Wow! His numbers sucked!

If I were a drinker, I would have proposed that we have a Speshul Komments drinking game. You would have to drink every time Olby barked "Mr. Bush", "sir" and "un-American". I think someone might have suggested this already.

A few belts would help viewers deal with these miserable, whining, defeatocrat lefty diatribes, that's for sure.

A comment from the live blog fan site for tonight's CD:

"Keith's on but the sound is off."

So these special comments are so riveting they watch them while hitting the mute button? Too funny.

He just about crossed his eyes when he had to switch cameras too quickly. And these comments are poorly written, he's a parody of himself.

Oh, and Keith, get a thesaurus and look up "extraordinary" - try a synonym to avoid repetition. That goes for your nightly script, too.

Why is he yelling at the camera? Is he losing his hearing in his old age?

He's a grouchy old "bear". Is that why Katy calls him bear?

Wonder why Katy calls him "Bear"? Do they act out Goldilocks in the new Trump apartment?
"Who's been sleeping in my bed?"

Does anyone remember KO recently comparing GWB waving a paper, and I can't remember what the paper was about, to Chamberlain waving the Peace in Our Time agreement with Hitler.

Grammie

If you play Keith Olbermann's Specual Komments backwards, it sounds like Pink Floyds "Dark Side of the Moon". If you play them backwards and watch the "Wizard of Oz" it matches the scenes perfectly.

Tried to register on the Keith Olbermann message boards (what a joke) and it said "creating a new account is currently not possible." Too many dissenters, I guess. Debate doesn't exist in Olbermannland. It's always 1984 there. Even O'Reilly welcomes the opposition on his show, but not Keithy. The words despicable and coward come to mind.

The few minutes I surfed in for, his face was so red I thought his head was going to explode. He was talking about Rudy's comments regarding GOP vs. Democrats on terror. Keith called it terrorism (I guess that means Rudy is a terrorist) to suggest that one party is better for National Security than another, then proceeded to tick off a few items that he thought showed the GOP is not superior on counter-terrorism. tsk tsk Keith

The words despicable and coward come to mind.

Posted by: Robert at December 28, 2007 11:18 PM

Precisely.

Does anyone remember KO recently comparing GWB waving a paper, and I can't remember what the paper was about, to Chamberlain waving the Peace in Our Time agreement with Hitler.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at December 28, 2007 10:02 PM

I'm sure the olbyloons have it on tevo and watch it regularly, Janet. Although, they will never admit it, as proven by philby.

The only people I know who do are lonely RW'ers whose only purpose in life is to bitch, moan and pop Viagra.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 29, 2007 12:12 AM

You mean, 'mike,' patsy, slob, etc? Do you talk about all of your friends that way?

"Does anyone remember KO recently comparing GWB waving a paper, and I can't remember what the paper was about, to Chamberlain waving the Peace in Our Time agreement with Hitler."

Tonight he was comparing Chamberlain's Munich agreement to the Democrats giving in to President Bush on funding the War back in May. Is that what you're referring to? I agree with Bathtub Boy that the feckless Defeatocrats are the Chamberlains of our time because of their desire to appease the enemy; although they also remind me of another famous WWII-era figure: Vidkun Quisling.

Rick, I will look into that. I think, though, it was something else.

My memory is not what it used to be, more's the pity.

I read it and moved on and then it came to me that KO had railed against Secretary Rumsfeld b/c he compared those who oppose the War on Terror to Chambelain and his ilk and KO was doing the same thing now b/c it suited his agenda.

Grammie

Here's an idea. Let me replay special comments that have all been proven lies and exaggerations because I have to sell this book that isn't selling. Let me make a fool of myself because I have a fat ass and young girlfriend who hasn't had an orgasm in two years.

Janet @ 2:17: "I read it and moved on and then it came to me that KO had railed against because he compared those who oppose the war on terror to Chamberlain and his ilk and KO was doing the same thing now because it suited his agenda."

MULTIPLE answers to that one Janet.

1) - To begin with, one could argue that turnabout is fair play once you choose to open Pandora's box.

2) - KO DOESN'T oppose the war on terror. He opposes the war in Iraq....and they are emphatically NOT one and the same.

3) - Donald Rumsfeld was a high level US Government Official who was selfishly and shamelessly questioning the patriotism of Americans who questioned his and his boss's policies. KO is a political pundit who's JOB it is to question dubious and controversial government policies.

With his ratings circling the drain
Keith pulls out the same sad refrain
Speshul Komment repeat
More lies and deceit
Pull his string and he'll say it again

Excellent job as always, Mama Bear Katy, or do you mean "Baby Bear Katy"

Excellent job as always, Mama Bear Katy, or do you mean "Baby Bear Katy"

Posted by: at December 29, 2007 10:21 AM

Wow, some people have a heavy obsession with Olbermann's love life.
Are you sure you aren't one of his jealous fangirls?

hmm.. considering the olberman watch shows little actual contradictions in Keith's hour show, can it be assumed that most of what he says is really true? This blog ranks him as a left loon, but unlike his program, they don't show many moments

I personally like Keith Olbermann, because his logic is very basic, and from all the news reports on all network, something is appearantly wrong with Bush's administration. Unless 75% of the population is wrong for thinking that..

there's something else..

Special Komments that don't rate a ten, Are the faves of extremist madmen. Thinkers know that they're crap, But loons thrive on claptrap, So they're running them over again!

exactly, how does anyone really 'know' what kind of people watch his show? The audience can range from reasonable people to paranoid. With more pepole watching the show.. people are becoming nutter?

Pawsie - "his logic is very basic" as in the lowest form? appealing to emotion and not necesarily based on fact? Yep, you've nailed it.

One can dislike Bush and KO at the same time. Olbermann is a blowhard and a hypocrite. Try watching for a while and a smart person like you will be able to discern it. And the limerics are for humor so you can scroll right by them.
In fact, if you want to visit a place with no negative comments about KO, you should head for one of the fan boards where no criticism is allowed. Try ERT, KOEB, or KO.org. You'll feel at home there sharing your KO love. Not being mean, just saying you're not going to be changing anyone's mind here.

I missed his "Worst Person In The World" in the last few days.

Maybe he will fill another hour with repeating those. This egotistical blowhard likes to hear his own voice.

>Wow, some people have a heavy obsession with Olbermann's love life.
Are you sure you aren't one of his jealous fangirls?

no, lol, just a poetry lover and a smartass

2) - KO DOESN'T oppose the war on terror.

postd by 'mike'

You know this, how?

> 2) - KO DOESN'T oppose the war on terror.

Right. That's why he calls it the "so-called" war on terror. He doesn't just oppose it, he doesn't believe it exists!

> selfishly and shamelessly questioning the patriotism of Americans

But somehow when Keith shamelessly questions the patriotism of Americans, that's not only permissible, it's brilliant Edward R Murrow-caliber "journalism". More Olbypologist hypocrisy.

