy.

"I'm sure if the president were a Democrat, you would take offense."....Uh, not if that president lied about intelligence to the American people while hyping something as grave as war.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 11:03 PM

Anyone notice the foregone conclusion in this statement?

You can bet he doesn't...

You're right Johnny, I paraphrased Blankely, just as you do all the time.

No, I don't think he specifically used the words "Bush is a liar"....but he certainly was in agreement that he lied.

You asked for conservatives who thinks he lied...I gave you two....but you want more or my point is canceled.

I suppose you REALLY believe I happened on the only two that think he lied?

All mooing and no playing makes Jeff one dull boy.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 11:11 PM

Is that your answer?

"Mooing" is your cohorts, philby and patsy's gig.

You're right Johnny, I paraphrased Blankely, just as you do all the time.

No, I don't think he specifically used the words "Bush is a liar"....but he certainly was in agreement that he lied.

You asked for conservatives who thinks he lied...I gave you two....but you want more or my point is canceled.

I suppose you REALLY believe I happened on the only two that think he lied?

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 11:16 PM

Wll I'm sure Mahmoud and hugo would make 4. There you have your consensus Mike

You gave me one. (Maybe, if your paraphrase can be trusted.) But someone who has opposed Bush from before he even ran the first time and holds as many non-conservative positions as PB (and is an employee of MSNBC to boot) does not count.

And I didn't ask you for anything. What, are you making this stuff up as you go along?

"Wll I'm sure Mahmoud and hugo would make 4."

And YOU call ME ignorant?

Go back to wallowing in your fascination with human escrement.

"And I didn't ask you for anything."

Cecelia did and you answered.

No, I don't think he specifically used the words "Bush is a liar"....but he certainly was in agreement that he lied. (Mike)

You are going to get yourself into trouble here because I remember reading that just because you agreed with a claim that WPITW is satire, doesn't mean you actually said it. Maybe you get the frustration now?

Is the new PM of Australia a liar?

Kevin Rudd recoils from climate change pledge
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22883548-662,00.html

"Maybe you get the frustration now."

Oh I get it all right. I've been frustrated with the direction my government has taken us for 6 years now.

How about the democrats just stop hyperventilating and actually focus on whatever plan they think will "fix" the problems they see. Just shut the hell up, quit sniping at the current admin since all it does is project weakness abroad, which is not in Repubs or Demos best interest. Sell your plan at the next election and see if teh people want it. If they try it and hate it, they can vote them out again. isnt taht how it was supposed to work? Unfortunately with a hyper 24/7 media and every antique selling shmuck shrieking like its the end of the world 3 or 4 times a week, we just spin our wheels rehashing nonsense like Olbermann and look like a bunch of divided fools. meantime Hollywood is acting as our "ambassadors" abroad again projecting weakness, corruption and degradation. How about we quit undercutting ourselves and focus on whats best for the country as a whole, namely energy independence, secure borders, free trade and promoting democracy, good govt and human rights abroad by taking the lead since the UN is USELESS and corrupt? Yeah that was a runon sentence.

You're right Johnny, I paraphrased Blankely

posted b mike

Just our daily dose of hypocrisy.

Is Rudd a liar?

Well, I'm sure that the many conservatives who think that Bush lied to get us into a war in Iraq, is the same number of many conservatives who think that Bush lied about Iran now.

So why don't you and those "many conservatives" go skipping through the windmills of your mind, Mike.

It may be the only activity that organ gets.

Oh, and some of you may want to verify the story about Rudd because after all, it came from a NEWSBUSTERS (horses neighing, you have to know Young Frankenstein for that one).

Mike, you spelled excrement wrong.

NEWSBUSERS link

Name the "many" more.

Posted by: Cecelia at December 6, 2007 11:04 PM

So much for "many." He can't even name one!

NEWSBUSTERS' link.

"I remember reading here that just because you agreed with a claim that WPITW was satire, doesn't mean you actually said it."

But did you also forget what initiated that entire play on words?

I asked Janet if she thought my agreeing with someone else's claim was the same as making the statement myself?...And she took exception and asked me what the hell I was talking about?

THAT is what initiated that rather silly and long winded exchange. Janet could have simply answered that she believed that agreeing IS one and the same and we would have moved on from there.

Sharm you beat me to the punch, girl.

MIKE made multiple comments that b/c he copied someone elses words and agreed with those words my saying he considered WPITW satire was misquoting him and using quote marks to indicate he said it WHEN HE NEVER SAID IT!

He went so far as to ask me if I were nuts b/c of my opinion of what he said.

He also seemed to take exception to this earlier comment of mine:

"Mike and Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker are past masters of the art of implying every opinion and sentiment while always denying they ever actually said it.

As Spock would say "fascinating"!

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at December 6, 2007 9:04 PM "

Now does it make sense MIKE?

Grammie

Mike,

I am not going to get into a urinating match. She explained the point several times.

we just spin our wheels rehashing nonsense like Olbermann

"I remember reading here that just because you agreed with a claim that WPITW was satire, doesn't mean you actually said it."

But did you also forget what initiated that entire play on words?

I asked Janet if she thought my agreeing with someone else's claim was the same as making the statement myself?...And she took exception and asked me what the hell I was talking about?

THAT is what initiated that rather silly and long winded exchange. Janet could have simply answered that she believed that agreeing IS one and the same and we would have moved on from there.

you spelled cliche wrong.

Looks like Rudd can identify with Peolosi/Reed Congress. Promises, promises to get elected.

I believe someone above there used links from
. . . FOX (horses winnying again) to RK at times.

No stooge......it projects.. that fact that the Democrats haven't had an actual viable platform in about 40 years and only survive as the contrarian party with essentially the slogan "We wouldn't do it like THAT"

"So why don't you and those "many conservatives" go skipping through the windmills of your mind."

This is how your side works....You ask for names....I give you 2 out of 2.....you ask for more and assume there are no more simply because I haven't had the time to take a poll.

You now damned well that if I had named 5, you would have asked for 10. If I had named 10, you would have asked for 20.

logic dictates that if I can find 2 out of 2 that quickly and easily, then you could find more without too much trouble.

What I find amazing about this crowd is the way so many of you focus on a few little words like that while avoiding the actual issue that instigated the exchange.

Olbermann's anger is palpable. It's obvious that the source of his anger is his own irrelevance. He is beginning to lose his sanity over the fact that despite all of his efforts to be recognized, his ramblings don't summon enough respect to even bring a mention of his name by any of his enemies. Tonight (12/6) he begged O'Reilly to come after him by calling him a liar. And when I say begged, I don't mean he made his statement and hoped it would indirectly draw a response from O'Reilly. He literally begged O'Reilly to respond. He didn't even say what O'Reilly lied about, he just called him a liar. Translation: "Pleeaase notice me!!" In his segment on Mitt Romney's speech about religion, Olbermann "carefully chose" to use the word "Goddamn" in his analysis. He is hoping against hope that someone will take him to task for his disrespect. "Pleeaase notice me!" His attempts to gain some...any response from anyone of notoriety is blatantly obvious, and I for one, love it. I love the fact that he knows he's irrelevant and can't seem to do anything to change it. His rant at the end of the show was not something anyone with intelligence would take seriously - it was one more attempt by the troubled child to scream for attention. At least the name of the show is pertinent - we're counting down to his nervous breakdown....over his own irrelevance.

Newsbusters is on the same level as Ann Coulter...they are both sick jokes that no one takes seriously.....the fact that you girls do...speaks volumes.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 6, 2007 11:39 PM

as opposed to Olby?

Newsbusters is on the same level as Ann Coulter...they are both sick jokes that no one takes seriously.....the fact that you girls do...speaks volumes.
Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 6, 2007 11:39 PM

These two don't think that exposing their kinship to Newsbusters is something to be embarrassed about !

They are smart enough to try to keep their affiliation with the Klan a bit more secret, though.
Posted by: at December 3, 2007 10:52 PM

BE A FREAKIN" MAN AND ID YOURSELF!

"So why don't you and those "many conservatives" go skipping through the windmills of your mind."

This is how your side works....You ask for names....I give you 2 out of 2.....you ask for more and assume there are no more simply because I haven't had the time to take a poll.

You now damned well that if I had named 5, you would have asked for 10. If I had named 10, you would have asked for 20.

logic dictates that if I can find 2 out of 2 that quickly and easily, then you could find more without too much trouble.

What I find amazing about this crowd is the way so many of you focus on a few little words like that while avoiding the actual issue that instigated the exchange.

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 11:42 PM

we just spin our wheels rehashing nonsense

I ask again. Is Rudd a liar?

"Now does it make sense Mike"

Absolutely not Janet....Because when I asked you the specific question "is agreeing with someone else's statement the same thing as making the statement yourself the same thing", why didn't you just say "yes", .... instead of pretending that isn't what happened?

Olbermann's anger is palpable. It's obvious that the source of his anger is his own irrelevance. He is beginning to lose his sanity over the fact that despite all of his efforts to be recognized, his ramblings don't summon enough respect to even bring a mention of his name by any of his enemies. Tonight (12/6) he begged O'Reilly to come after him by calling him a liar. And when I say begged, I don't mean he made his statement and hoped it would indirectly draw a response from O'Reilly. He literally begged O'Reilly to respond. He didn't even say what O'Reilly lied about, he just called him a liar. Translation: "Pleeaase notice me!!" In his segment on Mitt Romney's speech about religion, Olbermann "carefully chose" to use the word "Goddamn" in his analysis. He is hoping against hope that someone will take him to task for his disrespect. "Pleeaase notice me!" His attempts to gain some...any response from anyone of notoriety is blatantly obvious, and I for one, love it. I love the fact that he knows he's irrelevant and can't seem to do anything to change it. His rant at the end of the show was not something anyone with intelligence would take seriously - it was one more attempt by the troubled child to scream for attention. At least the name of the show is pertinent - we're counting down to his nervous breakdown....over his own irrelevance.

Posted by: Ol' Girlmann at December 6, 2007 11:44 PM

That was perfect.

MIKE, I am starting to think you either live in a fantasy world or say what you think will get you by in the moment with no regard for anything else.

I am going to find that exchange and copy enough of it to point out the the absolute idiocy of your statement above.

Before I do that though I want to point out that several of asked you about your going from ""He just told the president "You, Mr. Bush, are a bald face liar." So NBC is OK with this? "in several different ways.

To this:

"- So you believe in censorship?
- You don't believe the president is the servant of the people?
- You think it's OK to call other people liars...but not OK to call Bush one just because he is the president?"

I must have missed your answer!

Grammie

Doing paperwork and burning CD's get the bulk of my attention.
This site comes in a distant third.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 6, 2007 11:48 PM

What kind of paperwork are you doing?

Here is a story for all you left wingers who like to bring up Larry Craig everyday.

KGO San Fransicko night-time left wing talk show host Bernie Ward was indicted in Federal Court today on two counts of child pornography using the Internet.

His lawyer blamed the Bush administration for going after him because he has been so critical. Of course no one has heard of this pervert outside of San Fransicko since he can't get nationally syndicated. I guess Error America had filled its quota of child molesters.

Mike's above answering the common folk

Doing paperwork and burning CD'

Just please don't tell us what you are wearing. If this were S O M E O N E else, we could venture a few guesses.

Doing paperwork and burning CD's get the bulk of my attention.
This site comes in a distant third.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 6, 2007 11:48 PM

What are you listening to? Yanni? or something angry since Bush has so wronged you on apersonal level

Fine Janet....but when you "find" the exact exchange, DON'T forget the part where I asked you if agreeing with SOMEONE ELSE'S CLAIM was the same thing as making the claim myself.

THAT is the key to the entire exchange, because the discussion was NEVER about whether I thought WPITW was satire or not. That was already established.

The exchange in question was always ONLY about whether I initiated the claim myself or just agreed with someone else who did.

Are you SURE you want to start this whole silly thing all over again?

As Mike yells down from the attic "SHUT UP MA!! I'M TALKING TO MY FRIENDS!!!!"

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/al_qaeda_is_finished_in_iraq_f.html

Some Good news for a change

I give you 2 out of 2.....you ask for more and assume there are no more simply because I haven't had the time to take a poll.

posted by mike

"No time" was his escape route. I was wrong. 2 names w/no proof. Shocker!

McCool, Keith hardly has to fear irrelevance. He's landed a fat contract, his show is regularly the highest rated non-FOX cable news show, his ratings continue to climb, and his books make money. Does he have a Buick-sized ego? Sure he does, but then so does about 99.9% of everyone in front of the camera in the broadcast industry.

So far as that palpable rage -- he's channeling the rage of an awful lot of Americans who are aghast at what Bush and Cheney have done to this country and to others in the world in the name of our country.

Understand that (even if you don't agree that B/C have done enormous damage to this country), and you'll get why it is Countdown's audience growth rate dwarfs O'Reilly's.

Cheers,
Robin Michael

Throughout the interview, Cheney was dismissive of virtually everything Democrats are trying to do in Congress — “that probably wouldn’t surprise anybody” — on the war, spending and anti-terrorism policies.

“They’ve produced absolutely nothing that I can see that’s of benefit or consistent with the promises that they made when they went out and ran for election,” Cheney said.

Well said.

MIKE, I notice you are still ducking the questions we posed about your blowing a simple statement into censorship and constitutional questions.

Grammie

Bush either knew about the NIE for awhile and continued to bang the drums of war which would be more than disingenuous...it would be outright reckless and dangerous

Lawrence O'Donnell never believed that Bush was planning to engage Iran in war. Do you respect him? Why did Iran stop its program in 2003 (if that is indeed the case)?

I ask again. Is Rudd a liar?

Posted by: Sharon at December 6, 2007 11:46 PM

mike, right after you find "many" or even one conservative that called Bush a liar, Sharon would like you to answer this simple question. I'm not holding my breath.

What are you listening to?
Posted by: McCool at December 6, 2007 11:55 PM

Charlie Haden....I'm sure you have no idea who he is.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 7, 2007 12:03 AM

Typical response from an over-edumacated liberal. LOL AND I just made myself laugh. No I didn't know who he was but I said to myself, I bet its some overhyped jazz musician because artsy liberal types love to listen to that because its so avant garde. So I googled him and I AM A mindreader!

why is a dead head.

"...he's channeling the rage of an awful lot of Americans who are aghast at what Bush and Cheney have done to this country"

He should have the same rage against the terrorists and what they did "to this country" on 9/11....but he doesn't.

"Countdown's audience growth rate dwarfs O'Reilly's."

Growth rate? Small numbers mean a higher growth rate. 50 viewers to 100 is a growth rate of 100%. Good Job Olby!

"I must have missed your answer."

Duh, how many 'questions' do you think I'm capable of 'answering' when there are about 6 posters trying to argue with me about 3 different issues, .... all at the same time?

When that particular poster asked "is NBC OK with this", it smacked to me of a specific request for corporate censorship on Countdown.

KO has every right to call the president a liar in a commentary that was labeled as such, just as you or I do. If NBC were to shut him down over exercising his freedom of expression, especially in a situation like this when no reasonable person could argue that what Bush did was either a intentional deception, or outright incompetence....again!

Not only that, every show on MSNBC were expressing an overall tone that implied they ALL believed he had at least been very deceptive, if not lying outright.

Why would it surprise you that KO who was the one most outspoken about it?

you'll get why it is Countdown's audience growth rate dwarfs O'Reilly's.

O'Reilly's show began in 1996. The growth rate was obviously good enough to keep him on this long with a multi-million dollar contract. Will Katie Couric last 11 years?

McCool, Keith hardly has to fear irrelevance. He's landed a fat contract, his show is regularly the highest rated non-FOX cable news show, his ratings continue to climb, and his books make money. Does he have a Buick-sized ego? Sure he does, but then so does about 99.9% of everyone in front of the camera in the broadcast industry.

So far as that palpable rage -- he's channeling the rage of an awful lot of Americans who are aghast at what Bush and Cheney have done to this country and to others in the world in the name of our country.

Understand that (even if you don't agree that B/C have done enormous damage to this country), and you'll get why it is Countdown's audience growth rate dwarfs O'Reilly's.

Cheers,
Robin Michael

Posted by: Robin Michael in Seattle at December 7, 2007 12:04 AM

I understand he is playing to the disaffected easily swayed by hype youth. I just think it would be preferable to vote your conscience instead of shrieking on cable TV. And if the Dems win next year, their man y faults will be evident and it will be a single term anyways.

So far as that palpable rage -- he's channeling the rage of an awful lot of Americans who are aghast at what Bush and Cheney have done to this country and to others in the world in the name of our country.
Posted by: Robin Michael in Seattle at December 7, 2007 12:04 AM

Try again. He is channeling the rage of far left fascists who are still angry that Gore lost in 2000. But then, left wing fascists don't believe in elections. That is why they have the useful idiot Jimmy Carter certify the elections of every blood thirsty dictator.

"...he's channeling the rage of an awful lot of Americans who are aghast at what Bush and Cheney have done to this country"

He should have the same rage against the terrorists and what they did "to this country" on 9/11....but he doesn't.

I was just goingto addres this point, thank you.

"over-edumacated liberal"

Why is some conservatives think you can know "too much" about the world around us? (Not that I'm a fan of jazz, but I hardly have an dismissive opinion of those who do.)

Duh, how many 'questions' do you think I'm capable of 'answering' when there are about 6 posters trying to argue with me about 3 different issues, .... all at the same time?

Mike put the cat down and breathe into the paper bag

Doing paperwork and burning CD's get the bulk of my attention.
This site comes in a distant third.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 6, 2007 11:48 PM

What kind of paperwork are you doing?

why is a dead head.

Posted by: royal king at December 7, 2007 12:11 AM

WHY! rolling joints doesnt count as "doing paperwork"!

Duh, it is only me now and I would like to know how you got this:

""- So you believe in censorship?
- You don't believe the president is the servant of the people?
- You think it's OK to call other people liars...but not OK to call Bush one just because he is the president?""

From this:

"You, Mr. Bush, are a bald face liar." So NBC is OK with this? "

You chose to quote anther comment and reply to it. My question is what about that mild mannered question brought forth your answer? "So you believe in censorship?" even with the question mark is actually an accusation.

Grammie

"over-edumacated liberal"

Why is some conservatives think you can know "too much" about the world around us? (Not that I'm a fan of jazz, but I hardly have an dismissive opinion of those who do.)

Posted by: Robin Michael in Seattle at December 7, 2007 12:16 AM

You CAN be overeducated. Some people spend too much of their time at universities being preached to by a bunch of narrow minded lib profs instead of in the real world

Jazz is gravy for the brain

"He should have the same rage against the terrorists and what they did "to this country" on 9/11....but he doesn't."

I beg to differ; part of that rage is the knowledge that on Bush's watch, bid Laden is still a living, breathing, free man able to try to taunt us every now and then six years after that horrific attack. How is it FDR could get the entire Japanese military to surrender significantly quicker after Pearl Harbor, but under Bush we can't bring this one man to justice all this time later?

"He should have the same rage against the terrorists and what they did "to this country" on 9/11....but he doesn't."

I beg to differ; part of that rage is the knowledge that on Bush's watch, bid Laden is still a living, breathing, free man able to try to taunt us every now and then six years after that horrific attack. How is it FDR could get the entire Japanese military to surrender significantly quicker after Pearl Harbor, but under Bush we can't bring this one man to justice all this time later?

Posted by: Robin Michael in Seattle at December 7, 2007 12:23 AM

THAT might have something to do with the lack of support at home compared to FDR as well as the hypercritical press criticizing every move and leaking every bit of intel it can. Hows that for starters? and Seahawks suck! Steelers fan.

"Is Rudd a liar"

I don't have the time to keep up with our own politics as much as I'd like, but I did follow your link to the story.