No, Mrs. Hawkins, but we are looking forward to your memoirs, particularly the chapters when you describe your experiences watching Lucky Lindy landing in Paris and Chamberlain returning from Munich.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 28, 2007 10:08 PM

LOL funny!

Bear!?! Why in the world would you want everyone to know your pet name from your girlfriend. This is not normal. No wonder they kicked his ass off ESPN, what a serious pussy.

Posted by: I just puked in my mouth at December 27, 2007 6:49 PM

so true...

Bear!?! Why in the world would you want everyone to know your pet name from your girlfriend. This is not normal. No wonder they kicked his ass off ESPN, what a serious pussy.

Posted by: I just puked in my mouth at December 27, 2007 6:49 PM

Too bad he didn't mention his pet name for her. God, I hope they don't play dress up.

I wish the guys on FBiA would pick up on this. If Cris's Tab crush is fair game for KO, then talking about Bear should be on the players' table.

That would be pretty funny to hear Cris Collinsworth say, "Back you to Bear"

or better yet, Costas, "and now with the Bears Saints highlights, Bear Olbermann..."

I just wanted to let you all know, that The Daily Kos, Crooks & Liars, The Clinton (Crime) Family and my hot piece of 20-something ass are all more important to thank than my own parents...got it! Bear

Crooks and Liars should be about ALL THINGS CLINTON.
BTW, isn't odd he didn't thank Hillary Clinton's Media Matters...

I pray Hillary doesn't get the nomination (for obvious reasons) but also just to see "Bear" piss is pants every night on Countdown.

Thanks, coward!

Good idea, Pete. I would love to see Cris burn Olby yet again.

What fun to point out !
Posted by: at December 29, 2007 4:30 PM

even better when YOU point out how stupid YOU are...do you watch SNF? Costa & Collinsworth are burning him weekly...try taking off your olby-lover glasses and have a look. idiot.

Check out the interview of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ Benazir Bhutto with David Frost taped just 6 weeks ago. About 6 minutes into the interview, she states that Osama bin laden is dead and was murdered by Omar Sheikh. Gee wiz, that wasn’t on the news. I wonder why.

I suppose the Nazi neo-con Republicans have finally lost the boogieman. Who’s the next boogieman? Keith Olbermann? Or just anybody who disagrees with you fuckers?

I guest the war on ‘terror” is finally over. Osama’s dead. It’s time to bring the troops home. What do you think you fucking war mongers?

LOON ALERT!
LOON ALERT!!

I guess AL QUEDA DOESN'T EXIST

The messenger is an asshole!

Next boogieman?

Ask the 3000 that dies in the towers that question. Boogiemans usually don't exist asshole. Don't you have a kid to go hit Messenger? Get lost loser.

Cris has burned Olby on numerous occasions. KO thought he had CC last week but Cris pulled out the wife card and the players table guys laughed and the joke was on Olby. The players laugh in Olby's face every week. It's almost embarrassing.

Check the fan boards. The loons are a bit peturbed that Keith didn't acknowledge them in the book. Guess they won't be sending any ties for his next birthday.

Tonight he was comparing Chamberlain's Munich agreement to the Democrats giving in to President Bush on funding the War back in May. Is that what you're referring to? I agree with Bathtub Boy that the feckless Defeatocrats are the Chamberlains of our time because of their desire to appease the enemy; although they also remind me of another famous WWII-era figure: Vidkun Quisling.
Posted by: Rick at December 29, 2007 1:50 AM

Yes, I'm not sure which one they resemble more

LOON ALERT!
LOON ALERT!!

I guess AL QUEDA DOESN'T EXIST

The messenger is an asshole!
Posted by: at December 29, 2007 6:39 PM

maybe someone will kill the messenger....

I have no idea why Olby even bothered to dig up the stupid Tab girl bit with Cris. Oh, I know why - because Cris burns Olby every week. Olby Bear never learns from his mistakes.

Olby Bear - lol

Doesn't KO mention the name Huggy Bear a lot when he does his highlights? Maybe he's Katy's huggy bear. He's been known to do shout outs to women on air.

God only knows what women other than Katy he still does shout outs to.

Thank you for you 4:29 post, WK. I always felt Johnnie-Jeff, known to you as RK and to others as Jeff, on his attorney's advice, was a bit dense, but Cecelia, Mrs. Hawkins and Sharon argued forcefully that I was just being a condescending putz. You have done wonders for my shattered self-esteem.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 29, 2007 8:19 PM

Did wasted notice 'mike' couldn't tell us how he knew what Olby was thinking? Of course not, hacks. Maybe I should go back and re post some of the ever so smart posts made by clucker, philby, jennifer or rudy. How bout those "moo moo moo" posts? How bout wasted getting his ass handed to him, how many times has he misquoted me? I've lost track. Olbyloon desperation never ceases to amaze!

The model olbyloon! Clucker/Mrs. Philby/Jennifer/Joel/rudyramirez/ and most recently ANONYMOUS. I'm sure I missed several, my apologies. Seated right there beside AAP/hundreds of others on the crapper. Probably touching their feet together as we speak.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong, Mrs. Philby?

CNN and Hillary Destabilize Pakistan
By Cliff Kincaid Saturday, December 29, 2007

In the wake of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, Wolf Blitzer of CNN made much of an e-mail, exclusively provided to him by a close associate of Bhutto and a Hillary Clinton supporter, casting blame on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for her murder. We can now understand why Musharraf’s November 3 state-of-emergency decree took foreign news outlets like CNN off the air.

Musharraf, who is one of the main targets of the al-Qaeda international terrorist organization, recognizes that the so-called “CNN effect” in global affairs can destabilize foreign governments, including his own. It’s no wonder that he recently complained about being betrayed by the Western media.

Didn't think you could defend cnn. I'm surprised, actually. Isn't wolfie one of your go to guys for hard hitting news? Philby is as original as white paint. Not an original thought to be found.

Yea, I love Olbermahn, philby. You believe that?

Yet this is exactly what he did here...without attribution.
A little hypocritical, Jeffrey?
NO ..A LOT HYPOCRITICAL !

posted by the poster sometimes known as 'why'

By Cliff Kincaid Saturday, December 29, 2007

Can't read, 'why?' That's known as 'attribution.' Oh, you forgot to add Canada Free Press to your list. Hack.

I'm not surprised that the poster sometimes known as "why" would condone wolfie and hillary trying to start a nuclear war. It's just 'tripe' says the olbyloon.

Olbyloon Ed
Todays Students: 'why' and Mrs. Philby
Sadly, they both claim to be 'teachers'

Attribution (copyright), a concept in copyright law requiring an [author to be credited.]

'Cut n' Runners,' Shocker.

Thanks, teach! Debunked, again. Nite nite.

The war on terrorism continues....too bad the Democratic Party presidential candidates have all fallen on the wrong side of the debate and are now forced to ignore it.....Oh and the Democratic Party leaders, the left's ruling class, has also been forced to act in support of the president's leadership....oh well...wannawipe's, Mr. blank-FLUCKER's (cue OLD SPICE jingle) and the worst of the lot, mental midget's, predictions of loss and lame duck status seem to be proven wrong.....again!...

And the anti-American left's best foreign supporter, OBL, once again ties Iraq to the war on terrorism along with a nice snipet of the left's fav.....anti-Semitism....

"'We intend to liberate Palestine, the whole of Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the sea,' he said, threatening 'blood for blood, destruction for destruction.'

"'We will not recognize even one inch for Jews in the land of Palestine as other Muslim leaders have,' bin Laden said."

###
Oh my....OBL wanting the destruction of Israel?.....Gee...I thought Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism?.....And then this....

"Bin Laden said Sunni Arabs who have joined the Awakening Councils 'have betrayed the nation and brought disgrace and shame to their people. They will suffer in life and in the afterlife.'

"White House spokesman Tony Fratto said bin Laden's tape shows that al-Qaida's aim is to block democracy and freedom for all Iraqis.

"'It also reminds us that the mission to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq is critically important and must succeed,' Fratto said. 'The Iraqi people - every day, and in increasing numbers - are choosing freedom and standing against the murderous, hateful ideology of AQI. And we stand with them.'"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071229/D8TRCM980.html

###
Does the anti-American left stand with them?.....hey mental midget? Uh Mike? Uh wannawipe? Uh Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle)?....

I await one of the following typical OW lefty responses:

A) Silence
B) Chickenhawk slurs
C) Cursing and anti-religious bigotry
D) Historical revisionism
E) B, C, and D

And this is my post today, the 1,705th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

I am cee, good night and good luck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If attacking the messenger is all you have, then you’re pretty pathetic.

Posted by: the messenger at December 30, 2007 1:00 AM

When did this happen?

And the anti-American left's best foreign supporter, OBL, once again ties Iraq to the war on terrorism along with a nice snipet of the left's fav.....anti-Semitism....

Posted by: cee at December 30, 2007 10:24 AM

Yes, because criticizing Israel's government is being anti-semetic. I must admit, this is one of the best tactic s that the right (and some on the left) uses to justify war. You are either with George Bush or you are with Bin Laden. If those are my only two choices, KILL ME NOW.

Before you put people into your neat little packaged groups, I suggest you read this:

http://www.couragetorefuse.org/english/default.asp

Oh my....OBL wanting the destruction of Israel?.....Gee...I thought Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism?...

posted by cee

Prediction. The loons will say "It didn't have anyting to do w/the war on terrorism until Bush attacked/invaded a country that didn't attack us!"

"Needless deaths!"
"War for oil!"
"Rumsfeld!"
"Haliburton!"
"Cheney!"

Except, with more caps and exclamation points, of course. Nothing but the same ol' blame, scapegoat and diversions from the usual suspects. Did you notice that the armchair qb's that suggested we should have went into Pakistan in the first place were silenced with my simplictic post the other night when confronted on the Pakistan issue?

"Needless deaths!"
"War for oil!"
"Rumsfeld!"
"Haliburton!"
"Cheney!"

Thanks, for saving me time from typing.

You are either with George Bush or you are with Bin Laden. If those are my only two choices, KILL ME NOW.

posted by trent

Now, there's a real stable person. Partisan? Indeed.

You are either with George Bush or you are with Bin Laden. If those are my only two choices, KILL ME NOW

Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at December 30, 2007 12:08 PM

Mike, how can you say that Keith doesn't oppose the war on terror? He wants Gitmo shut down and the prisoners released. He wants to stop America's efforts to listen to terrorist's phone calls and track their financial transactions. He is opposed to tough interrogations of terrorists. How many times has Keith had the lawyer for Osama's bodyguard on his show? At least 10? Essentially demanding that the Al Qaeda terrorist be released from prison. Keith even went so far as to tell the lawyer for the Al Qaeda terrorist "It's an honor to be in the same country with you". Come on Mike. I know that Keith is your hero and you love to defend him, but when it comes to America's fight against terrorists, Keith is on the wrong side.

RK: "Did you notice that the armchair qb's that suggested we should have went into Pakistan in the first place were silenced with my simplictic post the other night when confronted on the Pakistan issue?"

SIGH!

1) - NOBODY suggested that "we should have went into Pakistan in the first place". Thats just your legendary stupidity and imagination going wild again.

2) - YOU didn't "confront" anyone with "the Pakistan issue". But your stupidity and lack of reading comprehension was certainly on full display again.

3) - YOU are incapable of 'confronting' anyone using 'issues'. All you ever do is misinterpret someone else's prior words and then try to use them against them later while remaining blissfully ignorant about the fact that you never understood what they had written in the first place.

4) - We are all still waiting with baited breath for you to try your hand at REAL debate....but so far, it hasn't happened yet.

4) - YOU.....are nothing but a troll!

Case closed.

2) - KO DOESN'T oppose the war on terror.

postd by 'mike'

You know this, how?

Posted by: royal king at December 29, 2007 12:00 PM
> 2) - KO DOESN'T oppose the war on terror.

Right. That's why he calls it the "so-called" war on terror. He doesn't just oppose it, he doesn't believe it exists!

> selfishly and shamelessly questioning the patriotism of Americans

But somehow when Keith shamelessly questions the patriotism of Americans, that's not only permissible, it's brilliant Edward R Murrow-caliber "journalism". More Olbypologist hypocrisy.

Posted by: johnny dollar at December 29, 2007 12:54 PM

James, to say that KO opposes the war on terrorism simply because he opposes some of it's current manifestations is where you are making your mistake.

He obviously believes, as I do, that effectively 'fighting' external threats to our cherished freedoms, security, and principles cannot be accomplished by internally threatening those very same freedoms, securities, and principles.

Here is a brief recap of what some of us believe for those who haven't been paying close attention:

- You cannot defend freedom by limiting freedom yourself.

- You cannot defend the Constitution by violating some of it's core principles yourself.

- You cannot defeat barbarism by resorting to barbarism yourself.

Frankly, I don't have a clue why these principles are so difficult for many on the right to grasp?

You say Kieth Olbermann wants "Gitmo's prisoners released", but where in the world did you get THAT from? All he has done is call for Gitmo Prisoners to be brought under the arm of either the Geneva Convention, or our own system of of granting rights of a fair trial and legal protection for the accused. But I have never seen where he has never called for their 'release'.

And finally, for the umteenth time....Keith Olbermann is NOT my "hero".

My days of hero worshipping ended around 40 years ago.

but what you forget is that people like myself are the ones who have been pointing to Pakistan all along as ground zero

Posted by: Mike at December 27, 2007 7:11 PM

1) - NOBODY suggested that "we should have went into Pakistan in the first place".

posted by 'mike'

Really?

Sigh!.....Yes Jeff....Really!

You are SO easy to predict....and your thinking is SO simplistic and transparent.