Did he lie...I don't know. It depends on how you look at it. It sounds more like he changed his mind based largely on new information.

Why do I have a feeling this is the beginnings of another "gotcha" moment with regards to the NIE response?

Take a deep breath Why:

Huff Post has a link to NEWSBUSTERS (whinny)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/Kevin+Rudd

Mike, in the end we are all dust. Now go skin another cat for Ma's christmas scarf and call it a night

Try again. He is channeling the rage of far left fascists who are still angry that Gore lost in 2000. But then, left wing fascists don't believe in elections.

Well, he's channeling my rage, and I have to catigorically reject that description, and would have to do the same for those I know who are plenty pissed about what's being done to this country. We are not fascists who can't get past the 2000 election. We believe in a free society with freedom of thought and expression, with open, transparent elections. Oh, and we want' a new president, one who'll do America and her citizens proud.

How is it FDR could get the entire Japanese military to surrender significantly quicker after Pearl Harbor, but under Bush we can't bring this one man to justice all this time later?

Posted by: Robin Michael in Seattle at December 7, 2007 12:23 AM

Wow, are you that stupid? FDR got the Japanese to surrender? Sorry, FDR was dead. The atomic bomb got the Japanese to surrender.

Did he lie...I don't know. It depends on how you look at it. It sounds more like he changed his mind based largely on new information.

It is not a gotcha moment but maybe an explanation as to Bush's change of mind concerning nation building after 9/11? Howlong ago was Rudd ekected and what happened for such a swift change of politics? Just a thought.

Cleaned up 12:31 comment

"Did he lie...I don't know. It depends on how you look at it. It sounds more like he changed his mind based largely on new information." (Mike)

It is not a gotcha moment but maybe an explanation as to Bush's change of mind concerning nation building after 9/11? How long ago was Rudd elected and what happened for such a swift change of politics? Just a thought.

"I beg to differ; part of that rage is the knowledge that on Bush's watch, bid Laden is still a living, breathing, free man"

That's nonsense. If tomorrow morning's news showed a dead bin Laden on the front pages, Olbermann would be ranting tomorrow night about how we exhausted too many resources trying to get one individual. If you think Olbermann's rage against Bush would be alleviated with bin Laden's capture or death, you are sadly mistaken. Olbermann would still be full of rage because he would still be irrelevant.

and who would that be? One of THESE democrats???

FDR/Truman, yes I know. My bad.

Now -- where's Osama?

To me Janet, the question "is NBC OK with this" is a veiled request for corporate censorship of what that particular poster considered an outrageous statement that shouldn't be allowed.

I personally don't believe the government OR NBC should censure a commentator for airing an outrageous political comment.

To me, that would be a violation of freedom of speech...and my right to listen to commentary that someone else might consider outrageous.

How does that not answer your question?

FDR/Truman, yes I know. My bad.

Now -- where's Osama?

Posted by: Robin Michael in Seattle at December 7, 2007 12:34 AM

FDR won the war against some opposition of some shortsighted Republicans, but it was no where near the lunacy of today's democrats.
Osama will at worst die in irrelevance much like Keith hopefully.

If tomorrow morning's news showed a dead bin Laden...

Point of fact: that's not going to happen, unless he dies by natural causes. The Bush family is in too deep with the bin Ladens to allow it to happen. You may take that to the bank.

bet its some overhyped jazz musician because artsy liberal types love to listen to that because its so avant garde. So I googled him and I AM A mindreader!
Posted by: McCool at December 7, 2007 12:10 AM

You can't even get that right.
He's extremely underrated except by other musicians who know him to be a quiet master at what he does.

Over hyped jazz musician is an oxymoron. The idiom is almost fading away with the clueless radio programmers and most people who really don't listen to music anymore other than what's on the radio.

Thanks for calling me "artsy" liberal...That's a compliment to educated people.
I'm not surprised you considered it a put down.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 7, 2007 12:34 AM

GRAVY. I'd rather listen to static btw radio stations

It is not a gotcha moment but maybe an explanation as to Bush's change of mind concerning nation building after 9/11?

Merely a rhetorical question, ice breaker if you will.

If tomorrow morning's news showed a dead bin Laden...

Point of fact: that's not going to happen, unless he dies by natural causes. The Bush family is in too deep with the bin Ladens to allow it to happen. You may take that to the bank.

Posted by: Robin Michael in Seattle at December 7, 2007 12:39 AM

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS? Ok latte boy.

The effect of jazz on the normal brain produces an atrophied condition on the brain cells of conception, until very frequently those under the demoralizing influence of the persistant use of syncopation, combined with inharmonic [sic.] partial tones, are actually incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, right and wrong."

"Jazz disorganizes all regular laws and order; it stimulates to extreme deeds, to a breaking away from all rules and conventions; it is harmful and dangerous, and its influence is wholly bad."

Anne Shaw Faulkner
"Does Jazz Put the Sin in Syncopation?"
Ladies Home Journal, August 1921

This is the mindset and company that McCool keeps. He reminds me of a cartoon character.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 7, 2007 12:39 AM

WAIT! I just threw up in my mouth.

OFFICIAL NOTICE

I'm sure that is the first Ladies Home Journal link here ever.

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?

Uhm, common knowledge? They've been business partners for years. Don't believe me. Look it up.

Ok latte boy.

I'm a black drip-coffee man, myself. = )

OK, I'd stay to pal around some more with y'all, but Keith's coming on here on the 'West Coast, and I sorta wanted to see it.

Take care....

Point of fact: that's not going to happen, unless he dies by natural causes. The Bush family is in too deep with the bin Ladens to allow it to happen. You may take that to the bank.

Posted by: Robin Michael in Seattle at December 7, 2007 12:39 AM

I'm sorry, My eyes can't look away from this idiocy. did Bush kill Cobain too?

"it is not a gotcha moment but maybe an explanation for why Bush changed his mind about Nation Building after 911."

That is a reasonable explanation and a lot of people are of that opinion. Thus the saying that "911 changed everything."

I never personally believed 911 changed everything. 911 was terrible and affected EVERY real American very deeply, ... but it clearly affected some far more than it did others.

My personal criticism about Bush doing an about face on such a critical issue is based as much on trust as it is anything else. When I punched that ticket for GWB in 2000, I expected him remain the same person regarding the most critical of issues...just as you would be offended if you voted for someone who claimed to be pro life, but later became pro choice based on a traumatic event.

We;ve official hit rock bottom here. Mike's grabbing the cat again, I smell latex.

Posted by: Phony Soldier at December 7, 2007 12:39 AM

K A R M A C H A M E L E O N - If you are going to high jack, choose someone a little more interesting.

Just chew them like usual, no ones looking.

When I punched that ticket for GWB in 2000
and what do you know, Mike is a Cheney lover, save this one Grammie

McCool- Check out stillers.com.

Not only The Ladies Home Journal but one issued in 1921.

But at least he told where he got it from.

1921?

Grammie

just as you would be offended if you voted for someone who claimed to be pro life, but later became pro choice based on a traumatic event.
Posted by: Mike at December 7, 2007 12:47 AM

A pro-life president needs a pro-life Congress. A pro-war president needs a pro-war Congress.

Billie Holiday goes better with Southern Comfort.

(Quick McCool...go to google and find out who she is)

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 7, 2007 12:53 AM

GOOD ONE! I heard of that one. Now go roll another one and keep chanting Jerry is a guitar genius

Thanks Sharon

Lad Sings the Blues; I saw it when I was a teenager. Loved it. That is not Phony Soldier and our C H A M E L E O N knows it. Just for your information.

C H A M E L E O N: just a little too slow! I am not that fast of a typer.

Mike, I'm sorry.

Lady Sings the Blues.

OK, commercial break...

"Osama will at worst die in irrelevance..."

Ouch! ObL will forever be one of the most nefarious characters in American history, the mastermind and financier of a plot that cost the lives of some 3,000 souls on American soil in one shattering day. He will never be irrelevant.

That you can state his death by natural causes as a free man should be the worst that happens to him really makes me wonder about your sense of justice.

"A pro-life president needs a pro-life Congress."

Not necessarily....All they need is enough time in office to appoint several relatively young supreme court justices....and sit back and wait.

In my opinion, Congress will never touch THAT issue.

"A pro war President needs a pro war Congress."

I don't know. The talk back in 2002, before the famous congrssional vote, was that they could invade Iraq with or WITHOUT Congressional approval. Rush Limbaugh said it over and over again on his radio show at the time.

We'll never know.

McCool: "Mike I'm sorry"

I know!

OK, commercial break...

"Osama will at worst die in irrelevance..."

Ouch! ObL will forever be one of the most nefarious characters in American history, the mastermind and financier of a plot that cost the lives of some 3,000 souls on American soil in one shattering day. He will never be irrelevant.

That you can state his death by natural causes as a free man should be the worst that happens to him really makes me wonder about your sense of justice.

Posted by: Robin Michael in Seattle at December 7, 2007 1:01 AM

Worst for us you bush laden speaking jackass. best case scenerio. I grab him and skin him with a razor blade and a pair of needle nose pliers over your white couch while you ask him about his picnic days at kennebunkport

McCool: "Mike I'm sorry"

I know!

Posted by: Mike at December 7, 2007 1:04 AM

ok, thats settled. Can I come over and play Stratego again?

GOOD ONE! I heard of that one. Now go roll another one and keep chanting Jerry is a guitar genius.
Posted by: at December 7, 2007 12:56 AM

Don't need to chant..I got to personally tell him that myself...and proud to say...share a doobie with him. (in 1971)

One of the coolest humans ever on the planet.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 7, 2007 1:06 AM

Nuff said there.

OK, commercial break...

Robin go back to sitting indian style on the couch while you watch your hero. You make Mike look sane.

"Can I come over and play Stratego again?"

No, I've played "Army" 35 years ago and got a little tired of it.

Steelers are gonna like the taste of the Patriots cleats this week.
They're gonna shut up that dumb rookie talking smack and wait for the excuses, as usual.
Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 7, 2007 12:46 AM

Sure, that's why the refs let the assistant coach call a time out near the end of the game. That is why they had to start out the season cheating.

"Can I come over and play Stratego again?"

No, I've played "Army" 35 years ago and got a little tired of it.

Posted by: Mike at December 7, 2007 1:09 AM

Right. Before you turned communist

Sharon: Take a look at the post at 1:07 AM .... and the one at 1:07 AM.

"Robin go back to sitting indian style on the couch while you watch your hero. You make Mike look sane."

And *you* go right on back to ignoring the substance of my post. = )

C H A M E L E O N...

If you pray to St Michael the Archangel, he can defend you against the evil that is lurking in your heart.

MIKE, I comprehend your "explanation" but it makes absolutely no sense that you, the stickler for every word, or anyone could so casually leap to such conclusions from those two short sentences.

What I read into his comment was that the commenter thought that KO overstepped the bounds of appropriateness and wondered if NBC had no problem with it.

No call for censorship or any indication that he didn't have a clue about the role of the President or implication that a President couldn't lie.

You really made a stretch there.

Grammie

Lighten up, Why.

"Right, Before you turned Communist."

Yeah, I'm your average communist capitalist entrepreneur.

Mike,

You can pre-type something and send the two comments out one after the other. I am done here so any Sharon is the C H A M E L E O N. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has a couple of computers going. Out for the night.

I guess 'mike' still can't find the conservatives that called Bush a liar he was blabbing about earlier. Shocker!!!!!!

Blankely and Buchanon....thats 2 out of 2.....Having a little problem with reading comprehension again Moo boy?

Yes, I'm fully aware that YOU wouldn't criticize Bush if he commited rape in broad daylight in full view of a video camera.

But just thats YOUR problem.

Haven't been here since last "Special Comment". Yep, the 20%ers are still complete vegetables.

Every time I see someone breathing through their mouth I think "that must be another person from Olbermann Watch".

Just because you say it that means it's true? No quotes? Shocker.

Ok, Republicans are occaisionally caught in a mens room or a whorehouse. Democrats, however, get caught with child pornography. Poor Bernie Ward:
Longtime Bay Area talk show host Bernie Ward has been indicted on two federal Internet child pornography charges. In a brief court appearence Thursday morning he pleaded not guilty. Sick bastard.

KGO Host Indicted on Child Porn Charges

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) -- Longtime Bay Area talk show host Bernie Ward has been indicted on two federal Internet child pornography charges. In a brief court appearence Thursday morning he pleaded not guilty.

Ward, a self described progressive and former Catholic priest, hosts the weeknight Bernie Ward Show and the Sunday morning Godtalk show on KGO Radio.

What is it with you liberals. Olbyloon is a biased partisan hack. It's all about:

A. NBC/MSNBC has taken a far left stance in hopes of crawling out of last place.

B. NBC/MSNBC are attempting to be the left's answer to FNC. The problem with that is FNC is fair and balanced.

C. In the end it's all about money ace. I hate to break it to you but that's what politics and racial equality is all about.

D. In the end, these assholes int eh name of making money and pandering to left wing morons they are placing the lives of all Americans in danger.

Wake up Alice, this aint Wonderland.

Posted by: Phony Soldier at December 6, 2007 8:56 AM

fuckin' capitalism. eh Alice?

> Well, he's channeling my rage, and I have to catigorically reject that description, and would have to do the same for those I know who are plenty pissed about what's being done to this country. We are not fascists who can't get past the 2000 election. We believe in a free society with freedom of thought and expression, with open, transparent elections. Oh, and we want' a new president, one who'll do America and her citizens proud.

Posted by: Robin Michael in Seattle

RM - If you're so interested in being with people of like minds as you may I suggest heading over to Kos, DU, or Media Matters. I'd think you'd feel at home there. It's not like you're going to change anyone's mind here. I'm quite liberal but I'm here for the KO trashing; I've heard his sorry routine too many times. It's old and boring, as are the loons who parrot him, cheer him on, or aggressively defend him.

NBC won't air Freedom Watch ads thanking the troops unless they can censor them? NBC? The same channel allowing the orange faced prick to spew his hate and lies? You don't say.........

When are you stupid fucking liberals going to figure it out you can not hurt a man's feelings? I'm juts like O'Reilly and GW. It goes with being on top.

END QUOTE

And Laura Phony Bu$hwipe goes on one her typical clairvoyant rants.

Since obviously nothing can't hurt its feelings, the rant must be due to Laura's cheerful personality.

So, Laura Phony Bu$hwipe admits to being a born-again drug addict-alcoholic, babbling moron who gets off on phone sex and falafel-in-the-shower fantasies.

Too Damned Fucking Funny!

So let me get this straight. Olbermann in his latest Specaul Komment is saying that when intelligence states that Iran has halted its nuke war head program base on the information provided by a suspected Iranian double agent, the President should take the intelligence at face value an shout it from the roof tops and not have it investigated further, but when a suspected double agent from Iraq gives intel that says Sadam has WMD's, he should not take it at face value because the guy might be just a taxi driver. So we should always error on the side of the bloodthirsty dictator. I think I get it now. Appeasement, appeasement, and more appeasement.

Isn't patsy a classy fellow?

Isn't patsy a classy fellow?

Only a hard core hater would think thanking the troops would be "slanderous."

If you think "Patsy" posted

Posted by: Phony Soldier at December 7, 2007 1:14 PM

you're a total Hag-zilla.

Totally full of shit.

Hey A N O N Y M O U S I'm dyslexic. So before you talk simple verbs in the present tense you need who on the other end of your rantings what you make statments like that.

Sorry about that I have to re-edit my post.

Hey A N O N Y M O U S I'm dyslexic. So before you talk simple verbs in the present tense you need who on the other end of your rankings what you make statements like that.

Can you imagine if this pedophile had a (R) after his name, the campaign of hate Olby would spearhead?

(sfgate.com) More than three years ago, Bernie Ward, a popular San Francisco liberal radio talk show host and former Catholic priest, got on the Internet and downloaded and sent out images of child pornography...

Imagine if the opposite were true of this pole. It would be #1 on Countdown to No Ratings! Non-barker, without a doubt. Olbyloons in the minority on another important issue.

(rasmussenreports.com) Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program.

Grammy,

If you are out there, here is another good one from The Onion. If you don't have sound, forget it.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_is_the_government

"Remember, there was an NIE released in 2005 that found Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons." -- J.D.

Uh, could it be just possible, conservative, that the 2007 NIE supersedes the 2005 NIE, especially when the 2007 NIE states that whatever shit the Iranians may have had going, they STOPPED "PURSUING" NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN 2003??? Hell, in 2003, Ahmadinajad wasn't even head honcho over there.

Think before answering, conservative.

Uh, could it be just possible, conservative, that the 2007 NIE supersedes the 2005 NIE, especially when the 2007 NIE states that whatever shit the Iranians may have had going, they STOPPED "PURSUING" NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN 2003??? Hell, in 2003, Ahmadinajad wasn't even head honcho over there.

Think before answering, conservative.
Posted by: Herman at December 8, 2007 11:00 AM

Which NIE in 2007 are you talking about, Herman?

The one in July or the one in Nov?

By the way, the man you're referring to as "conservative" has a name he uses here, just as you seem to have one....Herman....

Olbermann and his ilk love Iran but for no other reason than they hate the U.S.

You, sir, have no business ... being president.

Good night, and good luck.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 8, 2007 1:22 PM

This gets funnier every time he says it.

TDF!!!!(*)(-)------

Thanks, 'why.'

To brain dead morons like yourself it does...but then it's obvious that you don't think a president's oath to uphold the Constitution is anything he should be held accountable, now do you?

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 8, 2007 1:49 PM

What good is the constitution, if you're dead? Also, when is the last time YOU were not afforded your constitutional rights under President Bush?

"What good is the constitution, if you're dead?"

This one sentence says just about everything we really need to know about this paticular poster.

Brave Americans have fought and died for our Constitution for over 200 years,....but THIS particular poster just declared that it isn't even important to him.

I said that? Really? Funny, I don't see that anywhere. I pose the same quetion to you as why. What rights have YOU NOT been afforded? Any?

Why, you see how Jeff is already denying that he asked the rhetorical question he just now asked at 2:42 PM?

He wants me and you to answer a 'question' he posed to us while denying a statement he just made in undeniable balck and white.

Why argue with him? Just keep pointing out his blindered right wing lunacy along ith his never ending hypocrisy.

Wow.s getting really desperate. Now, he's outright, bold faced lying. I denied it? Where? Olbyloon debating tactics, lying is #1 on the list. Neither one of you cowards can answer either one of my SIMPLE questions.

>

,....but THIS particular poster just declared that it isn't even important to him.

Posted by: Mike at December 8, 2007 2:52 PM

I denied saying this. Can you read? Stop getting all frothy.

>What good is the constitution, if you're dead? Also, when is the last time YOU were not afforded your constitutional rights under President Bush?>

Watch the olbyloons run, again.

"I denied saying this"....But you very much DID imply it, as any reasonable person can plainly see.

You are the one running. Instead of clarifying your very unpatriotic rhetorical question, you choose to run away from it with a denial.

But you see Jeff, you CAN'T run away from it!

Ok. You answer the question, philby. Can you? Show us how smart you are. mike and why ran away.

You're own 'question' is so damned easy to answer, Jeff, it's difficult to believe you would even ask it:

For one thing, I've lost my right to privacy with respect to having a private telephone conversation with someone overseas without fearing the government may be listening in without a warrant.

Thats step one. I'm trying to prevent step two, three, and four regarding the errosion of our liberties. You obviously don't give a damn.

For one thing, I've lost my right to privacy with respect to having a private telephone conversation with someone overseas without fearing the government may be listening in without a warrant.

posted by mike

Do you have something to hide? Do you do 'business' with terrorists?