Now carefully and slowly re-read that sentence you just ressurected and tell we WHERE it ever suggested that "we should have went into Pakistan in the first place."

That wasn't what it said....and that wasn't what it mean't.

Why were you defending patsy when he claimed I said "Fox News is left wing" AND "Fred Thompson will win the presidency?" Huh, hack? Same thing, hack. You're Pakistan remark is closer to true, though. If not, what did you mean, huh?

RK: "Why were you defending Patsy"

One thing your little mind never seems to grasp is that NOBODY on this board needs any 'defense' from YOU.

Another thing you fail to grasp is that we pretty much consider you to be nothing but a recurring bad joke that never goes away.

A third concept you fail to grasp is that attacking your ongoing stupidity is something we often do for sport when nothing else is happening, and has nothing to do with 'defending' anyone else.

Going after your endless stream of unbelievably simplistic and stupid statements is sometimes fun...and at other times simply exasperating.

It often seems that YOU are the only one on this board that fails to grasp how ridiculous you sound....and that makes it all the more hilarious.

As for my Pakistan statement; that is yet another example of something only YOU seems incapable of understanding...yet you are me to once again give you your own personal little tutoring about the meaning of words on a public discussion board.

Notice how 'mike' left the building?

"Notice how 'mike' left the building?"

Yet another self explanatory example of an incredibly stupid emission from Jeff that was obviously mean't to be a taunt.....that backfired again.

2:29 probably the longest diversion of the day...........

2) - KO DOESN'T oppose the war on terror.

postd by 'mike'

You know this, how?

Posted by: royal king at December 29, 2007 12:00 PM
> 2) - KO DOESN'T oppose the war on terror.

Right. That's why he calls it the "so-called" war on terror. He doesn't just oppose it, he doesn't believe it exists!

> selfishly and shamelessly questioning the patriotism of Americans

But somehow when Keith shamelessly questions the patriotism of Americans, that's not only permissible, it's brilliant Edward R Murrow-caliber "journalism". More Olbypologist hypocrisy.

Posted by: johnny dollar at December 29, 2007 12:54 PM

What ever you do, 'mike,' DO NOT call philby, 2:58, a troll. Grasp that 'partisan hack' badge firmly.

Wasted Keystrokes: You may not be an Olberloon but you're certainly a loon with a need for the last word. Good grief - give it up. How about we all say you are always 100 percent right and you are the best thing since sliced bread. Happy now? You get to declare your self anything you want to be and we'll nod in approval like loons watching Olbermann.

OK, I've vented now. lol

wasted, what brought you to this blog?

RK: "Whatever you do 'mike', DO NOT call philby, 2:58, a troll. Grasp that 'partisn hack' badge firmly."

There are tqo 2:58 posts Jeff. One of them was done by a well known internet troll who sometimes calls himself "royal king". The other one was posted by an UNKNOWN poster who is obviously tired of reading your own endless and mindless trolling.

Lets run down a few points here:

1) - YOUR 2:58 troll post offered nothing from YOU at all....All you did was copy and paste someone else's out of context reply that you that you believe was SO profound that you've now cut and pasted it twice now. And what you find profound is what continues to illuminate your ongoing stupidity so brightly.

2) - You don't have a clue who made that OTHER 2:58 post. One would think you would have learned your lesson about doing that by now?

3) - You called my 2:29 post a diversion....in an obvious attempt to divert yourself from having to answer to the many FACTS that were articulated there about what is really going on here.

Those are all things that trolls do....TROLL!

2) - KO DOESN'T oppose the war on terror.

postd by 'mike'

You know this, how?

Posted by: royal king at December 29, 2007 12:00 PM
> 2) - KO DOESN'T oppose the war on terror.

Right. That's why he calls it the "so-called" war on terror. He doesn't just oppose it, he doesn't believe it exists!

> selfishly and shamelessly questioning the patriotism of Americans

But somehow when Keith shamelessly questions the patriotism of Americans, that's not only permissible, it's brilliant Edward R Murrow-caliber "journalism". More Olbypologist hypocrisy.

Posted by: johnny dollar at December 29, 2007 12:54 PM

There are tqo 2:58 posts Jeff. One of them was done by a well known internet troll who sometimes calls himself "royal king".

posted by 'mike'

Wrong, again, 'mike.' I am ALWAYS royal king. Desperate? Indeed. Another classic diversion, thanks.

"Out of Context? @ 3:41"

Absolutely!......Why, you say? .....

Because my quotes that he used to make his point were incomplete, and therfore, totally out of context.

For example, using the quote "selfishly and shamelessly quesioning the patriotism of Americans" was only PART of my total point in which I was referring to KO's very first special comment aimed at Rumsfeld for shamelessly doing exactly that....and it also ignored my subsequent point that I had made in the same post about how once such a pandora's box is opened, it can be argued that turnabout is fair play.

I've done the same thing myself. I became so tired of having my own patriotism questioned simply because I oppose the Iraq War that I have myself resorted to responding by showing how that SAME charge can be leveled against those same shameless finger pointing war hawks.....just as easily!

So the answer is easy....ANY time you take one small part of one sentence and play it back to try to make a counterpoint.....and then have someone else play that SAME little part of a sentence back two or three MORE times, you are deliberately avoiding proper context.

Which is inherently dishonest.

But hell...why not? Politicians are doing that all the time these days!

"wrong again 'mike', I am ALWAYS royal king. Desperate."

How quickly they forget what they wish to forget!

You are sometimes "Jeff"!

'mike', go back and find the last post where I used 'jeff' and tell me 'sometimes' is the right word. Go ahead. Out of context, LOL!

2) - KO DOESN'T oppose the war on terror.

postd by 'mike'

You know this, how?

Posted by: royal king at December 29, 2007 12:00 PM

more crickeys........

but what you forget is that people like myself are the ones who have been pointing to Pakistan all along as ground zero

Posted by: Mike at December 27, 2007 7:11 PM

1) - NOBODY suggested that "we should have went into Pakistan in the first place".

posted by 'mike'

Those are all things that trolls do....TROLL!

Posted by: Mike at December 30, 2007 3:38 PM

Johnnie-Jeff really is a fascinating man.
He is just wholly misunderstood. I think most of that has to do with his choice of screenname.

Royal King?
Is there anything he's ever posted that resembles anything royal or kingly?

Besides, isn't it a little redundant?
Its also kind of like a restaurant with a sign that says "gourmet food". Just something untrustworthy about what is represented.

He does have good southern values though. He is a good soldier too. He is now a lietenant colonel in the Savage Brigade. He is very good at carrying out orders.

Posted by: Harvey Birdman, attorney at law at December 30, 2007 3:37 PM

RK: "mike, go back and find the last post where I used Jeff, and tell me sometimes is the right word."

I don't have to. I know you did it, and since you did it...."sometimes" is the right word by your own logic.

So you don't agree with that, then you'll stop calling me "the poster sometimes known as 'mike'".....for EXACTLY the same reason.

Meanwhile, Kindly stop accusing other posters of making anonymous posts when you have absolutely no way of proving it.

Jeff, I know you're not smart enough to understand this, but you bring ALL of your trouble on yourself.

And once again....STUPID....I NEVER once said or implied that "we should have went into Pakistan in the first place'!

And no, I don't believe KO opposes the war of terrorism....not the REAL one anyway....just the FAKE one.

STILL having reading comprehension problems?

Fine, then I guess your just doomed to keep perpetually showing off your legendary stupidity on this blog.

I'll tell you what RK, I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 30, 2007 5:32 PM

Yep, you're an olbyloon. Did you ever find any evidence that Johnny took "conservative positions" on this blog? Just curious.

5:19: I disagree, 100%.

1. I've used 2 names, you've use at least 50, big difference. I admitted, you denied.

2. Stop calling it asI see it? Not gonna happen. Keep defending the multi-name users, as long as they are on your side. Partisan? Indeed.

3. I have "troubles?" Really?

4. {And once again....STUPID....I NEVER once said or implied that "we should have went into Pakistan in the first place'!} mike

>

Posted by: Mike at December 27, 2007 7:11 PM

>>>

Where is this "fake war" going on? In your mind?

Wasted - you're the smartest person in the world and you are never wrong. Our biggest sin is that we do not acknowledge that fact often enough. We're fortunate to have you here, sharing your brilliance. Everyone, please answer wasted's questions and demands. We would never want wasted to go away, for we are in the presence of splendor. All praise Wasted Keystrokes.

Wasted on RK: "some people just don't get it."

yes, and they live to 'divert', even while claiming "diversion" as their favority word.

- RK refuses to own up or even address his own lies about you while trying to divert you back to that utterly ridiculous 'is J$ a conservative' argument in which you were simply stating the obvious.

- Just several posts above, he focused on a beside-the-point word like "sometimes" as a way of diverting from the the central point of a discussion about the definition of a troll.

- But his classic method of defending his own trolling is by calling attention to the 'trolling' of others, even though most of those posts are little more than responses to his own never ending trolling.

- He cuts and pastes collages of out of context post of others multiple times in place of saying anything himself, and is stupid enough to think that he has actually done something.....And then if nobody responds....he does it AGAIN!....and AGAIN!....in the form of obvious taunts....claiming 'victory' because no one really want to respond to anything THAT stupid.

- Then if he STILL doesn't get a response, he busily cuts and pastes even MORE evidence of his own cranial density...... repeatedly, ..... and then mis-interprets the predictable lack of response by intentionally calling more attention to his own self-hanging with taunts....for not responding to his stupidity.

You know, this whole thing COULD be a comic strip!

wasted, you are DENYING you never accused Johnny of taking "conservative positions" on this blog? Say it's true.

And then if nobody responds....he does it AGAIN!....and AGAIN!..

posted by 'mike'

BTW, please show me ONE post where I in any way prove to be an Olbyloon.

Otherwise, admit you were wrong YET AGAIN, since I am not.

You can even make a blanket admission to cover everything since Thanksgiving to save time if you choose.

Posted by: wasted keystrokes at December 30, 2007 1:34 AM

no reply.
shocker.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 30, 2007 1:03 PM

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 30, 2007 2:20 PM

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 30, 2007 3:02 PM

RK: "where is this "fake war" going on? In your mind?"

How many times do you have to hear the answer to that question before it sinks into that rather thick skull of yours?

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is NOT part of the "War on Terror"....Never was....never will be.

In fact, it is a very costly "diverson" from it.

How many times has that been explained to you now?

'mike' at least 50 names
'why' at least 50 names
'philby' at least 20 names
'patsy' at least 100 names

Now, that's comedy!

Now carefully and slowly re-read that sentence you just ressurected and tell we WHERE it ever suggested that "we should have went into Pakistan in the first place."

That wasn't what it said....and that wasn't what it mean't.

Posted by: Mike at December 30, 2007 2:10 PM

"Did we blink?"

RK: "Now, that's comedy!"

And it's even more comedic that someone gulity of using at least two names, and no telling how many others e don't know about...thinks he has something to crow about.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is NOT part of the "War on Terror"....Never was....never will be.

In fact, it is a very costly "diverson" from it.

How many times has that been explained to you now?

Posted by: Mike at December 30, 2007 6:25 PM

Do me a favor, go find an American soldier currently enlisted and tell him or her that to their face, please.

"Do me a favor, go find an American soldier currently enlisted and tell him or her that to their face please, please."

Why?

- Would it help us get him or her home faster?

- Would it change the fact that they are there?

- Would it help them do the job they have to do anyway any better?

- And finally, does the fact that they have been grossly misused diminish my thanks and gratitude for their willingness to make the sacrifice one iota......NO! ..... All it does is magnify my anger towards those in charge who should have known better....Those who have grossly and cynically misused their sacrifices.

And that is exactly why the American people and politicians should not yield to the temptation to turn a blind to the fact that a monumental mistake have been made...if for no other reason than to avoid repeating similar mistakes in the near future.

That's what I thought, another diversion. You'd wake up in the hospital if you said "fake war" to a troop and you know it.

RK: "did we blink"

No, you're the only one who 'blinked'. Every one else can obviously read and understand English.

That said, if we ever repeat the grave mistake of electing a President who doesn't understand the difference between simply recognizing that a place is "ground zero"....and actually conducting a full scale ground invasion of that place,..... then our problems are just beginning.

The real mystry is WHY do you keep highlighting the fact that you can't understand the meaning of simple words?

It's probably the same reason you idolize Wiener Savage.

Johnny of taking "conservative positions" on this blog? Say it's true.

Posted by: royal king at December 30, 2007 6:19 PM

Comprehension problems? ON THIS BLOG was the argument. Take a deep breath, wipe the slobber off your keyboard.

RK: "Thats what I thought. Another diversion."

In other words, you asked me another rhetorical question. Like I once told you....ALL of your questions are rhetorical.

BTW, you are wrong about your assertion that "any' currently serving soldier would react violently to my telling them the Iraq war is not part of the war on terror.

You see, unlike YOU....most of them fully understand that what they are fighting for, and what they represent, .... is the right of all Americans to say what they believe.

RK to wasted: "Comprehension problems"

Jeff, YOU were the one who kept accusing an anonymous poster who was arguing with J$ about whether or not he was a conservative of being "Wasted Keystrokes".

Johnny himself posted that you were WRONG. It WASN'T wasted. It was someone who has never posted here before.

JOHNNY proved you WRONG Jeff!

Yet here you are, STILL making the argument that it was "wasted".

The only one 'slobbering' is YOU!