"Do you have something to hide? Do you do business with terrorists?"

That has nothing to do with it.

The ends does not justify the means, nor does it justify trashing the Constitution.

I can predict with relative confidence that if we were all suddenly required to carry 'papers' everywhere we went, and became subject to arrest if we didn't....you would justify that as well.....in the name of 'fighting terrorism'.

Your rhetorical question would be the same one: "Do you have something to hide?"!

I am willing to make sacrifices to stop terrorism. I guess, that is the major difference between me and you. I could care less if someone listens to my phone conversations overseas. I have nothing to hide.

I am truly sorry that you have a terror-filled life, that you have surrendered to the terrorists.

posted by philby

Quite the contrary, philby. I fear nothing. You and your party leaders (pelosi, reid, kennedy, etc.) are the ones that have surrendered to the terrorists.

"You and your party leaders (pelosi, reid, kennedy, etc.) are the ones that have surrendered to the terrorists."

How so?

Good post at 5:16 A N O N Y M O U S, however, we differ on one key point, and I hope you'll give that some more consideration yourself.

I don't loathe Jeff personally at all. However, I DO loathe many of his political ideas and blogboard tactics. To me, there is a difference.

Although it's difficult to say this, I believe Jeff believes what he believes for honest reasons, regardless of how wrong he is. In fact, I believe MOST posters on this blog believe what they believe for honest reasons.

There are too many people out there who hate others simply because of their beliefs ..... like the one late last night who started calling me a homosexual in incredibly graphic terms simply because he didn't like my opinions about torturing our enemy.

"BTW: Were you surprised at his response?"

Not at all!

How so?

Posted by: Mike at December 8, 2007 5:48 PM

Does "the war is lost" ring any bells?

Amusing how mike came back and posted on another thread, but, avoided this one. He has no answer for "the war is lost." Shocker.

I can predict with relative confidence that if we were all suddenly required to carry 'papers' everywhere we went, and became subject to arrest if we didn't....you would justify that as well.....in the name of 'fighting terrorism'.

Your rhetorical question would be the same one: "Do you have something to hide?"!

Posted by: Mike at December 8, 2007 4:20 PM

I have no doubt that you're on pins and needles and wetting the bed over the fact that Bush will next demand that you carry papers and arrest you if you don't.

How about we let YOU worry over and argue such a possibility on a blog board, along with your worrying that the govt is listening in to your phone calls with your Uncle Shamus in Killarney...

We'll, worry about the people who actually bombed a train in Spain. You can tell US we're paranoid fear-mongers over our concern over terrorism, while you go into spasms over the slippery slope conjectures over a particular and soon gone Administration.

That way, everything's covered....

I have no doubt that you're on pins and needles and wetting the bed over the fact that Bush will next demand that you carry papers and arrest you if you don't.

posted by Cecelia

Excellent point, Cecelia. I'll have to remember that one.....:)

No she's not better than that....by a long shot.
I guess you haven't been around here long enough to see her in action.
She has succumbed to the RW obsession with obliterating our freedoms for a false sense of security. She has already stated she's for an endless war in iraq and her knee-knocking fears concerning terrorism is her justification for letting republicans wipe their ass with the Constitution.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 9, 2007 11:24 AM

Yeah...yeah...

James Lileks said it best when talking about Keith Olbermann and these accusations:

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/06/0906/092006.html

"One of the constant rhetorical ticks in my email concerns my incontinence when it comes to “terrorism.”

Apparently people of my ilk are constantly pissing or piddling ourselves when the government plays the ol’ booga-booga card.

We drop our Big Gulps and shout “oh, protect me from the scary Mooselmen, Great Father!”

I think it was Woocott who first dribbled this particular riposte, and it’s caught on. A day doesn’t go by in which someone doesn’t point out a direct connection between ginned-up scare-news and the retentive abilities of my urethra.

Perhaps it’s so; perhaps there’s a reason I sit in the dark at night making cold calls to Pakistan, hoping the government taps my phone and maybe, just maybe, finds a terrorist on the other end.

But there’s a certain dark jot of damp trouser-front to Olbermann’s rhetoric as well, no?"

Oh, yeah, James, great understatement.

Yes, indeed.

Yeah...if we wanted to know about Tuesday being Pizza Night!
KO was not mentioned anywhere on that link.

BTW: Lileks is not exactly a heavyweight to be impressing anyone with.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 9, 2007 3:30 PM

I forgot. You don't actually read, you skim, and then right click and paste.

Try the paragraph that begins with "An angry man", Einstein.

As for Lileks, he summed up you and and the rest of the the-only-thing-we-have-to-fear-is-our-political-opposition crowd, on the money.

Cecelia, when it come to Olbermahn criticisms, 'why' puts her hands over her eyes and plugs her ears. Of course, she 'skimmed' it.

It;s still not clear whether it is the KNEE KNOCKING FEAR of terrorism that motivates you or the fact that you give a wink and a nod to WHATEVER a republican president does.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 9, 2007 5:07 PM

But it's certainly clear that fire breathing hatred motives every overheated accusation and all the partisan opportunism you seek at every turn, Chicken Little.

It was Chicken Little that would cry " The sky is falling"
That seems to be your MO...not mine.
Living in fear is your gig !

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 9, 2007 8:07 PM

Evidently, you don't listen to yourself, Bobo.

I don't spend one tenth of my time here talking about terrorists that you spend talking about how Bush has put you in danger of losing your Constitutional rights.

I'm not posting about terrorists on leftists sites or even on any other non-lefty sites.

I was here on a site called Olbermann Watch when ALL the conversation revolved around Keith Olbermann.

Doesn't it tell you something about your fear mongering crap that you've made yourself a fixture on a board critiquing a tv news personality, in order to cry that the sky is falling night and day?

You're doing your daily Chicken Little squawk here, Bobo, doesn't bother me particularly, but I'll always correct you when you accuse me or most other people here of being more of fear monger than you.

No one is. It's your SOLE reason for being here, as you admit.

29,000 . . . whew. So Oprah and the empty suit drew a huge crowd, huh? That's fantastic. I went to a Van Halen show back in 1983. Damn if I can remember who the opener was.

29,000 . . . whew. So Oprah and the empty suit drew a huge crowd, huh? That's fantastic. I went to a Van Halen show back in 1983. Damn if I can remember who the opener was.

Posted by: jayef at December 10, 2007 12:01 AM

Yeah, but I bet Van Halen's opener didn't have a book club... :D

And I thought Giuliani was the scariest of the GOP hopefuls.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/scahill

mental midget is a history professor?....wow after his 9:31 post, he should sue his college for malpractice is giving him his credentials....

Who said this in his farwell address?.....

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

###

Is this a secular idea: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Oh my....secular?.....President Washington had a weird concept of "secular."

Once again, mental midget leaves me wondering about the future of our children under his councel!

Cee: "mental midget is a history professor?....wow, after his 9:31 post, he should sue his college for malpractice is giving him his credentials."

And maybe Dana Perino might do the same after her ASTONISHING admission of ignorance about the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I know, I know1.....She was yet another honor graduate of the University of LOYALTY!

It was Chicken Little that would cry " The sky is falling"
That seems to be your MO...not mine.
Living in fear is your gig !

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 9, 2007 8:07 PM

Do you ever ead mikes posts? He is the one that cries "we're doomed" on a daily basis.

And the dear mental midget ignores the document preceding the US Constituion...the founding document of the United States of America....The Declaration of Independence. Without it the US Constitution would have never come to be....The US Constitution required the existence of The Declaration of Independence and the hard fought war it brought about....A FACT OF HISTORY!

It ends as it begins.....with God.....

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

###
You see dear brainwashed imp, mental midget....the United States of America was founded on Jewish and Christian principles...the first one of recognizing that the rights of man were given by The Almighty....The Creator, God. The Declaration makes that perfectly clear and is the document that establishes, to the present time, the legal entity of The United States of America.

The US Constitution is the system by which the before mentioned new nation The Declaration established and read it dear mental midget.....it is not secular.

It does not appeal to Zeus, Buddha, the workers, the people, or some other entity....It SPECIFICALLY appeals to the giver of natural law....and who was that.....God....The one God of the scriptures every man who signed it and the US Constituion had read cover to cover....

Have you read the scriptures, mental midget?....Do you understand that The Jewish and Christian God, Jehovah, is conststent and ONE through out the scriptures and is the only possible diety these fine men would address?

They were not atheists or agnostics.

So....based on these lovely little facts you choose to ignore, and also the fact that our founders, including the least "religious" of them, T. Jefferson, mentions morality in the context of religion as REQUIRED for a nation of free men to be successful....you are wrong......again.....

"...I made it very clear that I was talking about our CONSTITUTION." mental midget today

No....rererad your post.....it INCLUDED......

"Our forefathers were very clear that this is a secular nation." mental midget yesterday

No, they were not clear about that, dimwit!

Those so hurt by the fact that our nation has been so productive because of a people who recognize there is a God that created us and wants us to be free from the tyranny so easily created by fallen man in the forms of secular and religious institutions just cannot support their claims with history....The words are there on the page and the rights derived DIRECTLY from God are there on the page and the men who fashioned the pages say they belieived in God and knew about Him....None were atheists....

In fact....like I keep challenging....please show us the examples of governance that were fashioned by atheists....wanna try mental midget?

Or is your knowledge of history SOOOOO bad that you cannot come up with those governments?......

Oh yes....SLOB also retreated from this discussion....The governments fomred by secularists (read=atheists)....The USSR and Communist China.....and their wonderful freedom loving puppet regimes.....Cuba.....North Korea......Vietnam (once only the North but the anti-freedom American left made sure that did not last)......

well....I'll stick with the Jews and the Christians who gave us the Renaissance, The Enlightenment and The United States of America......

You can have Nietzche, Marx and the rest that follow.....the 20th Century is a wonderful image of their results!

Thank goodness for the USA that stopped the spread of all of that secularist worldview!

Oh, and the next time you walk through Arlington or other sacred ground that contains the remains of our country's greatest.....veterans.....Look at the markers.....

99.99% are Stars of David or Crosses.....

Why?....I thought we were a SECULAR nation....Not recognizing God.....Why were we defended almost totally in the first 200+ years by millions people pronouncing faith in the Jewish and Christian God?

Including my Jewish Grandfather at Guadacanal?

Can't wait to see what you got, mental midget! More propaganda from the sorry secularist brain trust I think!

Here is the first mention of God in the declaration:

"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

No a muslim would argue that nature's god is Allah. You would argue it is Yaweh, the founders made no such distinctioin they are deliberitly vague.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -"

Their creator. does not specifically mention yaweh. or allah. each group would claim that is his creator. others would make different argumetns again delibertly open.

Here we go again:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our"

Again vague. Now the term seperation of Church and state was coined by thomas jefferson. You are also aware I am sure that the declaration was primarily jefferson's work. So the author of the document you are citing has argued for the speration between church and state.

Also I would point out that the United states was founded primarily on the phisophy of John Locke and others. many of the founding fathers were deist and had no intention of creating a christian nation.

Here is jefferson writing a letter on the matter:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, THUS BUILDING A WALL OF SPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

THomas jefferson Jan.1.1802

So just to sum up Cee, god was never mentioned in the constituion and is vaguely mentioned in the declaration of indepence written by the man who coined the term "Serperation of Chruch and state" and who once produced a version of the bible completly devoid of the miracles. Your arguemtn we are christina nation is not on solid ground.

oh, and no name calling now.

As 'why' sinks under ground...........

Oh dear....the secularists are becoming angry....

The Declaration of Independence does not say "power" "force" or "entity," the writers wrote God, judge and Almighty.....not words your typical atheist would use and in no manner does an atheist believe anything comes from a supernatural source.

The founders did. Jews did and do. Christians did and do. Muslims did and do. Atheists DO NOT. Fine. They can believe anything they want and I agree with the founders, they are welcome to do so in The free United States of America.

Oh, but what did the secularists wrought with their small confined minds after The great nation was established under God....look to Europe and Asia and see gents what secular government is...it is hateful of those that believe in the supernatural and eventually become repressive of such belief. That is the system you guys seem to ignore in your view of history. If The United States were a truly secular nation....the people not believing in the supernatural/God as a large majority and this belief influencing the construction and implementation of the republic....we would have had something totally different. History is fact....even Jefferson believed in God.

Does the atheist....no.....How does that lack of faith affect a worldview?

Marx
Lenin
Mao
Stalin

Totalitarianism. Mordern, 20th century secularist thought has NEVER wrought a government that continued to protect liberty. It is a fact. The United States of America was founded by believers in God, 99% of the people in the country believed in God and that IS NOT A SECULAR PHILOSOPHY.

Secularism demands NO belief in the supernatural....Now unless I am wrong....saying there is a God...no matter the "faith tradition" means believing in something supernatural.

So gentlemen....your arguments are wrong. The US Constitution did not demand one not believe in God....if it did then it would be a secular government. Unlike the Soviet Constitution that says rights are derived from the state....The US Consitituion relies on the Declaration of Independence for that definition....and guess what gents.....it is derived from God.

Your arguments miss the target.....And what about those veterans cemetaries? Crosses and Stars.......What would the atheist want to mark their spot?

I would respect their choice and thank them for their service....but you cannot deny that this nation has be OVERWHELMINGLY populated by God fearing people....not secularists.

Oh and those wars about religion.....talk to a holocaust survivor or someone who suffered under another secularist government like Vietnam, The USSR or Cuba....see if they felt allowed to worship God in the way they chose, gents.....Sorry, your knowledge of history is biased and a product of some silly secularist who fed you the pablum that is today's less than quality education here in the good ol' USA.

Free thinkers know that wars are not about God, they are about feeding some base human need, good or bad.

Wars are always about power and whether it is the use of the church or "secular" institutions, God was furthest from the mind. The ECONOMIC and FREEDOM causes were always at the roots of wars, and secularists, especially the worst of them, the secular humanist philosophies, are naive to this fundamental idea about mankind.

I once again will use my Civil War example (a very deadly nonreligious war, BTW).....Give me ONE secular humanist that was a vocal and hard critic of the institution of slavery......

I will once again show the ignorant how the secularists of the 19th century had no mind for humanity while the God fearing were the ones making the greatest strides to end the poisonous institution.

SLOB slinked away from the argument and I expect dear mental midget to do so as well.

The secularists take that one quote and add to it....Read it carefully....

"that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It does not require the person participating in government leave his relgious beliefs behind....pronounce he or she will be secular in thinking....it only says that the government will not establish a state religion or stop anyone from performing their religious doctrine...

He and no founders ever said that people in government could not express a relgious thought or have their persons, as government representatives, be influenced by their faith.

Washington said it was important that people in a democracy be religious....look at his quote, gents....Jefferson never derifed such an idea....he just did not want a state church. Period.

The secularists have twisted and turned the wall into a litmus test and ignore history in doing so. It is very funny to see so-called rational, fact-based people ignore other founders like Adams, Washington, Henry and Frtanklin who pronounced great respect and necessity for God in our nation for ONE quote by T. Jefferson that they get wrong anyway!

Oh my. And look at the great Civil War....so much religious imagery and God in the side OF GOOD, while the secularists kept silent and even believed the black man was inferior and due his lot. And from the 19th century Darwinist ideas and Nietzche we got the fascists and the communists....oh yes....barren man-derived POWER to grant rights to the citizen....Not from the almighty, but from man does all come....look at what happened....

And look at what side the great western Judeo-Christian nations took with....the side to stop them....and we won!

Oh well....the secularists have to fashion history to make themselves feel better after being responsible for billions of deaths.

Oh well....the secularists have to fashion history to make themselves feel better after being responsible for billions of deaths.

Posted by: cee at December 12, 2007 9:22 AM

You need serious help.

"You need serious help."

###
Why, Trent? An objective view of history will show that The USSR was a secular govrnment....Read their constitution. Worldwide communism has documented demicide numbers in the humdreds of millions and adding the results of WWII which was an outgrowth of the competing secular government philosophies of German and Japanese fascism....which was secular.....and communism....I think you hit billions.

I can assure you, that if the secular philosophies of social Darwinism, socialism/communism and Nietzche never hit the world stage, the Earth's population would be much larger.....

And these were no religious wars, BTW.

No theocracy means that ONLY church officials can serve in government posts and that is not what the nonsecular US Constituion demands....

Nor does it demand what you are claiming:

"Secularism only demands that government officials keep their religious beliefs to themselves and do not make them state policy"

###
Show me one founder's quote or part of The US Constituion that says that needs to be accomplished....The establishment clause says NOTHING of the kind.

So, wrong again....I love it! I never said I wanted a theocracy, the argument is about what "secular" is....Secularism means NO SUPERNATURAL period.....The Declaration of Independence and the type of people our wonderful God-believing founders and their words prove our nation is not a secular nation.....

As does those fields of dead soldiers and those Stars and Crosses!!!!

Try again, wannawipe!

But you fail to evaluate why were these governments become so corrupt. Was it because they were exclusively secular?
The problem is that you see communism/socialism/fascism equated exclusively with secularism. Then proceed to say that secularists need "to make themselves feel better after being responsible for billions of deaths."

Oh anon, lets examine why those secular governments were so corrupt in not alowing freedom of thought or religion.

Read Marx....what does he say about God?
Read Nietzche....what does he say about God?

Read Mao......same question.

I could read all three and come to the conclusion that government and nations are better off without religious belief.....SECULAR.....So, some put it to the test.....what happened....rationally now....what was the outcome.....

The United States Declaration of Independence states unapologetically that all men receive their reights from God.

Ok....this was the start to a revolution that ended with the successful establishment of a country that the founders ecouraged the belief in God and the population, who overwhelmingly believed in God, were allowed to worship freely......what was the result?

That is the history I am talking about, anon.....Secularist philosophy came into power in the 19th century and the resultant governance and wars as a direct result of the worldview are evident. Secularists try to ignore those intervening 150 years and make a claim for The United States as a product of their worldviw......it obviously is not.....

The US is a product of Judeo-Christian philosophy that also allowed such events as the renasissance and the enlightenment....not secularism.

Nevermind secular humanism which is even more flawed and naive to what man is and what he is capable of in terms of evil and malace.

But you fail to evaluate why were these governments become so corrupt. Was it because they were exclusively secular?
The problem is that you see communism/socialism/fascism equated exclusively with secularism. Then proceed to say that secularists need "to make themselves feel better after being responsible for billions of deaths."

Posted by: at December 12, 2007 9:49 AM

That was me, by the way

A secular nation would be comprised of nonbelievers, primarily, wannawipe, and the US has been a nation of believers that know God and express it in the cross of star of David.....They are just symbols to you wannawipe, because you are a religious bigot....that's ok, The US Constituion protects me from your horrific dogma as it does you from my truth!

the·oc·ra·cy (thē-ŏk'rə-sē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies

A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

No such ideas have been posted by me....and the authority would be religious officals, wannawipe.....by definition.

So again, you lose mental midget wanna be wipe!.....wannawipe....try again!...

Oh wait...another religious bigot's assumption that needs to be shot down.....

"And please do come and tell me those souls are roasting on a slow fire because they rejected Jesus. Please do. Show us that Christian piety you are trying to foist upon us."

###
Show me where I said something even remote to this? My last post about my beliefs were about love and what it means.....God's love as pronounced in the sacrifice of His Son...Jesus....He wants to be in relationship with everyone, dear wannawipe....A LOVE RELATIONSHIP that requires one simple step of faith.....the shema....where did I ever say what you think I said?

"The problem is that you see communism/socialism/fascism equated exclusively with secularism."

###
In addition to my post above, why is it a problem?....Tell me the base philosophy those examples derived from....Were they theocratic? Were they derived from philosophies that lead to the creation of The United States. No..They were based on 19th century secular/atheist philosophers.