Yet this is exactly what he did here...without attribution.
A little hypocritical, Jeffrey?
NO ..A LOT HYPOCRITICAL !

posted by the poster sometimes known as 'why'

By Cliff Kincaid Saturday, December 29, 2007

Can't read, 'why?' That's known as 'attribution.' Oh, you forgot to add Canada Free Press to your list. Hack.
>>>

Olbyloon Ed
Todays Students: 'why' and Mrs. Philby
Sadly, they both claim to be 'teachers'

Attribution (copyright), a concept in copyright law requiring an [author to be credited.]

And if nothing else is working, throw in a cut and paste that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand....like RK just did at 7:35 PM.

Mike continues with his silliness. He has no idea what he is talking about and yet continues to post his moronic drivel. It is uesless to hope that Mike might one day decide to undertake some factual investigation to determine whether the left fringe talking points he buys into are actually valid.

Take for example this latest bit of stupidity he's braying on about -- that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror and is simply a "diversion" (straight from the Murtha-Sheehan lexicon) . In fact, the truth of the matter is that the number, consistency and varied provenence of reports of high level contacts between al-qaeda and Iraq throughout the past decade allows one to connect the dots into a clear pattern of collaboration.

But facts are of no interest to Mike. In the history of this site, has Mike ever posted anything that was worth a shit?

And no, I don't believe KO opposes the war of terrorism....not the REAL one anyway....just the [FAKE one.]

posted by mike

He NEVER said FAKE war.

posted by wasted

Think before you post, please.

Wased: "I think his objective is working."

The trick is not to let this troll bother you wasted. When it ceases to be fun, just ignor him until you feel like arguing with an 8 year old mentality again.

One other thing Wasted;....you are never going to get RK to admit ANYTHING.

It's simply not in him to recognize or acknowledge he was wrong about anything....even when faced with irrefutable proof.

even when faced with irrefutable proof.

Posted by: Mike at December 30, 2007 7:49 PM

Something you have NEVER accomplished.

checked into the Liddy Dole Fat Farm

posted by philby/clucker/rudy/jennifer/joel/kip/many others

Sounds like you have a permanent room there. Name on the door, or names, I mean?

7:44, you just accused me of presenting no "facts, yet you just made a 3 paragraph post full of nothing but ad honinem personal attacks on me but was COMPLETELY devoid of facts.

Every one of your so called "high level contacts" and "collaboration" reports before the invasion were completely and thoroughly discredited.

Unless you're STILL living in the dark ages of believing Saddam was involved in 911, as were most Americans as recently as the 2004 elections, then you are well aware that all of Al Qeada's Iraq affilliations occured well after the invasion.

That said mister anonymous Jabber, Did you notice that I just managed to make a 3 paragraph counterpoint to your ad hominem laced attack post without stooping to doing that back to you...even once?

Worth re posting.

And no, I don't believe KO opposes the war of terrorism....not the REAL one anyway....just the [FAKE one.]

posted by mike

He NEVER said FAKE war.

posted by wasted

"He never said Fake war"

Showing off your reading comprehension difficulties again Jeff?

Hint: It's nothing to be proud of!

8:06, classic olbyloon diversion. A psychotic olbyloon, at that.

Wasted: "It's like shoveling shit against the tide."

The trick is not to think of these people as "the tide". The truth is that they don't matter.

This blog serves as little more than to give us a peek into an alien mindset that we wouldn't really see anywhere else.

As for RK's silly "think before you post" and other such hypocritical slogans. He does that because he thinks it bothers you.

His goal is to bother you. Thats why he is a troll.

It's no different than your neighbor's dog barking at you in your own back yard. The dog is doing it because he thinks it bothers you, and he gets a kick out of bothering you. Getting mad at the dog won't help, ...... and using logic on the dog won't help either.

RK is like that dog.

"He never said Fake war"

Showing off your reading comprehension difficulties again Jeff?

Hint: It's nothing to be proud of!

Posted by: Mike at December 30, 2007 8:06 PM

"Did we blink?"

RK: "Did we blink?"

Not you!.....Your eyes and ears are closed all the time.

And no, I don't believe KO opposes the war of terrorism....not the REAL one anyway....just the [FAKE one.]

posted by mike

Hands up, who missed me?

"Just the [FAKE one.]

Keep right on showing off your reading comprehension problems. It serves to explain to the rest of us why Wiener Savage makes sense to you.

When I referred to the real war of terrorism vs the FAKE war on terrorism, I made it explicitly clear that the Iraq war is not part of the war on terrorism, which it isn't. It is a diversion from THAT war.

This, the war in Iraq is indeed a very "real" war, but it is NOT part of the war on terrorism, which is exactly the point that the original post was making....Thus while it a a "real" war, it only become a "fake" war in the context of trying justify it as part of something it isn't.

But you know what Jeff, I think everyone else already understood that.

I keep telling you, your reading comprehension problems are nothing to be proud of.

When I referred to the real war of terrorism vs the FAKE war on terrorism, I made it explicitly clear that the Iraq war is not part of the war on terrorism, which it isn't. It is a diversion from THAT war.

This, the war in Iraq is indeed a very "real" war, but it is NOT part of the war on terrorism, which is exactly the point that the original post was making....Thus while it a a "real" war, it only become a "fake" war in the context of trying justify it as part of something it isn't.

Either way , you're talking out you ass mike. How many al qaeda have been killed in Iraq?

Thanks for clarifying Mike,,, it wasn't as obvious the first time and you did leave yourself open for that misinterpretation.

Its a bizarre read here today.

Wasted, it's obvious that you would like to elevate the level of discussion on this blog.

So would I.

RK doesn't want that though. That's why he's just a troll. He's like the fly that keeps buzzing around your head while your trying to talk on a summer day.

It's hard to avoid the temptation to swat at it.

Jeff has that unenviable ability to drag both you and the discussion down into the gutter with him. It's hard to quantify, but he does it over and over and over again, and we've all fallen to the temptation to engage in pissing matches with this obvious troll.

That said, I'm all for joining in a consensus to ignor this troll.

"How many Al Qeada have been killed in Iraq?"

How many Al Qeada have been recruited worldwide BECAUSE of Iraq?

Didn't mom say don't answer a question with a question?

Oh yeah, the crazy muslims hadnt thought about killing us before 2003. How about 1979, 1983, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001? That element has existed long before GW and will exist long after GW. You somehow think him an evil lightning rod for this shit. This is a war of attrition and better its fought there than here. This is on the muslim world. They need to reject this fundamentalist bullshit.

"Didn't mom say don't answer a question with a question?"

Was 'mom' referring to rhetorical questions?

What some here would call your monday morning quarterbacking I call 5th column bullshit

So RK got jumped by a three to one margin with ANON, Mike and Wasted. How does that happen on a conservative blog?

PS> So hows the godson anon.?

Hey - what bad luck that Musharaf has... his biggest political rival dies by bumping her head, yet everyone still thinks he had her assasinated. Sheesh.

McCool:

"Oh yeah, the crazy Muslims hadn't thought about killing us before 2003?".....Who said or implied THAT?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1979" - Iranian hostage taking at US embassy after Khomeini's "triumphant" return......Like it or not, we made a mistake in backing a brutal dictator called the Shah of Iran. We are still paying for that mistake today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1983" - Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon.....THAT was a pretty nasty blow. We were actually trying to play peacekeeper, and Reagan reacted by pulling all troops. I always wondered what kind of message that sent?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1993" - First WTC bombing.....We should have woken up with THAT attack, but I think it put people more asleep than ever because they assumed they couldn't REALLY hurt us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1998" - Embassy bombings.....Yep that happened too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2000" - USS Cole.....There was an election coming up, and neither candidate seemed particularly concerned. But the evil 'liberal' media kept telling us there was a problem.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"200" - What else needs to be said about the attack that "changed everything", except to say that maybe it shouldn't have changed "everything". We literally went from one extreme to while completely ignoring conventional wisdom that keeps telling us that neither extreme is good policy.

great to hear,
So why do you and Cee go at it so harshly? He's not here now so i don't mind asking... but you both are level headed regardless of your differing views. Yet sometimes you spend way too much time trying to get under each other's skin. Just curious.

Benson: "His biggest rival dies by bumping her head,"

How do you KNOW that Benson?

I think very few in America have concluded he was assasinated by Musharaf....but it isn't out of the realm of possibilty.

Without an impartial and independent international inquiry, how do you find out for sure? How do you erase all doubt?

There are actually TWO other possibilities: The lesser of which is that Musharaf failed to give her adequate security but didn't willingly have her killed.

The world needs to know the truth....but it probably isn't going to happen.

The whole point is that Olbermann thinks there is really no threat. He dubs it the "so-called' war on terrorism. Not because of Iraq. He just feels that Bush uses the random arrests just for political gain. ALA. Wagging the dog. Now that is the kind of mentality that is dangerous until Al Queda is defeated.

"so why do you and Cee go at it so harshly"

Who are you asking that question of?

"The whole point is that Olbermann believes there is really no threat."

I don't believe that and I've seen no evidence of that.

Sorry Mike... my sarcasm didn't come through when I typed. I heartly agree with what you said.

I question the intelligence of anyone who does believe she died from bumping her head. And whoever came up with that storyline in Pakistan should be shot... idiotic.

Mike- I was actually asking ANON,

but I kinda understand why you do. You both have a long history of sparring.

Mike- He often calls it 'so-called war on terror'

That is trivializing it.

"Now that is the kind of attitude that is dangerous until AL Qeada is defeated."

That is also dangerous as a domestic political mindset because it tends to shut down the political process by labeling certain ideas as "un-American"

I believe we saw this first hand in 2004 when so many fence sitting Americans declared that they voted for GWB because they didn't want to change CIC's while in the middle of a war. It MAY well have been why he won.

That mindset completely ignored the reality that the same president who they didn't want to switch in the middle of a war is also the same one who started this controversial war.

What kind of a precedent was set by sending the message that starting wars might just get you re-elected? I didn't hear much talk about that at the time, but I can guarantee you that I thought about it a lot at the time.

the same one who started this controversial war.

posted by mike

Really? Should we have sat on our thumbs after 9/11? Oh, I know, we should have went into Pakistan, err. What was you plan, again?

Was 'mom' referring to rhetorical questions?

Posted by: Mike at December 30, 2007 8:51 PM

Law school, day one. Never ask aquestion you don't already know the answer to. That's how 'mike' avoids the questions that will expose his real thoughts, by asking stupid questions in response to rational questions. Like "do you beat your wife?" He used that one 15 or 20 times. The evidence is scoured all over this blog.

both McCain and Obama are getting stronger!

Lets hope it continues!

Wouldn't that be refreshing change? ..... Integrity vs integrity in the general election!

Anyone that would vote for Obama is clueless. Would you hire a grocery store cashier to run your business?

Keep your FUCKED UP HALLUCINATIONS of muslims arriving at your door step with 3 meter long machetes.

Posted by: Excuse me DUMBSHIT! I mean BOVINE! at December 30, 2007 10:03 PM

Hey, patsy, how many muslims have you invited to your house? Any? Not one?

Hussains voting record sucks. I wouldn't expect any olbyloons to know this, though. For that matter, even look at it. Hands over eyes! Yea, let's make him Chief! Another Marion Barry!

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS030017

Olbyloon Ed
Obama
Stuff they don't know

He's all for abortion, full term, even. Also, make the state pay for it!
Prisoners can bring frivolous lawsuits and don't have to pay!
Needles? Don't need no prescription, buy as many as you want!
Porno on school pc's? All good with Obama!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18967

I take it you're a cashier? Sorry if I offended you in the process of making a point that went over your head.

Ok, wasted. What has Obama accomplished?

So, you would hire someone who has been no more than a cashier to run your business, if you had one?

"1998" - Embassy bombings.....Yep that happened too.

posted by mike

Now, there's a rebuttal.

Thanks, patsy!

>Anyone that would vote for Obama is clueless. Would you hire a grocery store cashier to run your business?

Posted by: royal king at December 30, 2007 10:49 PM

That's cute Royal Douche. If your business is training grocery store cashiers, perhaps you would.

patsy's mother, who is also his sister, hasn't informed him obama is running for president. Hence, he doesn't have a clue.

Ok, wasted. What has Obama accomplished?

Posted by: royal king at December 31, 2007 12:13 AM

crickeys.......even patsy couldn't come up w/anything. Shocker.

Silly Mike writes:

"Every one of your so called "high level contacts" and "collaboration" reports before the invasion were completely and thoroughly discredited. . . you are well aware that all of Al Qeada's Iraq affilliations occured well after the invasion."

You reinforce my assessment of you as a clueless left fringe lackey every time you post, Mike. Ever read anything that doesn't robotically regurgitate every tired "blame America first" meme? How about "The Connection" by Stephen Hayes, which lays out point by point the connections and relationship between Sadaam and al Qaeda BEFORE 9/11? How about "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright (certainly no conservative) that provides a detailed history of the early founding of modern day radical Islam and how their intentions are unmistakable concerning the eradication of Western society (that's us, Mike). How about "America Alone" by Mark Steyn or "Imperial Grunts" by Robert Kaplan? Have you read any of these Mike? Have you even heard of any of them?

Like I said, in the history of this site, has Mike ever posted anything that is worth a shit? You would think that, given the fact that he spends his life here, he might accidentally stumble upon some relevant or useful fact or bit of information, but I have yet to see it.

"given the fact that he spends his life here, he might accidently stumble upon some relevant or useful fact or bit of information, but I have yet to see it."

THIS, from someone who uses jibberish in place of a name when he/she chooses to make ad hominem personal attacks...Very helpful when trying to avoid long term accountability.

Since you stated as a point of "fact" that I "spend my life here', my question would be how would you know such a thing if you aren't right here spending your life here along with me?