Cee,

You are in error. th founders were not trying to create a Christina nation. This is from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom Writter by James madison (The father of the constitution) and Thomas jefferson (Primary Author of the declration of independence) BEFORE the Bill of rights! Pay close attention to the last two. It is fine if you have a strong faith. but this country is not founded on that it is founded on the rights of people to chose on religion as they see fit.

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:
* The imposition of anything on a human mind, which God made to be free, is hypocritical and wrong.

* "Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free", God never coerced anyone to follow him, and the imposition of a religion by government officials is impious.

*The coercion of a person to make contributions -- especially monetary -- to a religion he doesn't support is tyrannical and creates favoritism among ministers.

* Government involvement in matters tends to end in the restraint of religion.

* Civil rights do not depend on religious beliefs, and what a person thinks is no business of the government's.

I forgot section 2. This clearly demonstrates that the man regarded as the father of the contituion and writer of the declaration of independence felt that the religious opinion was a PERSONAL matter

Section 2 (which remains part of Virginia law, in Article 1, Section 16 of the Constitution of Virginia) declares that:

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Cee,

By the way Madison indicated he intended for the first amednment text on religion to prevent the government imposing religious beliefs on individuals.

Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience

THIS IS THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUION CEE!

None of your examples, anon or mental midget, address the meaning of the term "secular nation." The basis of the jurisprudence and rights are clearly not secular...no matter what you say about the establishment clause which prevents a theocracy, the USA was never a secular nation.

And again, I challenge mental midget's assumption that the experiment is a secular governance....The outcomes of the USA vs say, The USSR are clear and one clearly states the rights of the indivuidual come from the creator, the other does not. The USSR rested on secular philosophy coming from atheist philosophers of the 19th century....the USA rested on traditional, judeo-christian ideas from people who believed in a supreme being....

That is the difference I am talking about and that makes my argument all the more clear to the pablum spewing here....God fearing people founded and defended this nation....atheism and the secularism so needed by it is a development much after and dares to claim the US as its own.

The establishment clause is a red herring and I enjoy seeing anon ignore The Declaration of Independence that clearly states the foundation of the ideology this country was founded on....The Jewish and Christian God who is the supreme judge and creator....

Unlike the SOVIET constitution, which is a secular document!

So, I enjoy seeing the secularists childishly spin in trying to pronounce their barely 200 year old worldview (which was tried in the goverments of 20th century past and wrought horror on our world) as the basis of the greatest country born over 200 years ago....born with a document that appeals to the almighty in formation and authority.....

not man.

And Mr. anon....with regard to Madison....he did not want religion totally seperate from government as you suggest....

1) He served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.

Debates and Proceedings 109 (1834 ed.) (April 9, 1789).

2) Madison, like all of the founders, endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving during his presidency.

James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, 513 (Published by Authority of Congress 1899) (July 9, 1812), 532-533 (July 23, 1813), 558 (November 16, 1814), and 560-561 (March 4, 1815).

Why would a secularist recognize specific religious observances as the chief executive, gents?

Oh....and if you want the total story about the first amendment and Madison's real and document attitude towards it....read here....and there are primary sources backing the analysis....

James Madison and Religion in Public

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=105#_edn8

And again....Mr. blank-FLUCKER swings and misses...(cue OLD SPICE jingle again)....

My entire point and the core of the argument is always...What does it mean to be secular?

Mr. blank-FLUCKER tries as usual to change the subject.

Even diests believe in a supreme being and unlike secularists, who either renounce such as superstition (atheists) or claim it a mute point but try not to be bigots like the former (agnositics), they along with the "more religious" wrote the founding document of our nation that settled on a source of our freedom and rights.....The Almighty.

Oh, but the intellectual giants on this board choose to ignore the fact that secualrists played no role in the founding on The United States.

The primary sources of the times, quotes and actions taken even by the great religious skeptic Jefferson, show men who revered God and only saw a positive influence from HIM on the nation.

Not religion, not the church, not the clergy, not the traditions...

But the positive influence from the perfect almighty creator...the supernatural source of goodness, our rights and freedom.

But again, this simple and easily proved concept must be ignored by the likes of the deficient masculine philosopher, Mr. blank-FLUCKER....as he continues to pull lies from his cloacae.

Maybe this is what secularists and religious bigots mean when they say there is no war on Christmas.....

Nine Democrats vote no on House resolution marking Christmas

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/12/nine-democrats-vote-no-on-house-resolution-marking-christmas/

###
mmmm....Which party contained the wonderful thinkers who make their fellow atheists proud?....Like Pete Stark?

Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) claim that his fellow travelers represent tolerance and approval of all faiths....mmmm....Well perhaps his ol' Tannenbaum isn't is trouble but the real symbols of Christmas seem to not be too well respected by the tolerant secularists.

The quote of the month!.....So fitting this holiday season....a season of peace and goodwill towards our fellow man (note the sensitivity I have towards the secularists'....read: Mr. blank-FLUCKER's [cue OLD SPICE jingle]....concerns).....

"[The Republicans] like this war. They want this war to continue,"

###
Oh yes! But who is funding it? The leadership of the legislative branch provides the funds for war and who has backed down, again?......

The Democrats....the left's ruling elite.....

And all they can say is the republicans made them do it?

Again....what wonderful leadership!

"The United States Declaration of Independence states unapologetically that all men receive their reights from God."

No Cee, it doesn't, and jefferson has made his feelings clear on the matter

"our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"

I don't know how else he could state this. It is clear and too the part, our rights have no dependece on what we feel about religion. Whether you beleive in jesus or think he was just a man, you still have the rights.

Also Cee,

Aside from his writing, where he said there was "a wall of speration between Church and state" Jefferson wrote:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god”

Meaning goverment has no power where religion is concerend it only has power in cases where there is injury.

Also in regards to your point on No Founding fathers being Atheist, this is true. none were.

In fact there weren't many atheist on the planet at this point in history and Charles Darwain was not even born for another thirty years.

it is clear, though from the writings of the founders that they wanted all religion protecte,d and wanted no national religion the principles they based this on were that whichever religion you choose does no injury to others so is therfore not in the realm of govermental power. It is logical to assume since Atheism also does you know more harm than someone worshipping 20 gods, in principle it would stand as well.

"You keep challenging someone who teaches what our government is and what it isn't...for a living, you fool !"

###
Oh, don't worry mental midget, I am well informed about your occupation.... remember I used to call you Professor Honeydew when you used the other name to post.....Bob.....

Challenging lies taught by teachers with agendas is a noble task that has stood me well thorughout my academic career. Secularists are particularly sensitive to being challenged and act like the silliest of revivial preachers as they spit and slobber the pablum response.....

Oh well....when I recall the ideology of the founders as that of Western thought that included a reference to the almighty creator and compare it to the atheists 60 years later I am happy and prepared in the knowledge that Jefferson and Madison would have grimaced at the secular ideologies of Marx and Nietzche.

You see mental midget, your credentials mean nothing because you have an agenda. Your mind has been CLOSED since the 1960's and blinds you to any challenge. Real free thinkers allow their opinions to be tested. Your reactions, time and again, are the telling sign of a fanatic.

You are a secularst fanatic, mental midget! No wonder the youngn's coming out from university are so poorly prepared now compared to generations past. Like I tell my patients about to enter college....DO NOT PLACE THE PROFESSORS ON PEDISTALS...they are usually lazy tenured hacks who have not had an original thought since starting their marijuana habit 30 years ago.....

I tell them to read (especially primary sources)....read A LOT and expose yourself to ideas totally unconventional and radical....The status quo in the colleges makes for only stagnant minds.

So, being part of the problem, mental midget....I suggest you take your over generous pension and retire already.....dinosaurs like you should realize when it is time for pasture....

You can join Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle), who seems ready to tour Germany and Austria with his friend Bill Moyers....At least there you can do no more damage to young minds there.

Perhaps you too can get your testicles away from your life partner's lock box for a time as well!

Like Pavlov's dog, mental midget does EXACTLY like I said people like him always do....

"Challenging lies taught by teachers with agendas is a noble task that has stood me well thorughout my academic career. Secularists are particularly sensitive to being challenged and act like the silliest of revivial preachers as they spit and slobber the pablum response....."

"The Constitution is a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being.
The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness..... but rather out of the Founding Fathers PURPOSEFUL intentions to keep government separate from religion."

###
Does that mean The United States is a secular nation?...That was the original argument, dear deluded weefer wacko!.....And no, we are not a secular nation as shown by those veteran's cemetaries, the lovely language in THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT OF OUR COUNTRY and the words and relgious celebatrations of the leaders and people throughout our history....From Thanksgiving to Christmas to The Fourth of July!

Oh boy.....mental midget will repeat his baby formula again....ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE....NO GOD IN THE CONSTITUTION....big deal! Read Madison, Washington, Franklin and the rest.....religion was identified as a requirement for good governance and citizenship ih their opinion, and the people who fought for freedom and liberty showed time and again this ideal....Especially the most deadly of wars, The Civil War....

And again the challenges go ignored.....

A secuarist who was a vocal and fervent abolitionist....

The consegquences of secular/atheist philosophy in action.....The USSR, Mao, Cuba......what about their level of religious freedom?

Mental midget cannot deviate from his standard pablum he has been using since 1972.....

Inhale the smoke slowly, weeeeefer wacko!

Ok Professor Honeydew....say hello to Beaker for me.

Oo, and professor mental midget, make sure you continue to ignore such grand secualrist experiments like The Soviet Union! And make sure you continue to ignore quotes like:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.

###
Or....

"Gentlemen, The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem."

Thomas Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

###
Oh yeah....the great wall quote has more than what the silly simpleton mental midget would offer....

"which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man"

Natural rights are rights originating from who?.....God....the common father and Creator of man....Oh my....Marx and you secularists REJECT such superstition....so my point and your loss, pablum puker.....

The atheists come along much later to try their hand at governance....secular governance....and lookie what we got....Oh the historical revisionists of the late 20th centrury (you and your Mr. Haynes) after the holocausts wrought by secularists want to claim The USA as theirs and yours....but you and they can't....Why....because God is recognized as the source (Natural Law) of man's inalienable rights (including his/her right to believe or not believe in Him), that government should NEVER try to usurp.

So, professor Honeydew mental midget weeeeefer wacko....go play with beaker....I have done good work here!

like you wouldn't know....

3:20 was me, cee...hospital terminal.....

One Nation Under God.

Well, when secularists use a letter ffrom Jefferson to The Danbury Baptists as the sole place for their total seperation of church and state argument, I really do not think you have much ground to stand on.

I am glad to be with the founders as a believer in God and on sound footing recognizinf that my rights and my neighbors rights come from God. Not the state. Not the law, but from God. Natural law.....The great thinkers in the 19th century abandoned that and look what happened....secularist governance that lead to totalitarianism and holocaust with the God fearing USA coming to the rescue!

One nation, Under God!

Sure professor Honeydew....those communist spys all throughout the government under FDR and Truman were just figments of a collective imagination and the red SCARE is exactly what the anti-American left needed for another bogeyman at another time.....

just like neocons
just like corporatists
just like evangelicals

The left loves the fear card! Boo!

Oh, and once again, those lovely words "God" "Father" "Almighty" "Creator" were not created in 1952....they are in the letters and official documents of the USA and of the founders. Another leftist lie is saying that God was only added to the federal vernacular during the 1950's....Read Lincoln, Washington, Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, you see GOD in their beliefs....Great men who did not represent secularism....like you do mental midget...and how you just HATE that deep down....

These great men believed in SUPERSTITION! They believed in a supernatural source of goodness....right and wrong....NOT secularist theology born from lesser, less brave men like Nietzche, Marx....Oh no!

Once again, your academic laziness and brain damage from psychodelics has left you bitter and wrong.

Spit on any soldiers lately, mental midget?

Oh....and anon at 5:17....Saddam Hussein only had to step down as president of Iraq as given the chance by President Bush and the war would have been avoided.....He did not and he along with other radical islamists have destabalized the region....not our brave men and women who are fighting for freedom of religion and thought....Please try not to be so anti-American....I know it is hard but give it a try.

Night secularists.....who are you praying to tonight?

Olbermann's fans are nuts for believing a word he says. He contradicted himself multiple times in his Moyers interview yet Olbermann's fans insist he's some sort of "truth-teller. Reality bites. So does Karma. Olbermann's days are numbered. Why do you think he's trying to ease out of "news" and back towards sports?

Cee: "Night secularists....who are you praying to tonight."

WOW!....THIS statement has SO much to say about it's author.

And THAT, from the same deluded writer who keeps insisting that the so called "secularists" have some sort of a central "ruling elite".

This absolutely ridiculous assumption that if an EVVIIILLL "secularist" isn't praying to Jesus or The Lord,....then they absolutely MUST be praying to SOMETHING or SOMEONE!

Cee is clearly even more disturbed than I thought.

Is this like when you dopes were certain he wouldn't have his contract renewed?
The more you talk about Olbermann's demise the more successful he gets.
Funny !

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 16, 2007 1:16 PM

Funny. I don't remember reading a SINGLE post from anyone tha claimed they were "certain" Olbyonesidedkanoby wouldn't get his contract renewed. Still clinging to your record of being 100% wrong, I see.

Posted by Sad Really @ 11:57 PM:

"Olbermann's days are numbered"

"Sad", did you bother to look at KO's recent ratings before making that rather absurd post?

If I remember correcty, this "Sad Really" the same poster who called into question the valor of someone else for posting with a name called anonymous, while calling themselves something as revealing as "Sad Really".

I guess the perfesser doesn't know the meaning of "certain."

"The McCarthy era wasn't one of the most sordid periods in American History. It was about the anti-American left."

Wow!

Yet another WHOPPER from our resident history revisionist, Cee.

As someone who has followed history and current events for 40 years, what has astonished me the most is how many younger right wingers have 'learned' and literally swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, an alternate version of history....in SO many areas.

It seems that the truth simply doesn't matter to them. Shaping and re-forming it to fit their own ideology is clearly what matters most to the Cee's of the world.

It is absolutely astonishing to me to read Cee's posts over time proclaiming that everything bad that has ever happened to America in it's long and storied history is a result of the evil "un-American" secularist "left", while everything that was ever good came from the right.

One thing I just never realized until recently was that it was possible to take the established historical record of virtually EVERYTHING, and then twist it all around until everything fits perfectly with someone's fantasy based....black vs white, us vs them, left vs right, conservative vs liberal, God vs "secularists", bad vs good, ....... - utterly deluded worldview.

But then....along came Cee!

black vs white, us vs them, left vs right, conservative vs liberal, God vs "secularists", bad vs good, ....... - utterly deluded worldview.

But then....along came Cee!

Posted by: Mike at December 16, 2007 2:06 PM

What was it you said the other day about saying the same thing over and over again?

TDF!!!

Speaking if history revisionism, I have yet to see anyone on the right comment about presidential press secretary Dana Perino's rather ASTONISHING and SHAMELESS admission last week that she knew nothing about the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis.

Unbelievable ignorance like THAT from people in positions like THAT is probably one good reason for the current rise of wholesale acceptance of history revisionism.

Speaking if history revisionism, I have yet to see anyone on the right comment about presidential press secretary Dana Perino's rather ASTONISHING and SHAMELESS admission last week that she knew nothing about the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis.
Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 16, 2007 2:49 PM

What would you do w/out Olbyonesidedkanoby and media matters?

"What would you do w/out Olbyonesidedkanoby and media matters?

Jeff...playing the "diversion card" again...LOL!

And what exactly did THAT bit of dementia have to do with Dana Perono's mind boggling ignorance of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Sorry, I forgot to add DU and the penile puffers to the 'hack' list. My apologies. Did you happen to catch Huffington in the gov debates a few yrs ago? It was great entertainment!

about the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis.
Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 16, 2007 2:49 PM

What part of 1962 do you not understand? When myself and other posters here post anything that proves you wrong that is more than 1 day old you cry "it's old news." Doesn't 1962 fall in the old news category?

The poster sometimes know as royal king @ 9:35 PM:

"Doesn't 1962 fall into the old news category?"

It doesn't sound like Jeff knows anything about the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis either!

"You probably wouldn't enjoy it. No war. No Americans killed. No opportunity for war profiteers to make themselves stinking wealthy. No opportunity to beat your chest."

However, it WAS probably the most pivotal and scarriest event of the entire Cold War.

But why would Jeff etc care anything about THAT?

Here is proof that you are retarded.
The Cuban Missile Crisis boner comment by the president's press secretary was THIS WEEK'S NEWS.
Maybe Savage didn't cover it. Is that the reason you know nothing about it?
EMR fer sure.

posted by why

Olbyloon spin tactic 101. 1962 was last week......

James Lileks said it best when talking about Keith Olbermann and these accusations:

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/06/0906/092006.html
Posted by: Cecelia at December 9, 2007 2:19 PM

I think I have even more respect for Olbermann after reading this.

From MoJo:

"Washington Dispatch: U.S. casualties are down in Iraq. But a retired Army Colonel argues that the surge and American payoffs to Sunni tribal leaders may eventually backfire—producing more instability and possibly a regional war."

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2007/12/iraq-surge-great-awakening-anbar.html

From the poster sometimes known as royal king @ 1:30 AM:

"Olbyspin spin tactic 101. 1962 was last week...."

Translation: Jeff doesn't know anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis either, ... nor does he know anything about this week's story about it involving the presidential press secretary.

Does anyone know if Fox even mentioned it?

Jeff proves over and over again that Jeff really doesn't know much about anything and Wiener Savage will help insure that he stays that way.

To the source absent replys...especially Mr. blank-FLUCKER's (cue OLD SPICE jingle) cryptic tea example complete with one of his fantacies his wife, Ms. blank-FLUCKER (cue 'Cause I/m a Woman, W-O-M-A-N) has refused him since their fornication days....I simply state....

Prove me wrong.

You cannot....Why? Because you rely on the one method that has proved time and again to be wrong....from geocentric astronomical theory to the current hot topic....human caused global climate change.....

Conventional wisdom.

You are all intellectually lazy to simply rely on the words and opinions of people with an agenda. It is clear not one of you have had a novel thougt...all you do is take someone else's opinion and regurgitate it.

It makes for interesting debates here, but simply put...they are not intellectually challenging....

There was a time on this board when smart people from the left stood up for what they thought with original and thoughtful rebuttal...but the current rank-file seem lacking in intellectual heft.

Oh well....continue with the bogeyman fear conventional wisdom and myopic worldview gents...it does make for more amusing jokes at least....The trio Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle), Mental Midget Professor Honeydew BoBo and Whiney Mike y ("THE NEOCONS ARE COMING!") are this season's children's pagent stumbling "three wise men!"

Cee: "There was a time on this board when smart people on the left stood up for what they thought with original thought and rebuttal."

There was a time on this board when intelligent people on the right actually offered thoughtful, respectful, and original arguments that actually merited thoughtful rebuttals.

Now we're down to the taunters (Cee), name callers (Cee & Company), and the hypocrites (as in the "not one original thought" Cee & Company).

Two of the three wise men have parroted my observation regarding the shallow and narrow degree of thought from the left here....I am eagerly awaiting their academic representative, the vapid Professor Honeydew.

There is much above in my analysis of the course of secular ideology and our nation that remains truly unanswered. But Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle), the same humanitarian that used Toys-for-Tots as a useless argument and Whiney Mikey, who does not realize that there is more to life than being irrationally fearful of neocons, choose to repeat, in error, my very conclusions about their intellectual heft.

Ah, the testicles are back to their usual place....locked away....and the zombies are mindlessly posting their jive....Aw, trained leftist eunuchs are kind of.......boring?

and the zombies are mindlessly posting their jive....Aw, trained leftist eunuchs are kind of.......boring?.....

example at 11:25AM....the ol' cut n' paste a link by our fav eunuch

Cee @ 10:48 AM: "Ah, the testicles are back to their usual place...."

Cee, you 'intellitual lightweight' you.....The more you come on this blog and spit out childish and mindless personal attacks, name calling, along with your usual grade school level taunting, the less likely it becomes that you will receive what you inaccurately claim to be seeking;.....'intelligent debate'.

You see Cee, .....we tend to play up to the level of the competition...or in your case, DOWN to their level.

That said, you are completely wrong (again), .....I don't live in "fear" of Neocons at all, I just detest the damage they have done to my country....to the very core of my being.

The shallowness of your kind of thought is showing through loud and clear right now with three of the top candidates of your own "ruling class'; Romney, Julianne, & Thompson.

Fortunately, .....THIS time, it looks like we're discovering they have no clothes BEFORE they are allowed to become emperor.

Jeff proves over and over again that Jeff really doesn't know much about anything and Wiener Savage will help insure that he stays that way.

Posted by: Mike at December 17, 2007 3:36 AM

The fact that I could care less what a press secretary says means I don't know anything? Your desperation is showing, again. Keep chirping everything the orange faced hack chirps. That actually proves you know nothing.

TDF!!!(*)______-----

RK: "The fact that I could care less what a press secretary says means I don't know anything?"

Not really, more the FACT that every post you've ever made taken collectively.....means you don't know anything.

Lock yourself in the barn, armed to the gums, and wait for Fux Noise or Dr. Weiner's latest marching orders.

Posted by: LOL! The very own W.H. Official Talking head is a moron at December 17, 2007 1:45 PM

This from a helen thomas lover. Sick, indeed.

I like to talk about stool.

Mike, you just cannot keep up. Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle), who now calls himself A N O N .....came to this board about a week ago using his mail-order psych degree to speak of his own masculinity and the lack of others....Oh not good! Coming to an internet site and making such grand conclusions...especially after you proudly mention the use of a hyphenated last name with your wife, just made me chuckle....The progressive man, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) also seems to have difficulty with other strong women on this board even resorting to name calling....oh boy how the imature men change when they are anon on a board!

So, Mike...you do not quite realize how close to the mark I get with the testicle lock-box based on Mr. blank-FLUCKER's projection....which he doen frequently.....You seem eager to join him in this micturition contest so I am starting to think you have the same dilemma with the lovely lady in your life.....'Cause I'm a Woman, W-O-M-A-N!

My level is way above the level either you or the other wise men have displayed in talking to other posters on this site.....way....especially in regards to free thinking and not accepting the conventional wisdom of an elite who manipulates you so easily!

Can someone please explain to me who is blank-Fucker and bovine?

Oh, BYW, before some assume I take a certain "Huckabee-like" attitude towards my lovely wife...I would continue reading the passage from scripture the press and the left are beating him over the head about. and understand the truth Christ would have for a man and woman....

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

###
Oh that's right....Mr. blank-FLUCKER thinks he knows more about acripture than I do....I wonder what he thinks about this idea? Being the "progressive," or is it "liberal?" I suppose such important commands from Christ are lost in his "mass," "ol' Tannenbaum," and other manmade church traditions that have replaced the real, scriptural worship of God.

Cee: "My level is way above the level either you or the other wise men have displayed in talking to other posters on this site....way...."

Sure Cee, you show it every time you mouth a word like "testicles" to refer to someone else's character, ....or every time you call another poster a childish name like "whiney mike", ....or every time you taunt someone about what someone ELSE is or isn't doing, ....or every time you call someone else "un American" because you don't like their viewpoint, ....every time you imply someone ELSE is a traitor because they see a different vision (read better) of America than you do, ....or every time you opine for 'intellectual exchange' while offering none of the kind yourself.

We see what you are, Cee....protesting otherwise changes nothing.

Well Mike...if my characterizations are not accurate, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree....I am just RESPONDING to the immature, unintellectual and vapid posts and expanding on those original ideas to the absurd....especially in the case of the pathetic Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle). You see, when you or he or anyone crosses a line and become personal in the attack, I will gladly play in kind....but I challenge you to find which crossed that line first.....

I enjoy showing the fact that those who THINK they are elite and right are actually frauds. You and the other wise men have shown, especially recently, that you are less than able to defend your opinion or worldview as you always succumb to ignoring arguments and slipping into personal attacks.

How bout that liberal news woman in Philly? Sending racy pics of herself to a married man! Then, getting arrested for punching a cop! Oh, the irony......

"RK: "How bout that liberal news woman in Philly?"

How bout her?

Cee: "But I challenge you to find which crossed that line first."

And I challenge you to find where I crossed that line with you FIRST?

I have been know to RESPOND in kind as well, but RECENT history will show that I have been consistantly repectful to you regarding use of your name...even as you sank lower and lower by using ad hominem personal attacks regarding everything from my name, to attacking my motives, to attacking my patriotism.

I have NOTHING to do with this OTHER guy you keep bringing up...so kindly keep him out of it.

And Cee, once again, I want you to tall me again what my position regarding abortion is?

And more importantly, I want you to tell me why you think you know what it is?

Milke, you were the first to use the ChickenHawk argument and Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) does the same.

Mike, you claim Keith Olbermann is a correct and representative voice in oppositon to The Bush Administration and the neocons....that being your opinion, I would say that my assumptions are correct.
He also has fallen into the Chickenhawk argument even claiming Bush should go and serve in Iraq, himself.

The line crossed in using the ChickenHawk argument is a biggie for me and as soon it is used.....check....I lose ALL respect for the poster and taunt....look at Sir Loin of Beef (Lucy Van Pelt/Milquetoast)...look at you, look at A N O N (Mr. blank-FLUCKER).

The ChickenHawk argument is beyond the pale in ignorance and intellectual fraud. So, my dear Whiney Mike...until you see the argument for what it is, I will continue to be ABSURDEDLY taunting and respond to the argument you and your kind present.

John McCain has not used such a shallow argument against Bush and his behavior should show all veterans how it is to be honorable to your folded uniform and service.

Unrelated....
Wannawipe is a whole other story....he is a relgious bigot supreme and really deserves my absurdity and humor.

This is why Phony Soldier, however repugnant his language, in content has been NO WORSE than you and Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle).

So, you're against abortion, 'mike?'

Well Mike, if you are willing to accept ANY Democrat candidate you are not Pro-Life....You have said time and again that you are voting for any Democrat and all of them are pro-Abortion through the 9th month.

So please educate us all on your position on Abortion.....John McCain is Pro-Life.

I freely admit I know absolutely nothing about "acripture." A Tibetan form of accupuncture?

###
But you know about Pinto Noir as opposed to Pinot Noir.....right Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle)?.....Oh, how is Toys for Tots doing? Did they get a bump in donations from your "honorable" appeal to us all here at OW?

Hey Graeme, my boy.....break out the Pinto Grigio....Mother (Ms. blank-FLUCKER [cue 'Casue I'm a Woman, W-O-M-A-N]), ordered Italian pick-up......AGAIN!

Cee: "Mike, you were the first to use the chickenhawk argument"

Prove it Cee!

Prove I ever did that before you called me "un American" or something worse FIRST?

You can't...because it didn't happen!

That said, giving a general (read failed) philosophy a name based on the REALITY that MOST of it's converts have never themselves personally served their country....is not a personal attack any more than calling a liberal an "elitist" is a personal attack.

I happen to believe having served in the military gives one a very important perspective on reality that can't be obtained elsewhere else.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now lets get back to my position on abortion....Please tell me where I stand on that again?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cee: "So, my dear whiney Mike....I will continue to be ABSURDLY taunting and respond to the argument you and your kind present."

Fine!....Go right ahead, ....after all, you aren't hurting ME by continuing to act childish. You will continue to show yourself to be the vindictive and calculating taunter that I believe most already think of you as. And it will continue to diminish any point you are trying to make.

That said, I became convinced long ago that you are not here to consider new ideas or perspectives.

You are here to try to preach everyone else into submission.

Oh Mike....your memory is very selective....the chickenhawk argument with regards to my support of The Iraq War was yours from the start and deserves my reaction. You have always displayed such arrogance concerning war and is in direct opposition to the way John McCain has acted.

I express my opinion on the war, politics and relgion as I believe. If you disagree fine....but to use the illogical and irreverent chickenhawk argument is no better than the profanity and anger displayed by Phony Soldier.....that was my point all along.

Re: Sudan, wannawipe....look to the other thread.....and you have no sense of humor or irony my dear bigot....that 's what maes you one!

Thanks for making it clear, again.

And Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) arrogantly uses his self-reported service, again, as a crutch in an argument.....

Where are the John McCains?.....Oh boy....Whiney Mike and Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) once aain take away from their own service in arguing against the noble service oters performing now against totalitarianism aroun he world!

No, not sensitive, correct, Mr. blank-Flucker (cue OLD SPICE jingle).....

Independent Lieberman Endorses McCain

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he chose his longtime Senate colleague because he has the best shot of breaking partisan gridlock in Washington. Both men also are strong and vocal supporters of the war in Iraq.

"'On all the issues, you're never going to do anything about them unless you have a leader who can break through the partisan gridlock,' said Lieberman, who was Al Gore's running mate seven years ago. 'The status quo in Washington is not working.'"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071217/D8TJE8EG0.html

Looks like 'mike' won't touch the abortion question out of fear of further exposing himself. Shocker.......

And RK....I don't think the pious lay minister who claims great bibilical knowledge, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) will give us his reasoned opinion on abortion and how it informs his politics, either....

So many contradictions, so little time!

RK: "looks like 'mike' won't touch the abortion argument for fear of further exposing himself. Shocker......."

What in the HELL are you talking about?

Talking straight out of your ass as usual.

Cee brought up the abortion question. I have challenged him THREE times to respond to where he thinks I stand onm the issue? And he keeps ducking the question...even though HE brought it up.

THAT is yet another another example as to why you have NO credibility Jeff.

Cee brought up the abortion question. I have challenged him THREE times to respond to where he thinks I stand onm the issue? And he keeps ducking the question...even though HE brought it up.

###
I said....

"Well Mike, if you are willing to accept ANY Democrat candidate you are not Pro-Life....You have said time and again that you are voting for any Democrat and all of them are pro-Abortion through the 9th month."

Translation....you are not pro-life, Mike....simple enought for you, now?

So, you're against abortion, 'mike?'

Posted by: royal king at December 17, 2007 5:02 PM

Cee on the chickenhawk argument: "Oh Mike, your memory is very selective."

I challenge you once again....prove that I ever called you a "chickenhawk" before you called me "un American".

You can't, because once again, it didn't happen.

Since you can't possibly win THAT argument...how about even showing me where I have called you that RECENTLY, for any reason?.....Even as you consistently kept calling me "whiney mike", "whiney mikey", "un American", and continued posting an out of context quote that you damned well KNEW you has misinterpreted. "Chickenhawk" isn't a word I have used often, and you damned well know it.

You don't have a leg to stand on in this argument Cee. YOU are the ad hominem attack winner....hands down!

C'mon Cee....tell me where I stand on abortion?

What irritates the living crap out of me is that if we take the group of Neo-Cons, as a whole, I suspect it would have one of the lowest if not the lowest percentage of people who have served in the military. Yet, they are the most beligerent and bellicose people in our country. Tremendous war-mongerers, one and all. I have not the slightest respect for one who beats the war drums the loudest when he is doing so from the safety of his recliner. Moreover, the smug "they volunteered, so they face the consequences" attitude that all of the Neo-Cons seem to have chaps the hell out of me.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 17, 2007 5:29 PM

If soldiers were drafted, Capon, you'd no doubt make a mountain of hay out that. It only makes sense that the people you pull this crap against, are going to reply that adults voluntarily enlisted with full knowledge that their service could possibly include the most perilous of circumstances.

So of course that "chaps the hell out of you". It does so because it's the obvious and realistic answer to what is, after all, an assumption laden play, on your part, upon the emotions of others.

I'm not arguing that people who are anti-war don't genuinely feel that our soldiers are being ill-used. The assumption lies in thinking that EVERYONE else does too, but that they don't care because of some partisan agenda. Why else would one bother to do the "chickenhawk" routine, if not that you had already assigned the worst possible motives to your political opponent.

This doesn't facilitate discussion, it's designed to completely short circuit it. It would be better to tell someone that their opinion helps the enemy or that it is unpatriotic or "unamerican"...as both sides do. You can argue that. You can say... "You're wrong because historically", etc... Or "I see our problems as this"...etc..

The "chickenhawk" thing makes for a period in the sentence. There's no where to go from there. It's an appeal to an authority that makes "some" sense when used to enhance someone's credibility due to their experience, but little when used to discredit someone. It's like telling a doctor that she can't specialize in cancer because she's never suffered it or it's like an addict circumventing an intervention by telling everyone they don't know what they're talking about because they aren't a junkie.

Frankly, it's a dishonest ploy and you all need to cut that crap out and approach the subject with a modicum of honesty and fairmindedness if you're going to bother to discuss it.

Cee: "Translation you are not pro-Life, Mike....simple enough for you, now?"

Simple enough....but totally WRONG!

Yes, I AM against abortion!

That said, your logic makes NO sense.

It implies that one's stand on abortion is the ONLY issue on which one might vote. If THAT is the case, why are we even bothering to talk about anything else?

Once again, I voted Republican in 2000. Now why do ya spose I did that?

For some, start unnecessary wars, wreck the treasury, ruin America's standing in the world, let corporations rule, whatever?....Just as long as you're Pro-life!

For me the war and republican dishonesty issue trumps that issue....for now.

That is just another indictation as to how you don't have a CLUE about the mindset of people like me, .... for as much as you THINK you do.

Are you PRO-LIFE, Mike?....not "against abortion," that was my characterization and McCain's position.

Being wishy-washy on that great issue is your choice, but to say John McCain is not Pro-Life is inaccurate.

So, my characterization of you "not pro-life" is likely accurate.....based on your ease of dismissing the issue for such selfish and readily disproved opinions regarding "republicans"....especially when it comes to supporting McCain for President in 2008....

How about you, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle).....got an opinion about abortion?....You have expressed support for Huckabee (Pro-life), and Obama (pro-choice)......take a stand and avoid "the trap" Mr. pious lay minister so knowledgable about the scriptures!

Found it Mike....You joined Sir Loin of Beef (Milquetoast/Lucy Van Pelt), in his attack against me AS A CHICKENHAWK on 1/3/2007....

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3650

I had used an eloquent post by another veteran, MikeW, who defended those who support the troops but did not, or do not serve....Basicly decryng the use of the chickenhawk argument.

Lucy went off on me....you pported his tact.....and from that point on, I finally knew where you were coming from....No "Whieny Mikey" from me then BTW.....that came much later after more juck from you.

So try again....you crossed the line with Lucy (SLOB) almost a year ago.

"based on your ease of dismissing the issue for such selfish and readily disproved opinions regarding "republicans."

There you go again!

Do you REALLY think calling my opinions "selfish" places you on any kind of a high ground? Who in the hell are you to decide whether my opinions are "selfish" or not?

You see where I'm going here Cee?...You're clearly NOT a nice person.

One thing you have to do is completely LOSE your arrogant notion that you can somehow discern the motives of others....You CAN'T!

And for the SECOND time...YES I am PRO-LIFE, and it is not YOUR perogative to pick and choose in what orders my priorities should be....OR what my motives are!

As for "readily disproved"....I beg to differ.

Both abortion and rligion are issues that has been politically hijacked, and never should have been. BOTH sides seem to be using these issues in an obvious attempt to control large blocks of voters. BOTH parites have their fair share of moral failures....and neither trumps the other in that regard.

Cee: "So try again Mike"

Like I said Cee, you had ALREADY called me and my mindset "un American". You did that almost from the very outset.

That said, Instead of delving into ancient history, it might just behoove you to take note of the tone I have used more recently.

Whiney Mike chastises me about judging the motives of people right after Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) does exactly that with regards to judging who deserves the "chickenhawk" argument.

Oh yes.....I remember now....some are capable of making such drastic judgements of people, and some are not....

Some are more equal than others.....a great author once made that observation about the left's thinking.....oh how things NEVER change.

Read MikeW's post about your "chickenhawk argument", Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle)....your arrogance may take a useful hit.

Read the thread from 1/3/2007, Mike....it is clear what SLOB was doing there right from the start....and he did not serve in the military either!.....you joined him in that tact as I was addressing his opinion as anti-American....a difference, BTW, compared to "unAmerican."

You push that chickenhawk argument at your own preil.....look how Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) dances on the head of a pin in his intolerance of people (arrogant judgement), while he says I don't change my mind?!? Pot/kettle moment!

Oh my....the left elite's attitude shown on easy display here at OW!

Jeez. I think 'whiney 'mike' fits perfect. He calls and has called everyone who disagrees w/him all kinds of names,including un-American,but, when it comes back around at him, looook out! Whaaaa, whasaaa, whaaaaa!

Sorry Cee, I don't see much difference in the terms "un American" and "anti American".

Anyone who said either to my face might find themselves picking up their teeth one by one.

From the 1/2/2007 thread.....

Bob,

Your fatuous (look it up) and sniveling query about who would go to fight from some of the families of the commenters here leads me to respond. My younger brother has fought in this war in Ramadi (returned this year). Also, between my father and all three of his sons, we now have four separate combat tours and an expeditionary tour (one step below committed combat) under our belts (mixed in a current 75+ years of military service and counting). Now, the fact is that all of us returned from those tours, so we're fortunate. But, the fact is that we did serve and did go whether or not we wanted to. Why? We all felt that it was our duty as citizens of this great country. So quit being so snarky and self serving with your commentary about this issue, especially if you personally haven't served in our military in a wartime setting. Too many people on here would simply ask whether you had the fortitude to do national meaningful service for your countrymen. Most of those serving now believe that what they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is absolutely necessary for the long term national interests and security of our country. Maybe they are just that much more prescient than are you. I certainly do not believe that they are patsies or mere tools, and they don't see it that way either.

Fortunately, none in my family had to go to combat during our previous Commander in Chief's tenure -- thank God for that. Frankly, not many soldiers (including me) had any respect at all for him as a man or as the President - but we would have gone to war, because it was our responsibility and duty to do so (see above about service to the country) (as so many of my fellow soldiers did in Kosovo, Bosnia, etc - and none of those countries had even the potential to be detrimental to our national security). I know of many soldiers who tore up their certificates of retirement from the military simply because it was signed by President Clinton.

Mike,

Except for a shared name, we clearly do not agree on much given your screeds above. First, you talk about 3000 wasted lives. Did you personally know any of those persons killed? Unless you did and they personally told you they felt their lives were going to be wasted, then you have no idea whether their lives were wasted. So get off of your mem about there being no apparent reason for their deaths. Only history will bear that out and from what we all see form a lot of what is written about in history, it's all from the perspective of the winner. As for me, I will take my cue from my brother (see above). He never waivered in telling me he felt his tour there was absolutely necessary, that he saw great honor in being there to aid in the mission. In fact, he specifically reenlisted there (and our reenlistment rates for units in combat are impressively high) knowing full well that it could mean he is deployed yet again. By the way, many of our wounded personnel are also quite capable of caring for themselves and do not desire any assistance. Why? Because they have ingrained in them the concepts and thoughts that they are responsible citizens determined to be independent. Maybe there are too many of us who in the long run are more "able bodied" than they will be, but I guarantee you they are better prepared for life than far too many of their fellow citizens. Learn from that, please! Bottom line about this is: Do NOT pretend that you can speak for any of these military members or their families (as you've intimated in your putrid commentary). You cannot. You don't have the foundation or the right, regardless of any rights to free speech you have. That goes for you, too, Bob! Bye now.

Posted by MikeW at January 3, 2007 2:59 PM

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3649

Cee: "Read the thread from 1/3/2007".....I'd rather read the threads fro 12/2007.

Cee: "it is clear what SLOB was doing there right from the start".....Can't you discuss what has occurred between you and I, without bringing someone ELSE into it?....Just ONCE?

And this, on the same thread about the war, was another gem in response to Keith Olbermann's SPECIAL COMMENT...

I love how keith started his spiel talking about how bush has wrongly sacraficed American soildiers. While that may be ture seeing as we should not have gone there in the first place, doesn't keith relize that in order to save American lives we will have to sacrafice Iraqi lives? If we pull out it will be nothing but death and destruction across Iraq, and dont give me that crap about how there already is, because you goddamn well know it would be a thousand times worse when Shittes begin massivly exterminating Sunnis and then turn on eachother in the subsequent power grab. American soldiers are, regretably, the thin line between slow and deadly progress, and absolute chaos.

It sickens me that the same people who cry for the children of Darfur are more than willing to throw Iraqi children to the dogs. It is unexcusable how the right have failed thus far in Iraq, but it is absolutly UNFORGIVABLE how left-wingers now wish to make Iraq pay the price for our failures. As Colin Powell said, "We broke it", and now we must pay the price. It is our responsibility.

Those on the left may feel as though they can allieviate themselves from this responsibility by calling it "Bush's War", as Korea was "Truman's War". But remember, Get rid of Bush, and Iraqis will still be dying. Get rid of Republicans, and Iraqis will still be dying. Pull out the troops, and Iraqis will still be dying, only now they will be dying for nothing. Not for a government, nor for a hopeful future. They will be dying only to perserve thousands of years of ethnic hatred and to perserve a status quo that has made that region of the world the hotbed for violence and atrocity that it is to this day.

I truly hope bush calls for heavy sacrafice, for too long we have treated this war like a nuisance and ignored the real sacrafices that need to be made to help Iraq. Iraq needs more money, more infrastructure, more equipment for its soldiers, more of our soldiers, and just an overall greater commitment from America. Call it "Bush's war" if you want, but remember that it was the United States of America that invaded Iraq, and its about damn time we started acting like it. Those lives in Iraq are on us. That blood is on us and we owe it to Iraqis to give them everything we can to try and make it better regardless of the cost. We started this war; "we broke it"; its on us. We can not throw those people to the dogs by CHOOSING failure. We must either succeed, or have failure thrust upon us. Either way, we will have done our best.

Sacrafice, Kieth. We owe them that much.

Posted by Hawkeye Guy at January 3, 2007 2:46 PM

Leave it to Cee to deflect away from the point of this entire discussion....That he began calling me and my ideas "un American" or "anti American", well before I ever called him a "chickenhawk', which is something I never denied doing. I simply stated I didn't use the term often and I believe I've refrained from using it recently.

Sorry, Cee...But, you haven't uncovered an excuse to keep using childish taunting and mis-monilkers in place of the intelligent and respectful debate you claim to crave.

My attitude towards you Mike changed when you sided with the nonserving leftist creep, Sir Loin of Milquetoast....read the thread last January and see the interaction.....Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) in his various false names (I don't remember them all), also likes that weak argument.

Sorry if your allies on this site get you into trouble, but in joining in on their flame wars...you set yourself up....I have never joined Phony Soldier in his attacks....and my observation that his profanity and style is no worse than what Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) and you have posted lately in no way means I endorse his point-of-view....But the arrogance of you and Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) makes you an easy target, combined with the chickenhawk ploy.

So, I will leave it at that.....I hope my blatant endorcement of MikeW's and Hawkeye Guy's eloquent posts speaks for itself.

Posted by MikeW at January 3, 2007 2:59 PM

Cee, 'mike' or philby won't read that post. It proves their arguments on the war have absolutely no merit. 'mike' even admitted he won't read it. Very telling.

Worth re posting....

Jeez. I think 'whiney 'mike' fits perfect. He calls and has called everyone who disagrees w/him all kinds of names,including un-American,but, when it comes back around at him, looook out! Whaaaa, whasaaa, whaaaaa!

Keep reposting old posts Cee....and I just might have to name you after some others who are famous for doing the same thing (NO, I wouldn't do that to YOU!).

However, now that you've dredged up this old Hawkeye Guy post, keep in mind that he was not exactly in complete agreement with you either.

He expressed the 'we broke it and therefore must fix it' mentality. That was always the pro war crowds BEST argument.

YOU, on the other hand, have expressed an undying love and admiration for all things Bush all along.

That would have to included his call for us to "go shopping" instead of sacrifice, ....his zeal for lowering YOUR taxes even as we fight a war we cannot afford, ....and his going to great lengths to hide the sacrifices made by the few from the majority.

If you could have EVER acknowledged that the man who got us into this mess under false pretenses is NOT a hero!...Just once damnit!...We might have had a little more common ground than we have in some of our disagreements.

The traits Bush has shown in getting us involved in this debacle, and his lack of competence in execution of same, are anything BUT the traits of a gear leader...BUT you have repeatedly proclaimed how much you admire this man.

Jeff, you have this putred knack for dragging EVERY discussion down a peg or two.

It's beyond me why you would have taken so much pride in that childish and INCORRECT post you made at 7:07 PM AGAIN, .... but you're psyche is a mystery to more than just me.

That said, show me where I have been guilty of calling other posters "all kinds of names" recently?

My 7:07 post was very accurate, 'mike.' I like how you throw in 'recently.' Gives you that little bit of wiggle room you so much depend on. You'll claim, if it was beyond yesterday, it doesn't count, like patsy and why use all the time? Reminds me of the 1962 Cuban missle crisis.................lol!

I hope anyone following today's discussion between Cee and I noticed what occured:

Cee had to dredge something up from JANUARY in order to give the illusion of having made a point even though his 'point' never answered my challenge to him to 'show me where I called him a chickenhawk before he called me "un American".

He couldn't....so he didn't!

Instead, he chose to go into semantics over the difference between "un American" and his ADMITTED use of the "Anti American" insult, of which I see NO distinction whatsoever.

Also, if this so called Doctor REALLY doesn't see any difference between someone who uses profanity laced gutter langauge and stereotype based put downs, ..... and someone who finds ways of making their points AND responding without resorting to those kinds of tactics, .....then he certainly has NO claim to the moral high ground he keeps trying to claim.

"Reminds me of the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis........LOL."

I'm pretty convinced that most everyone else thinks your missing the whole point about THAT discussion is whats REALLY funny!

Jeff: "I like how you throw in "recently". Gives you that little bit of wiggle room."

Trust me Jeff, it isn't about "wiggle room". It's about keeping you from going all the way back to last Winter or Spring to find a post where I've called someone a name.

If you and Cee want to argue that name calling is 'JUST' as bad as NOT name calling....then go ahead....but you both look pretty damned silly in the process.

Unlike you, I learn from my mistakes....thus my usage of words like "recently".

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

Jeff: "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle."

THATS the thing about you Jeff, EVERY one of your posts are designed simply to try to irritate your opposition, ..... but never to explore ideas.

I think you see this whole blog as a game. Nothing more than a way to try to antagonize your "enemies" by doing exactly the thing you think will irritate them the most.

Rest assured that among everyone on this blog, I value your opinion right down there with "Phony" as having the least value.

Wasted, Cee's utterly ridiculous argument that the tactics "Phony" uses are as bad as mine and others could just as easily apply to his own, even when he ISN'T name calling himself.

That would include the cynical manner in which he uses words like "selfish" or "politically based" to describe someone else's motives.....As if there just COULDN'T possibly be a noble motive for something he disagrees with.

The only time I would tell Phony Soldier to shut up is if my son was sitting in a barber shop and he was cursing like that in front of him.....The adults who decide to come here, I assume, can make such judgements and move along to another site if Phony Soldier's words disturd their sensitivities.

I am not a nanny here at OW....I said I do not endorce Phony Soldier's views....I do however, when addressed directly or when my opinion is attacked, will gladly defend it.....with a different style than Phony's

So wasted....trying to pigeon-hole me like some Pharicee or Priest is a diversion. Just like the red herring about war and peace in a fallen world where "Christian Values" would demand every follower of Christ be a pacifist, is illogical....What Christ preached has nothing to do with how fallen man acquires power over his fellow be it economically or militarily....he preached God's love and desire for relationship with His creation and the fruits of that process.

My religious beliefs in how they influenced The United States as a nation, in a positive way, is a subject frequently discussed...by not my motivation alone, BTW....or when it comes to scientific experimentation (ethics) or other political issues....including the war.

I find contradictions in those who use some scripture to chastise me but ignore other passages....I would love to discuss that one with you! Let's say Christ's admoniation about the poor or turning the other cheek (favorites of progressives) but the "progressive" ignoring His teachings about divorce, eternal salvation, creation, and heterosexual monogamy.

Cee, you conveniently forget that "Phony Soldier's" schtik also includes blatant racism, homophobia, and endless negative stereotypes of his so called "enemies".

It goes FAR beyond profanity and raunchiness....but YOU profess to have NO problem with any of that as long as no children are around?

That speaks volumes about YOU!

"I am not a nanny here at OW....I said I do not endorse Phony Soldier's views"

###
Do I need to translate it again, Whiney Mike?

Oh, I guess because I don not say, "Stop that Phony" everytime he posts means I agree with him...sorry, wrong again.

I have stated clearly what I believe....it is what is contained in that little black book called the bible.....Phony knows it, you know it, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) knows it and wannawipe knows it.

Guess who ridicules me? There is enough time wasted defending myself from wannawipe, mental midget and you....especially today.

Oh, and when Phony Soldier's targets of ridicule cannot defend themselves, I will intervene....Let's just say that those he has attacked with profanity, racism, homophobia and the rest have been prefectly capable of putting down his tactics.....some choose to, some ignore him....

Are they guilty of endorsing his point of view as well?

I don't think you would make that argument.

Cee: "Because I do not say, "stop that Phony", means I agree with him...sorry wrong again."

No one said that and you know it.

You made the statement that MY tactics, which unlike his, rarely includes name calling, doesn't include raunchiness, never includes racism or homophobia, and never includes economic or sexual stereotypes...is just as bad as his.

THAT was as absurd a statement as you have ever made.

By THAT logic, then YOUR tactics, which DOES include consistant and uncalled for name calling, political stereotypes, taunting, and impunement of motives.....must be worse that "Phony's".

Now, back to my original point that has been proven: You came on this blog just this morning whining that you can no longer find "intellegent" debate, while ignoring your own hypocrisy in the knowledge that you haven't done a thing yourself to invite such an adult response.

In other words, you act like a child on this blog...and yet you expect an adult response.

What up with that?

I posted articulate and logical arguments regarding the origin of our nation's values and the facts behind the religious convictions of the founders and the majority of the population.....

look at the responses....personal vindictive against me only...no debate by the professor (WHY) and you, Mike....Oh and the third person flame from the site's hypocritical elitist, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle).....

That was the reason for the observation....then you all parroted it.....

Oh, I see Cee, you're doing THAT again!

Taking ONE post out of hundreds and implyng that ONE post defines the individual poster, .... just like you did by going back to January and citing an angry RESPONSE from me that was at least partially motivated by disgust at continually being called "anti-American" or "un American" by someone who had not even served himself.

Yes Cee, you made me angry more than once in those early days, ... however, you've pretty much lost your power to do that any more.

Sorry but comparing THAT kind of a situation to what "Phony" does every day is an disingenuous as it gets.

I think I'll refrain from insulting this person any more. He may have suffered brain trauma.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 17, 2007 9:34 PM

This spew from a person that has made some of the sickest posts ever on this blog. Ironic? Indeed. Too many dead head concerts?

What we've got here is a failure to communicate.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 17, 2007 10:09 PM

Is that what an olbypologist calls making sick sexual oriented posts, 'communicating?' I feel sorry for your significant other, if there is one.

"In other words, SOMETHING (God) created everything, but nothing created God."

I remember well the answers I used to get when I asked questions like that as a kid:...."Son, there are things we just aren't supposed to understand"!

No, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle)......irony is your post (about the republican sinners who are no worse than you and me, but who are not pious, arrogant self-rightous progressives, like you), right after the common flaw of faith was posted by Wasted...

"I would summarize by saying that I believe the Bible to be a great work. I also know what I see and feel, and hold my own experiences in high regard as well. Do unto others as you'd have done unto you. Everything else is secondary."

###
Faith in God is the first step and then everything else is secondary. The fault of every sinner is not remembering that fatal flaw of the fallen human being, dear Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle).

It is the consistent call from The Torah, through the prophets and from the lips of The Messiah, Himself.

That is true irony....too bad you did not realize it after your inane, off-subject post.

And too bad you can't get past your Sunday sermon to the real truth back in The Torah.....not only to Isaiah, BTW.....read it again....who knows what God has in store for you, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle).

As in the Iraq War, you've narrowed the people you think credible in discussing Vietnam, down to those people who agree with you and to those people who have served and therefore compel some sort of nod from you.

For soldiers who support either war, that "nod" is nothing more than your saying that you respect their service, and agree to cordially disagree.

To many other people who back either war and haven't joined up, you have nothing but contempt for their motives.

The illogical assumption you make here is that those who taken a stand against either war, do so out of the purest of motives. Their's is a "principled" stand...

It doesn't seem to occur to you that perhaps the openly hostile draft dodgers of the Vietnam Era were hostile because they didn't wish to fight... Perhaps those folks hostile to the war in Iraq now, disdain it because it has interrupted their lives in some way too. A relative in the service who was deployed, a business owner suffering the loss of employees.

We don't know. But do know that to AUTOMATICALLY assume any self-interest is to unfair. We don't know if your opposition to the war comes out of some self-interest or whether or not Cee, who may reckon himself to be more needed in his own community, is acting solely out of self-interest.

Now I don't expect you to be fair or to be logical. You've never shown an inkling of that tendency and have only shown a stealthy gamesman disdain for conservatives and for this site.

However, I will bother to argue that calling opponents Chickenhawks because they aren't rushing out to enlist, is merely an ad hominem. It makes as much sense as someone suggesting that anyone critical of FEMA is automatically morally obligated to fulfill the duties of FEMA... in a way that would go beyond the basic societal understanding (including the understanding of the congress and the Pentagon...) of voluntarily doing all that you feel you can do.

Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) is a reasonable guy.....a few questions....

What does "sacrafice" mean....Has it something to do with not using the good gin on Christmas Eve for you guests so you have it to help Ms. blank-FLUCKER's (cue 'Cause I'm a Woman, W-O-M-A-N)hangover the day after?

Does forcing your beliefs on others include social welfare programs that "gives the fish but does not teach fishing?" This is, afterall, what Mr. blan-FLUCKER's (cue OLD SPICE jingle) friend LBJ and the modern Democratic party has done for the last 40 years and has resulted in the total erosion of the family unit and produced the biggest reliance on government the world has ever seen.

Does Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) have evidence that I fit his prejudiced view of a wealthy selfish conservative who does not have any compassion for his fellow brothers and sisters?

Does Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) have evidence of bloodthirst on my part?

Does Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) not use his own broad brush and should he consider not throwing the stones from his crystal cathedral?

Does Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) know Pinot from Pinto?

Actually, Capon, I've read very little "disdain" for the "have-nots" on this board (I'm excluding, of course, your frequent references to poverty and ignorance as appellations against political enemies).

I have read arguments about the unintended consequences of no-strings-attached largess from the cold distant magistrate.

As to individual rights, we can allow individual schools, in individual communities, the right to decide whether they will pray at graduation ceremonies or teach creationism along side evolution...or we can conscript the entire population into involuntary military service.

Believe it or not...some people might very sincerely... and with the best intentions... differ on which of these constitutes an abridgement of freedom...

Amen, Cecelia...thank you for pointing out the clear contradictions of some "libertarian" or "liberal" posters who claim the only usurpers of freedom come from the right....

Some ideology is indolent in its effect on freedom.

The amuzing part of it all is that Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) believes he cannot impose his values on others yet....

He backs mandatory civil/military service (as do I).

He backs federal programs to "help" the less fortunate which only can function by mandating the population to participate through their taxes.

Well....there is a balance in my opinion....somethings are right and must be imposed by an authority and somethings are up to the individual within the four walls of their home.....

including the responsibility to do all they can, with the gifts provided to them by God, to provide for themselves and those dependent on them along with their untouchable rights given by God....

The first one being life (what about abortion, Mr. blank-FLUCKER [cue OLD SPICE jingle]...is respect of life a value you may not impose on others in your "system?")

I have great compassion and express it through concrete action....I find it disturbing that Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) is so arrogant to believe conservatives automatically do not care.....There are many examples that show the exact opposite in the connection of political affiliation and volunteerism/charitable giving....but I will leave it at that.

As the blank-FLUCKER family (cue EDELWEISS, EDELWEISS) gathers for their northern European traditions, that are as inclusive and universal to the human soul as Sony's BetaMax, I hope they all contemplate their daddy's flagrant hypocrisy, arrogance and judgemental spirit which has no more connection to the season than does "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer."

"The hell with both of them!"

Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) December 18 8:59 PM

###
Now on top of last night's kindness, that8:39AM post is wonderful, dude!

Keep up the good work, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle)!

Another question.....

"Your bossom body"

What does that mean.....Is it a complement to Cecelia or another slip into your Austrian Alps fantasy?.....

(cue EDELWEISS, EDELWEISS)

What a putz.

Notice Jeff didn't respond. He's wondering if you included his constant companion, his beloved bovine, as part of the invitation. He never goes anywhere without her.

Posted by: at December 19, 2007 7:56 PM

Are you sure about that?
Even when he is without his cow, I've seen Jeff with various other livestock.

There was an episode of "Cheaters" where they filmed him in night vision walking the beach with a sheep. Of course they had to blur out the scene where he romantically "took" the sheep near the pier. The sheep didn't look to be having a good time either. I guess we're dealing with a serial bestialitist.

The last two comments on this thread are proof positive that at least two of OW's self idolizing and so called 'progressives' here are very sick and twisted individuals at the very least.

As a mother and grandmother I have reams of material from my sons and grandchildren that I treasure and share with friends and family whether they are interested or not.

No doubt you two make sure your mothers and grandmothers have all the copies of your finest moments here at OW so they they can pass them around and proudly proclaim:

THOSE ARE MY BOYS!

NO ONE HAS A FINER PEDIGREE IN OR A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLEXITIES AND FINER POINTS OF BESTIALITY THAN THEY DO!

You two are nothing more than one SICKO PERVERT feeding off another SICKO PERVERT!

Perhaps I am too harsh on your mothers and grandmothers though.

It could be that your mothers and grandmothers wouldn't touch either one of you with a ten foot pole. If you had any kinship to me I certainly would disavow you and consider a ten foot pole allowing much too much intimacy with you and your ilk.

Grammie

Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, I bow to your obvious expertise and experience in those matters relevant to 'breeding stock' and Britney Spears' mother.

You have the podium.

Do enlighten us!

Grammie

Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, I know generally who 'Britney' is but nary a clue to this 'Jamie' person you so intimately mention.

And what does that have to do with your obvious expetrise in those matters relevant to 'breeding stock'?

I would not have brought it up without your making an issue of 'breeding stock' in your 8:13 comment.

I have already acknowledged your superiority in breeding stocks and Britney's mother so why won't you shower us with your your full flower of knowledge?

You should remember that YOU are Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker and I and others here are mere ignorant vessels waiting to be filled from your munificence

Grammie.

Grammie

Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, you can cry from the rooftops that "This is not made up." allyou want and however long you want to. I'm all for you screaming out whatever you want to LOUD and LONG.

Your comments have been a diversion to some point. You have not, though, answered the question I raised:

"Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, I bow to your obvious expertise and experience in those matters relevant to 'breeding stock' and Britney Spears' mother.

You have the podium.

Do enlighten us!"

My dear Capon, I am all ears for the expertise that your comment promised re 'breeding stock' and Britney Spears' mother.

How long does it take for you to reach a climax and spew forth an answer?

Grammie

Just remember, Grammie....under the eltitist Mr. blank-FLUCKER's (cue OLD SPICE jingle) moral paradigm regarding out of wedlock births are to not be announced in the paper but kept quiet in the suburban upper-middle class Tutor under lock and key....this shows great class and breeding.....

Telling Buffy and Nate the child suffers horribly from migraine headaches, needs solitude and darkness right now and will be going to Vail for 4 months come January 1 also tells all the class one is in!

Oh those hicks....having out of wedlock children....their breeding! What about eugenics!

No!

Rolling eyes here....

Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) was just telling us all the other day about good conservatives and bad conservatives....

An aspect of a bad conservative is someone who believes "something" and believes that they can tell other people that "something" is right.

An aspect of a good conservative is someone who, while believing something, does not feel they have the right to tell other people what to do.....

I have observed Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) just provide us with the alternative at 10:10AM.....

Judge people without grace....this is Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) to a "T."

Cee, I don't know if you saw any of the two late night comments that I responded to.

#################
"There is a significant other, thanks for asking. She is beautiful in fact.
Are you busy Dec. 22nd? We're having a big XMas party and would love it if you could make it.
Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 17, 2007 11:16 PM

Notice Jeff didn't respond. He's wondering if you included his constant companion, his beloved bovine, as part of the invitation. He never goes anywhere without her.
Posted by: at December 19, 2007 7:56 PM

Notice Jeff didn't respond. He's wondering if you included his constant companion, his beloved bovine, as part of the invitation. He never goes anywhere without her.

Posted by: at December 19, 2007 7:56 PM

Are you sure about that?
Even when he is without his cow, I've seen Jeff with various other livestock.

There was an episode of "Cheaters" where they filmed him in night vision walking the beach with a sheep. Of course they had to blur out the scene where he romantically "took" the sheep near the pier. The sheep didn't look to be having a good time either. I guess we're dealing with a serial bestialitist.
##########################

It just sickened me so I responded:

"The last two comments on this thread are proof positive that at least two of OW's self idolizing and so called 'progressives' here are very sick and twisted individuals at the very least.

As a mother and grandmother I have reams of material from my sons and grandchildren that I treasure and share with friends and family whether they are interested or not.

No doubt you two make sure your mothers and grandmothers have all the copies of your finest moments here at OW so they they can pass them around and proudly proclaim:

THOSE ARE MY BOYS!

NO ONE HAS A FINER PEDIGREE IN OR A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLEXITIES AND FINER POINTS OF BESTIALITY THAN THEY DO!

You two are nothing more than one SICKO PERVERT feeding off another SICKO PERVERT! .........

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at December 20, 2007 7:23 AM"
######################

As we all can see our pious, compassionate and loving lay minister Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker immediately diverted to Britney Spears (the love of his life?) and her mother.

What does the Monsieur know about sheep, bovines and bestiality that compels him to such a response?

That is a rhetorical question, BTW.

I have no desire for any images that could be conjured up from his or his compatriots' psych.

Grammie

My dear Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, I raised this question several times:

"Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, I bow to your obvious expertise and experience in those matters relevant to 'breeding stock' and Britney Spears' mother.

You have the podium.

Do enlighten us!
Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, I bow to your obvious expertise and experience in those matters relevant to 'breeding stock' and Britney Spears' mother.

You have the podium.

Do enlighten us!"

And after much moaning, groaning and deep sighs from you you finally produced this blank:

#######################
"But, bestiality is not limited to people who make (or laugh) at jokes about Johnnie-Jeff and his proclivity for intimate relationships with farm animals. It also includes those who view the sole purpose of human sexuality as a flight of fancy, who pop out human babies as if they were merely side effects. Bestiality also includes those who view human sexuality as something less than a wondrous sacrament.

I am sure this is well over you, and I do sincerely apologize for that.
Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 20, 2007 10:10 AM"
########################

Finally, a definitive statement from Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker about bestiality. Of course he never has informed us of his intimate knowledge of 'breeding stock' and Britney's mother which began this question much earlier tonight.

In context with the earlier two posts I referenced and this answer from Capon it's close enough.

So what are this egalatarian's progressive liberal standard bearer's edicts?

#########################
"........bestiality is not limited to people who make (or laugh) at jokes about Johnnie-Jeff and his proclivity for intimate relationships with farm animals"
###########################

So bestiality is not limited to those who Capon and his cohorts simply declare or joke about here. Isn't that special.

However, it can apply to any of us who 'breed' and don't meet Capon's standards. As he said:

######################
"......pop out children like a Dr. Pepper machine (children who are viewed as commodities and neglected when they are perceived as more trouble than they are worth), who live lives that a mother cat would not approve of, then that mother is a miserable failure who has enabled her children to view sex as wholly recreational, children who are little more than wild animals."
######################

There is not much guidance from Capon on this point although I must say that I have never had an affinity for Dr Pepper machines.

I am so worried now. I have always preferred Coke to Dr Pepper. Will that be enough to eventually consign my children and grandchildren to Capon's ash heap while he and his progeny are sipping Pinot Gris?

Grammie

I think Capon is just appalled that Britney and not-Britney hadn't been discretely encouraged by their mother to take the pill and therefore spare the family the embarrassment that has ensued.

Capon has told us that he sighed in relief when told by his wife that their daughter was practicing the "wondrous sacrament" in a manner that wouldn't result in bringing any sort of public disgrace or the bloody intrusion and general usurpation of little rug-rats.

His shock and disgust that after the Spears girls' dehumanization of a divine act, these very rich women then decided to foist the little packages onto...humanity.... is almost palpable. One wonders if perhaps he's scandalized by the fact they didn't immediately do the civilized thing by calling the abortionist.

Not that his other points shouldn't be well-taken by us too... Grandmothers and mothers are not the paragons they're cracked up to be, if this crap can go down when there's piles of money lying around. And goodness knows grandmothers and mothers are surefire non-sacred targets for malevolent partisanship if they happen to be from small southern towns with small countrified non-progressive values. THEN they are mere "sacred cows", indeed...and clearly ripe prey. Too long have we been duped to believe otherwise...he says as he circles...

You see Capon is actually championing values by comparing two teen queens surrounded by vast treasure, yes-men, and a ten ring circus....to the values crowd and the superficial values of THOSE people....

Grandmothers, mothers, whoevah... best get yourselves outta of the damn way...

Just remember Cec....at least you are a good conservative in Mr. blank-FLUCKER's (cue OLD SPICE jingle) world.....he has envisioned you in that Austrian Alps setting singing Rogers and Hammerstein....you are the "right kind."

Don't stray now....Grandma blank and Grandma-ma FLUCKER won't invite you back for Earl Gray and gossip.

Cecelia:

Out of all the vile, wicked things you have hurled at me, this is perhaps the worst. I truly resent it.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 20, 2007 1:39 PM

Oh, well....

Just remember Cec....at least you are a good conservative in Mr. blank-FLUCKER's (cue OLD SPICE jingle) world.....he has envisioned you in that Austrian Alps setting singing Rogers and Hammerstein....you are the "right kind."

Don't stray now....Grandma blank and Grandma-ma FLUCKER won't invite you back for Earl Gray and gossip.

Posted by: cee at December 20, 2007 1:41 PM

Evidently, I must have reminded him of that poor homely girl he deigned to dance with in order to amuse his fraternity brothers.

He's springboarded a desire to look manly in front of the lads into something he considered to be a personal management technique... :D

Cecelia:

I can't help it if I've always been a babe magnet. Belief, short of sacraficing personal hygiene, I've tried everything. I can actually recount numerous times I have had to run to my car to shake off a plethora of babes try to rip at a portion of my shirt or trying to steal a kiss. It's a curse for a man who loves only one woman. Believe me.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 20, 2007 2:07 PM

Capon, you stop paying them... they go away... Guaranteed...

Wrong again, Cecelia. Back in my bachelor days when we disgusting guys would go to strip bars, the girls would take bills out of their G-strings and give them to me.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 20, 2007 2:45 PM

And that worked for them? You left the premises?

Wrong again, Cecelia. Back in my bachelor days when we disgusting guys would go to strip bars, the girls would take bills out of their G-strings and give them to me.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 20, 2007 2:45 PM

Had to have been a gay bar.

Cecelia, your reading comprehension is going to hell. I just told you babes chase me when I am getting in my car.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 20, 2007 2:54 PM

I get it now. They finally had to chase you out of the place.

I hope you don't print this off and read it to your grandkids.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 20, 2007 6:50 PM

Are you still crying about that?

Mike,

Now, do a little thinking here. Patsy is not happy about being accused of posting as Phony Solider See below:.

if you think "Patsy" posted

Posted by: Phony Soldier at December 7, 2007 1:14 PM

you're a total Hag-zilla.

Totally full of shit.
Posted by: OK, moron paranoid BovineQueen! at December 7, 2007 2:08 PM
____________________________

Johnnie-Jeff, do you understand what the word "context" means? Geez, why bother?
Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 2:42 PM

Come back to bed, Johnnie-Jeff.

Its time to felch.
Posted by: Phony Soldier at December 7, 2007 2:45 PM
__________________________
Now, you know who calls RK Johnnie Jeff. So, I ask you, think logically now. Do you think Wasted Keystrokes (who admitted posing as Phony Solider) was using the Johnnie- Jeff reference to make it appear like he was
ANON? Or is ANON (Flucker) so flucked up that he forgets what name he is using? What do you think- "person who uses the name Bovine because I don't know what the heck else to call you"- about the situation?

I'll be waiting for your response.

Bwahahaha. What would be really crazy if I cared one bit what a jerk on the internet believes. You spend your life here doing what? Discussing bestiality! Oh please save me Anonymous.

Sick puppy? Grab a mirror. Why don't you just ignore me? It must be obvious to everyone that you are right. Oh, but you can't do that, can you? I guess you just bring out the worst in people.

How about you stop referencing me unless you have something decent to ask or discuss directly, and I'll be sure to stay out of your way. If not, then my "craziness" just might kick in.

Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, you seem to be deteriorating rapidly now.

On another thread you only misspelled 'bosom'. You have regressed here to misspelling both 'bosom' and 'buddy'.

Do tell us what a "bossom budy" is!

Grammie

Sharon, I do think that the real Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker just stood up and exhibited to the world what he truly is with this:

".......Rest assured, I'll do what I damn well want to do.
Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 20, 2007 10:08 PM"

How sad. For a while I thought we had a genuine urbane sophisticated cognoscenti here to enlighten up.

It seems that his camouflage finally burst after straining so mightily against his true persona.

Grammie

Sharon,

If your theory is true, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Buyer beware when it comes to all these clowns.

So your children will be well rounded exactly how?
Homeschooling children turn into misfits of society.

Posted by: at December 20, 2007 11:25 PM

Too bad for all those great thinkers born prior to the nineteenth century...

I don't think Sharon's kids will be competing for jobs with anyone from the 19th century. They'll be competing with people who have all the resources that homeschooling a child can't have.Not to mention the educational/socialization factor.
I wonder how many of those brilliant asian kids we see in such large numbers in our best universities were home schooled ?
My guess: Probably very few, if any.

Posted by: at December 20, 2007 11:40 PM

Aside from your knowing little about the resources available to home schoolers, you might want to look at how well public school kids stand up next to those Asian students. As well as how much time Asian parents spend teaching their own kids while they're at home.

Oh dear, I am so sorry that you don't understand the historical record here at OW and that lacking that perspective I may have inadvertently caused you (whoever you are) some distress.

I would not ordinarily bring up such trivia but you must understand that Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker and his previous persona, Mrs Adrian R Phillby, has been our stalwart Professor Emeritus in charge of edicatin us ignirint rednecks in reeding and riting.

With that in mind you surely will understand my dismay that lead me to question the master about his multiple errors.

Grammie

As a mere neophyte I can not interpret this from you:

"Sorry for the misspellings and typographical errors, Mrs. Hawkins.It was windy, and I took my contacts out on the golf course. I should have put them back in."

In my former unenlightened life I would have said WTF are you talking about you A$$HOLE?

But today I have a vague understanding now that windy golf courses are so insurmountably daunting that even you might get blown off course.

I feel so much better to have been able to wend my way through such complexities.

Grammie

Excerpt from a synopsis (didn't read the book but plan to)

"More than one million American children are schooled by their parents. As their ranks grow, home schoolers are making headlines by winning national spelling bees and excelling at elite universities. The few studies conducted suggest that homeschooled children are academically successful and remarkably well socialized. Yet we still know little about this alternative to one of society's most fundamental institutions. Beyond a vague notion of children reading around the kitchen table, we don't know what home schooling looks like from the inside."

Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversy in the Homeschooling Movement by Mitchell L. Stevens, Robert Wuthnow (Editor), Michele Lampmt (Editor)

Thanks Patsy!

Grammie

Thanks Patsy!

Grammie

Normally I'd suggest that Grammie take that stick out of her rump, but it's been lodged up there since the Eisenhower administration so that's not happening anytime soon.

Anyone not finding humor in our walk down bovine lane with RK, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: at December 20, 2007 11:04 PM

Normally, I'd tell you to put a 12 guage to your mouth.

There's nothing that prepares kids more for college than teaching them more about creationism than real science.
Besides spending in ordinate amount of time with Mommy as a young teenager is something all teens crave, right?
( By the time Sharon's kids are teenagers, she will have lost them.)

Posted by: at December 21, 2007 12:51 AM

So you read the statistics about how many parents make the decision to homeschool their children based upon their religious beliefs, but ignored the ones about the higher education level among homeschooling parents, how well homeschoolers perform on the SAT, and their lower college dropout rate.

Couldn't you attempt to gig Sharon over something you know or really care about?

Bible-believing Christians

I am not a fundamentalist.

( By the time Sharon's kids are teenagers, she will have lost them.) I don't think so. Your relationship with your kids is what you make of it.

Besides spending in ordinate amount of time with Mommy as a young teenager is something all teens crave, right? You haven't heard of co-ops have you?

In early elementary, it is advantageous for a kid learning the basics to move ahead to the next level of math early if he knows the material, rather than getting stuck at the same level with all the other kids in that grade level.

I am fortunate enough to live near a college which offers home schooled kids opportunities. My son is going to take a lego robotics course this summer in a nearby city. His father is a computer programmer and former math teacher and will learn much from Dad. My son is involved in several programs with public school kids. He is a great kid. His little sisters are too.

I don't rule out high school for them. There are some districts that allow home schooled kids to take some courses.

Thanks, Cecelia. The stereotyping is so hypocritical.

Homeschooling is the best way to indoctrinate your children.
Free thinkers don't make good Bible thumping Christians/Catholics.

Posted by: at December 21, 2007 12:56 AM

Actually, the practice of passing on your own values, customs, religious beliefs, etc... to your children isn't generally held to be the equivalent of brainwashing, but thanks for that little glimpse into your own indoctrinated psyche...

You teach your children what you believe to be the truth. They will either accept it or not as they get older. My father doesn't believe in God. My mom is a Protestant.

Homeschooling is the best way to indoctrinate your children.
Free thinkers don't make good Bible thumping Christians/Catholics.

Posted by: at December 21, 2007 12:56 AM

The poster sometimes known as 'why' won't be happy w/you. Then, again, he's a partisan hack, like you, so he won't respond.

Who was it here that used to teach high school but then progressed to teach at the college level? I got the impression that this person was quite disgusted with the mentality of the students.

mentality of the high school students.

How about this one: Dana Perino was NOT home educated.

I am fortunate enough to live near a college which offers home schooled kids opportunities. My son is going to take a lego robotics course this summer in a nearby city. His father is a computer programmer and former math teacher and will learn much from Dad. My son is involved in several programs with public school kids. He is a great kid. His little sisters are too.

I don't rule out high school for them. There are some districts that allow home schooled kids to take some courses.
Posted by: Sharon at December 21, 2007 1:22 AM

Well, that blows the portrait of your children doing their math problems via an abacus and prayer beads, while kneeling around the family altar, Sharon... :D

Happy Advent all, especially to you Cecelia and Grammie. Christmas Day is dawning soon. I hope it brings new perspectives.

Uh huh...

In the midst of posts that out and out declared homeschooled children to be "misfits", our arguing that they do as well as public school kids is tantamount to an orgy of public school bashing and to calling for the end of public schools in general..... rather than being what it was-- a defense of the known successes of one area of choice available to American families.

You're going to have to get another soapbox. The one you've hopped on now isn't about anything that was said here...

"The system was respected, the parents were vested, and we were the envy of the world. We were truly the most educated and literate nation in the world."

###
I know you do not address me directly, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle).....but I'll try anyway......

Please educate us on when this golden era was? Was it previous to the the societal upheaval and greater centralization of our local community systems through the 1940's '50's and '60's?

Did the golden era include benefits for racial minorities as a rule?

When did the United States Public School system change to what we have today?.....on average a poor, expensive system that, by most measures, fails to achieve what it used to for most of its students.

Please tell me where most of the political elite were educated and where do most of them send their children for education.

Please show me objective data supporting your grand conclusions on the poor socializaton of home schoolers, their and their "educational deficiencies" (your term).

Oh, and two more questions....Are the public schools free of political and social agendas? Are they the purly free and open communities for all ideas to be discussed and tolerated?

My point is simply a conversation like the one last night which tears down the foundations of one of America's pillars, instead or shoring it up, is a tragedy. To have done so for the purpose of defending one rather unhealthy individual and her unhealthy practices is an absurdity.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 21, 2007 8:47 AM

Speaking of the absurd, you've taken a mild defense of homeschooling and extrapolated it into a treatise on problems of public schools and in the process ignored how homeschooling compares favorably with public schooling, ignored what Sharon has said about her efforts in her children's socialization, ignored the fact that she has no problem considering high school a choice, and you've made an inexplicable and hyperbolic reference to the perils of parents teaching their own children their own point of view, from the sanctuary of their own home.... And all to gig a woman you don't like.

The only absurdity and fanaticism here is your's...

"Dana Perino was NOT home educated."

###
Great observation, Sharon....She attended secular, public instituions including Public High Schools and majored in, in , in......

COMMUNICATIONS!

Mmmm, wow....I am sure she got great exposure to the fine history lessons out there in the public system.....The quick attacks on her personally for not having rapid historical knowledge regarding The Cuban Missle Crisis is, I am sure, a common problem with most of her generation and level of education.

Happy Advent all, especially to you Cecelia and Grammie. Christmas Day is dawning soon. I hope it brings new perspectives.

Posted by: Sharon at December 21, 2007 1:55 AM

Right back at ya, Sharon! Happy Advent to all who celebrate it and happiness to everyone in general!

Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) loves to have his cake and eat it too, doesn't he?.....

His words......"When America was at its peak (and I hope it only appears to have been its peak while we languish on this rather low prairie and before we began a much-desired climb upward), it was there because of universal, "free" education. The system was respected, the parents were vested, and we were the envy of the world. We were truly the most educated and literate nation in the world."

###
I asked a simple question....When was this "golden age" and was it INCLUSIVE, racially? No answer....Bang!.....I then conclude that acadmenically, the public school system, on average, fails currently despite great capital investment and national effort.....Bang!.....I guess I argued Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) into a corner regarding the contradictions of his worldview....

Once again, some things must remain unspoken in the leftist's dialogue!....Do not go off the script that makes my argument the truth!

If you feel the need to defend your "friends," great. That's admirable. But, please, don't do so at the expense of your intellectual honesty. I need to hold onto the belief that there are rational, reasonable, articulate people with your belief system. That affirms the quality of our national dialogue.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 21, 2007 9:44 AM

Oh come now... the posts you referenced that were written last night compared home schooling with public school and championed a choice for American parents. If someone said something about the "mentality" of public school kids, it was one comment in the midst of many about homeschooled social misfits.
A claim, by the way, that you just repeated.

A claim too, that caused Cee....today..... to ask you to defend it.

YOU have today made the claim that public schooling is superior in every way to homeschooling and made the stark accusation that homeschooling is indicative of and fosters some sort of social pathology as compared to the healthy inculcation of thinking skills and normatives within the public school system.

Again, the only dishonesty here, intellectual and otherwise, is your own.

What else is new...

If you feel the need to defend your "friends," great. That's admirable. But, please, don't do so at the expense of your intellectual honesty. I need to hold onto the belief that there are rational, reasonable, articulate people with your belief system. That affirms the quality of our national dialogue.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 21, 2007 9:44 AM

Oh, I always feel the need to defend friends, A N O N Y M O U S, when I think they are being maligned.

What I don't feel the need to do, is to invariably and despicably imply that every opinion, action, or personality trait of my enemies is indicative of some sort of unarticulated racism, and all to merely bolster a flimsy case while engaged in the act of a blogboard bull session.

Thank you for such a simple and simplistic restatement of what a wrote, Cecelia. The fact that it is not at all related to what I wrote, of course, matter not, I suppose.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 21, 2007 10:03 AM

Well, of course it is an accurate summation of your estimation of the wisdom of the home schooling vs public schooling-- choice, and your implication that there is some sort of endemic pathology related to the choice for homeschooling.

I accurately characterized your misrepresentation of what was said last night, as well.

As for your other claims about the importance of public schooling, I have no quarrel. Most parents don't have the option of home schooling, so public (and private schools are vital).

As your particular references to the history of public schooling and your claims that it is the superior and healthier choice for the individual and the country, I'm afraid you must defend the statements you make, when any particular one of them is challenged.

No excuse .... I have my contacts in this morning:

"what I wrote"

and

"matters".

Sloppy, indeed.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 21, 2007 10:12 AM

If only you were as exacting about your thinking.

Mmmm, wow....I am sure she got great exposure to the fine history lessons out there in the public system.....The quick attacks on her personally for not having rapid historical knowledge regarding The Cuban Missle Crisis is, I am sure, a common problem with most of her generation and level of education.

Posted by: cee at December 21, 2007 9:27 AM

Either that of maybe Dana Perino just isn't bright enough for the position afforded her by the Idiot in Chief.

I will once again see Mr. blank-FLUCKER's (cue OLD SPICE jingle) grand statements of fact go unsupported and his narrowminded conclusions remain unsubstantiated.....

And I was expecting a Festivus Miracle.....

All I get is the airing of grievances.....

Oh, I always feel the need to defend friends, A N O N Y M O U S, when I think they are being maligned.

Posted by: Cecelia at December 21, 2007 10:11 AM

Just don't ask her to defend a rope smoking simple simon who's playing with his Barbies in his sandbox; too afraid that Phil Donahue was right about his sexuality.

Wasted,

When does answering reporters' questions require an indepth knowledge of such issues as The Cuban Missle Crisis?

Also, my contention remains unchallenged....would the avergae communications major born in the early 1970's have great knowledge of such historical events like the Cuban Missle Crisis unless he/she had enjoyed studying such facts?

Clamining incompetence on one issue like this one seems a bit ridiculous, espeically when this administration is chided by the very same critics for being a diabolical Wizard-of-Oz type entity that is implementing some grand neocon/corporatist scheme(s).

These conservatives just keeeveryone guessing, uh?

All I get is the airing of grievances.....

Posted by: cee at December 21, 2007 10:34 AM

Oh, yeah.... He implies that homeschooling parents are chiefly racist religious extremist fringies and YOU are the narrow minded bigot...

Just don't ask her to defend a rope smoking simple simon who's playing with his Barbies in his sandbox; too afraid that Phil Donahue was right about his sexuality.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 21, 2007 10:43 AM

What? You can't defend yourself to yourself?

Can anyone locate the post from A N O N Y M O U S about the stories told to his wife by her chi-chi private (I think) female students?

"Oh, yeah.... He implies that homeschooling parents are chiefly racist religious extremist fringies and YOU are the narrow minded bigot..."

###
I hear Mr. Costanza yelling, "I HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH YOU PEOPLE!"

Go on to the feats of strength and wrestle with you male progeny, Graeme, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle)....I am tired of the grievances tradition already.....

"Deplorable Cee....yada, yada, yada...."

On this board, it used to be that any political ideology was open for any criticism, wannawipe.....

Pro-socialist/communist, pro-secular worldviews are specific ideologies.... ideologies I would love to see have more scrutiny and be examined out in the open....

But as it has been the case here at OW lately, the supporters of modern leftist ideology here in America do not appreciate going down those roads of free and open dialogue.

Instead we some play a stealth game saying they are conservative....but there are "good" conservatives and "bad" conservatives....

Or some just go into profave ridden crisis (both sides, BTW)

Why? I do not know.

I am happy to answer questions regarding more traditional, older ideologies that include those based on Western thought influenced by Judaism and Christianity.....

But again, unless a certain tact is taken....some sensitive people on this board get squimish and do not want to discuss it....

Why? I do not know.

This great debate on ideology even started to touch, ever so tangentially, the discussion on public education here in our country, agendas (religious or otherwise) and the reasons some choose to home school.

And Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle) pulled the rascist red card and cried foul!

On to the FESTIVUS feats of strength!

What? You can't defend yourself to yourself?

Posted by: Cecelia at December 21, 2007 10:49 AM

I guess Cecelia's name can be added to those who think I am both phony soldiers.
Sorry to break it to you, but he is yours. I certainly am not.

If J$ told you so much, would you believe him? I know RK has a hard time accepting the truth when it conflicts with the voices in his head. Since you're also willing to make the stupid claim that there is no REAL phony soldier would you be willing to say you're wrong when J$ tells you so?

We all know how precious screennames are out here. I wouldn't want anyone to dirty the sanctity of such.

We all know how precious screennames are out here. I wouldn't want anyone to dirty the sanctity of such.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 21, 2007 12:04 PM

You don't really expect anyone to believe that there's anything you wouldn't dirty, do you...

You don't really expect anyone to believe that there's anything you wouldn't dirty, do you...

Posted by: Cecelia at December 21, 2007 12:20 PM

Ouch.
You cut to the core.

I shouldn't worry that much about Cecelia believing you or not, WK. As fond as I am of the old gal, she has never let a fact interfere with her deliberative process.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 21, 2007 12:41 PM

I noticed she didn't answer if she'd believe J$ or not either. If she did it would certainly take away her ability to assume whatever she wants.

As if anyone gives a cow's fat ass.
Anyone except RK, of course.

I shouldn't worry that much about Cecelia believing you or not, WK. As fond as I am of the old gal, she has never let a fact interfere with her deliberative process.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 21, 2007 12:41 PM

Well, when you can convince me or anyone else that it's impossible to have more than one ISP address, or to carry on a charade with like-minded miscreants, we'll give you the deliberative processing award, Einstein...

Students who attend public school have every opportunity to do well and many achieve. (Unless they are gunned down, bullied or suffer other kinds of trauma. I don't know the stats or trends.) We are a country of achievers. I would expect that a large percentage of high achievers had parents/guardians prodding them along until they developed an appreciation for learning. Some don't need the prodding. Some need it but don't get it. Not every one can home school. It is a choice my husband and I made for a variety of reasons. That is not a judgment call on those who don't. It is parental involvement that will benefit the kids the most.

Cee gave a very plausible explanation of why Dana Perino did not have the facts of the Cuban Missile Crisis at hand. When you live through history, you know it. Unless you have a love of history, you only know the facts as presented by your teachers. Reading the paper used to be standard in each home. Now the internet rules. I doubt high school aged students are surfing the headlines. I think many are familiar with the segment on the late night show of asking a person on the street a question that one would think is pretty general knowledge. It consequently shows people looking like stooges when they probably aren't. I saw a segment where people were shown a picture of John Roberts and could not identify him (this was around the time of his confirmation). Would that have happened a generation ago?

Check your inbox, Cecelia.

As if anyone gives a cow's fat ass.
Anyone except RK, of course.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 21, 2007 12:48 PM

Well, evidently you do because you're the one questioning me on your assumptions that I'm supposed to personally address everyone behaving badly on the board, while giving a pass to the fact that no one with your politics questioned you for your mentally ill graffiti about RK.

I guestioned Johnny because I thought all the Phony Soldier personaes were a fraud, something I'm still convinced about.

That you're a deranged moron who would cause 99.9% of your fellow liberals to fervently hope you lived ten states away, is something I don't doubt either.

Sharon,

I'm off to the grocery and hair stylist, I'll be back with you in a bit.

man, this name shit is really boring...

Sharon: "Cee gave a very plausible explanation of why Dana Perino did not have the facts of the Cuban Missile crisis at hand. When you live through history, you know it. Unless you have a love of history, you only have the facts as presented by your teacher."

Well, That certainly explains why my neighbor across the street doen't know anything about it.

But does that explain why the press secretary to the President of the United States doesn't know anything about modern Cold War history?

This situation, as with MANY others in the last 7 years, the criticism is being directed mostly at the one who did the hiring, rather than the one who took the job.


And THAT is the reason for this latest round of very justified disbelief and outrage.

Mike,

I don't know much about Perino's background or how she got the job. If she was well connected and it was clear she would make that kind of gaffe, then I understand your complaint. Because she was a communications major, I don't know that her lack of knowledge of those kinds of events would have been evident. Do you think she should be fired? I have never really listened to her. She comes off kind of timid to me, considering the type of stress the press secretary is under.

Sharon: "Do you think she should be fired?"

Thats kind of a tough question because I doubt if she was ever really asked 20th century related historical questions within an interview situation, nor do I know how she got the job either.

That cat is now out of the bag.

For me, it is simply more proof that this "heckuva job Brownie" administration fills jobs based on personal and party loyalty rather than qualifications that would give them the proper tools and perspective to do their jobs more competently.

It is no secret that the Iraq occupation may have turned into the "Fiasco" that it did because so many rebuilding jobs were given to inexperienced loyaltists rather then knowledgable experts. Bremmer abruptly pushing out Garner in Iraq and Rumsfeld ignoring his generals regarding required troop levels were the the most prominant within a long line of similar examples.

It's also no real secret that Bush himself had a very weak grasp of history, Foreign policy, AND foreign affairs when he was elected.

That said, simple logic tells me that a press secretary to the most powerful man in the world should have a reasonable historical context at their disposal, as the exchange that exposed this weakness certainly confirms.

That you're a deranged moron who would cause 99.9% of your fellow liberals to fervently hope you lived ten states away, is something I don't doubt either.

Posted by: Cecelia at December 21, 2007 1:11 PM

That you're a humorless biddy that I'm glad lives 10 states away is something I can guarantee.
But you do have RK's admiration.

That and $2.00 will get you a medium coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

This situation, as with MANY others in the last 7 years, the criticism is being directed mostly at the one who did the hiring, rather than the one who took the job.

And THAT is the reason for this latest round of very justified disbelief and outrage.

Posted by: Mike at December 21, 2007 2:14 PM

Stop making sense Mike.

The real outrage is twofold:

1. Dana Perino went to public schools and as such could not have possibly learned about the most dangerous Cold War event of the recent past.
Just because my mother didn't teach me about it in between needle-pointing pillows and citing scripture and I was fortunate enough to pick it up somewhere doesn't mean we should expect the White House Press Secretary to know such things.

2. Some people out here post under multiple names. This is a scourge not only on this board, but on society as a whole. And don't think its gone unnoticed that Olbermann himself won't touch this topic on his "news" show. More evidence of the wussified lefty main stream media. Anyone who has ever posted under more than one name forfeits his right to have his opinion counted. And if they posted under another name to make a point or to lighten the mood in here with humor than they are Christ-less cowards.

That said, simple logic tells me that a press secretary to the most powerful man in the world should have a reasonable historical context at their disposal, as the exchange that exposed this weakness certainly confirms.

Posted by: Mike at December 21, 2007 3:57 PM

To put it bluntly, this woman didn't know about the friggin CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS.
Its not like they asked her about specifics of the French and Indian war.

She should be at least totally embarrassed and at most let go.

What would you loons do w/out Olbermahn spoon feeding you? I can tell he's been soaking in the tub because you loons don't have anything new to cry about. Must be time for 'patsy' or 'why' to dig something off the puffington post.......

Mike,

I am having problems squaring your point that we don't know if whoever hired was aware of her knowledge base, or even why she was given the position over someone else, yet you believe the fact that she committed a gaffe proves that her qualifications were irrelevant. Maybe a low of jaws dropped to the floor over that one. Was she KNOWN for that kind of gaffe? I have my doubts. They wouldn't have chosen to use her as their mouthpiece front and center.

The cat is out of the bag, as you said. That is why I asked, "What now?" I never stated what I believe should happen. I can't imagine not being personally humiliated if that were me. There is really no graceful way to step down. Would you like Bush to come to the podium and say, "Because Dana Perino is a dumb@#! she is now being relieved and I am replacing with her with ( ) who may or may not be a dumb@#$ but he/she tows the line for me.

A deeper question for me is why would an educated young woman who appears to have done well in life academically not know of a major event in fairly recent history? Is it a common phenomenon no matter the circumstances of the person's education? The required curriculum varies from state to state.
SAT's don't gauge a person's knowledge of history. College doesn't require an in-depth study of history, just a certain number of credit hours. A person can advance based upon a high grade point average, particularly when specializing in a field of particular interest. Yet, a person can remain ignorant.

I was quite perturbed when I read of her (it seems) voluntary admission that she did not know the facts of that historical event, and more so, how she related the disclosure to her husband. I don't know if it happened as printed, but if so, she really is a goof. I don't see the harm to anyone except to the Bush Administration (barring any unethical behavior), and really, how is that going to affect his presidency at this point?

It will soon be over, Mike. Just over a year and someone new will be at the helm.

A person can advance based upon a high grade point average, particularly when specializing in a field of particular interest. Yet, a person can remain ignorant.

posted by Sharon

There are 2 individuals that post on this blog who claim to teachers, although, one poster seems to change professions w/names, who are living proof of Sharon's statement. Ward Churchill is another one that comes to mind.

Just look at your last two posts at 7:24 & 8:15 Jeff! Take a close look...think about 'em.

They are very typical of what you do on this blog. They are very typical of ALL you ever do on this blog!

Personal attacks....all the time....EVERY time.

Take the 8:15 post: .....You quoted a small part of what was a very rational and respectful answer to another thoughtful post discussing a real event, ..... and you then used THAT quote to launch into yet another uncalled for GRADE SCHOOL LEVEL personal attack against other posters who weren't even involved in the discussion.

Your 7:24 post was just another inane and pointless personal attack blurted out of the blue against anyone and everyone who doesn't believe as you believe.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Through both of those posts, you offered NOTHING of value, and NOTHING of substance. You did nothing to add to the discussion at hand...in fact, your off topic ad hominem personal attack had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the ongoing discussion.

You simply used part of Sharon's post to belch out yet another stream of bile.

PERSONAL ATTACKS! ..... Thats ALL you do!

Yet you seem to be mystified as to why people call you a troll?....It seems to baffle you when they stoop down to your level just to ridicule you.

Through it all, you seem to think I am just name calling when I call you a troll. You must think that simply calling me a "troll" in return somehow changes the FACT that YOU are a troll.....trust me, It doesn't.

It's a simple FACT Jeff!

You are a TROLL!

.....And a troll is something far, far worse than any political hack.

They are very typical of what you do on this blog. They are very typical of ALL you ever do on this blog!

Personal attacks....all the time....EVERY time.

posted by hypocrite mike

1. Do you and Jr. have the same IP address? Or, should I say ip address?

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 21, 2007 9:33 PM

2. I'm no namejacker Daddy. You're always putting me down.

I hate you, and I'm not washing your skidmarked drawers again.

Posted by: royal king, jr at December 21, 2007 9:35 PM

3. But you do have RK's admiration.

That and $2.00 will get you a medium coffee at Dunkin Donuts.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 21, 2007 5:58 PM

4. Homeschooling is the best way to indoctrinate your children.
Free thinkers don't make good Bible thumping Christians/Catholics.

Posted by: at December 21, 2007 12:56 AM

5. Normally I'd suggest that Grammie take that stick out of her rump, but it's been lodged up there since the Eisenhower administration so that's not happening anytime soon.

Anyone not finding humor in our walk down bovine lane with RK, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: at December 20, 2007 11:04 PM

6. Are we talking about the same Cee who gives high colonics in has basement? We are, aren't we?

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 14, 2007 12:09 AM

7. This all u can come up with after I posted 6 sources proving your hero Cee to be a total fraud?

You're about as fair minded as RK is intelligent....and as sweet as Bea Arthur.

Posted by: Why don't you think at September 18, 2007 11:08 PM

8. Such a great American you are, Sean Hannity..I mean Cecilia.
|||---|||---|||
You owe Sean Hannity an apology. But I will admit Ceceilia has a better mustache.

Posted by: at September 19, 2007 12:00 AM

>>Should I post more, 'mike?' Those are ALL your cohorts. Keep making asinine comments.

I know you have turned a blind eye to the corruption,

posted by why

As you do to Olbermahns lies, on a daily basis!

TDF!!!!!!

you now think THIS bonehead comment is going to "affect his administration" ?

You misread. and REALLY, how is that going to affect his presidency at this point?

So quick to lash out.

you now think THIS bonehead comment is going to "affect his administration" ? (Why at 9:40)

You misread.

and REALLY, how is that going to affect his presidency at this point? (Me at 7:37, emphasis added).

So quick to lash out.
Posted by: Sharon at December 21, 2007 10:38 PM

....going all the way back to September to cherry pick doodie bad comments from people.

You have wayyyyy too much much spare time on your hands, Little Jeffrey.

I have a suggestion for you. How about reading a book?
There's a first time for everything you know.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 21, 2007 9:55 PM

It was taken from the 'recent comments' bar, why. I simply scrolled up. What was it I have said several times about you claiming if it wasn't from yesterday it doesn't count? Unbelievably predictable. Thanks for cherry picking and selective responding, though. Don't change, whatever you do.

You just don't seem to get it Jeff!

Posting other comments that you think are as bad as yours doesn't change a thing.

ALL you do is make personal attacks....emphasis on "ALL"...you do nothing BUT make personal attacks....over and over and over again.

1) - You think two wrongs REALLY make a right?...Is that why you keep posting other quotes? You think if you prove you're not the only one that it makes it OK for you?

2) - The other named posters you keep using as examples of "hypocrisy" often engage in thoughtful debate, .... which is something you NEVER do.

Sorry, no "hypocrisy" here.....you are the OW TROLL!

Sorry, no "hypocrisy" here.....you are the OW TROLL!

Posted by: Mike at December 21, 2007 10:57 PM

Ok, 'mega troll.'

"Thanks for cherry picking and selective responding, though. Don't change, whatever you do."

You are welcome! thanks for being such an entertaining stupid person.

"Ok, 'mega troll.'"

You are not the mega troll RK you are the mega jackass!

Thanks,'why!'

"Thanks,'why!'"

Your welcome little dipshit,

"FYI: Last comment I made was at 9:55."

I would have corrected him, but if you waste time correcting Rk pretty soon you have no time left at all.