Since you freely spew out such drivel as THAT as a point of "fact", why would you expect anyone to accept your rendition of "fact" regarding anything else?

That said, the FACT remains that ALL you have done in six stereotype based paragraphs of personal attacks is name to a series of book titles sympathetic to your worldview as a method of validating your Neoconish worldview.....and (theoretically), repudiating mine.

In addition to the books that you just named, there are also plenty of books out there cited evidence for all kinds of OTHER conspiracy theories as well, including; .....the existance of UFOs.....911 was an inside job.....The illuminatti are plotting to take over the world.....The Free Masons are controlling the world.....and don't forget about chemtrails, etc.

Do you know how many damned books have been written on this subject?....And practically ALL of them with their own agenda. Do you REALLY think it is news to me that a handful of writers out there think they have uncovered what THEY believe are 'connections' that the overwhelming prepondurance of evidence has thoroughly discredited?

You remind me of that nutjob Senator from Virginia, Senator Santorum, who was thankfully defeated, who was still insisting that we had found WMD in Iraq well into the year 2006.

So do you REALLY think you've presented an argument here that is "worth a shit" yourself?

And do you REALLY think giving this site your jibberish based personal assessment of me means a damned thing?

And finally, do you REALLY think I give a damn what you think of me?

The two personal attack filled posts you have made tonight match your "jibber jabber" pen name perfectly.....absolute jibberish!

But hey, thanks anyway for your worthless input....and have a Happy New Year!

Once again, Mike's head remains up his ass. He has become so throroughly brainwashed by the Murtha/Sheehan ideology that he is incapable of assessing evidence that shoots down his left fringe talking points that he absorbed like a good stooge. Why don't you actually consider the source material I have cited demonstrating the pre-9/11 relationhsip between al Qaeda and Sadaam and the undeniable goal of radical Islam to convert (or wipe out) Western society? You will not do so because such an honest assessment of the issue would force you to have to admit that you have been duped by the left fringe. Your comparison of the thoroughly verfied points I have made to such nutty ideas like "9/11 was an inside job" shows you are completely out of your league. Proponents of "9/11 was an inside job" come from your side of the ideological spectrum, my simple friend Mike.

One again, in the history of this site can anybody point to anything that Mike has posted that is worth a shit?

OK Jibber Jabber, or 'he who is afraid to post a real name', tell me why it is always all or nothing with you people?

Tell me why is it that you people cannot make a point without first telling your opponent that he has "his head up his ass", or how "simple" he is?

I'll answer that...it's your crutch! You can't make an argument that stands on it's own two feet without using ad hominems like that.

Why is it that according to your ideology, you seem to think either we believe there is an Islamic threat,.....or we discredit it entirely?...No middle ground here!

Why is it that people like you assume that people like me believe what we believe simply because we are listening to too many left wing sources?....Are you really THAT stupid????

In your world, you assume we either think they want to kill us, or we think they don't? No middle ground here either.

In your lunatic fringe world, you see a united and monolithic Islamic world whose united and undeniable goal is to wipe out the west,....when in fact, there is the entire range of opinion in the Islamic world that ranges from the Al Qeada radicals to the MAJORITY of Muslims, who simply want to live in peace.

There simply is NO in between with people like you...no nuance! Thats precisely why you can't, and couldn't see the fundamental ideological differences that existed between Saddam and Al Qeada.

Thats precisely why the president of the United States didn't bother to learn the differences and history between Shia and Sunni before he made the earth shattering decision to invade their country.

You keep calling me "fringe left" while EVERYTHING you are spouting is fringe right....And while you keep referring to these phantom "points' you have made....the reality is you've made NO (ZERO) "points" yourself....in what NOW adds up to 8 paragraphs of what amount to 90% personal attacks.

And so finally, WHEN exactly are you going to actually make a "point" that isn't just a regurgitation of your personal opinion?

Just who in the hell do you think you are here?.......THE unquestioned authority?

Good night nameless!

Mental midget, otherwise calling himself Why Don't You Think, used this link to analyze the year's news:

http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/17538811/dickheads_of_the_year/1

###
And this is what the idiot fearfully concludes under his George Bush selection:

"Who will tell this president what everyone but him already knows? The theory of evolution. And the times tables. And where the sun goes at night. And that Iraq is going to be three different countries. And that everyone hates us and we've run our military into the ground and the Taliban is back and we still haven't caught bin Laden and the economy is tanking and we wasted eight years blowing the oil companies while the Earth is melting. We had a pretty nice house when this Cat in the Hat of presidents came in and made the mess of all time. And who's going to clean it all up — Rudy Giuliani?"

###
OH MY THE SKY IS FALLING!

What a fearful little wonk....."everybody hates us," aw do you really believe that mental midget?....."The economy is tanking,"....aw go hide under your bed for fear of the bogeyman, mental midget!...Hurry!

Oh, and the disengenuous little mental midget failed to comment on the braniac's other entry.....

"Congressional Democrats

"Who, when it came time to render judgment on the administration's patently illegal wiretapping, took advantage of a deeply unpopular lame-duck president by caving in to his every whim. They agreed to allow the Justice Department to spy on Americans without a warrant. I know it is unconstitutional and all, but hey, if you can't trust the sober judgment of Alberto Gonzales. . . . "

###
Who's dumber?....The one you think is dumb or those who do EVERYTHING he demands?....Oh mental midget....you are a silly little democratic sycophant.....who's showing himself not to be as smart as George W. Bush.

Oh well....what do you expect from tenured state college profs.....

I would invite 'mike' and wk over to A Soldiers Perspective and see how long they last there. I'd like to see 'mike' tell CJ all about our "needless war." He'd last 2 seconds on the street.

OK Jibber Jabber, or 'he who is afraid to post a real name', tell me why it is always all or nothing with you people?

posted by hypocrite mike

My, my, my. This from the EXACT same loon who claimed, not long ago, that "it doesn't matter who makes the post, it's the content of the post!" Right, mikey? Isn't tha what you said when it was the anonyloons not using names singing your song? It was hunky dory then, wasn't it mikey? Just our daily dose of hypocrisy from whiney mike!

the UN (yes UN) should start their investigation into Bhutto’s death with Negropontethe Bush crime family, and Musharraf himself.

Posted by: the messenger at December 31, 2007 4:20 AM

Oh, yes. I'm sure the un would get right to the bottom of it.............Maybe they should resurrect Koffee cup Anon to spear head the investigation.

Anon- I like having an array of loons here, from both sides. It keeps the subject matter on a constant flow. And I hope that you don't give me and Mcool too much credit because we occasionally agree with your side. Fact is- we more often disagree.

I haven't found anyone that disagrees with the Bhutto assination being covered up, so how is the becoming an anti Bush talking point

Where's the good ol' aclu? Hiding! She's not a muslim reading their hate filled book, so they'll just act like it never happened. I hope she sues the shit out of 'em!

FORT WORTH (CBS 11 News) ― A passenger on a Fort Worth bus says the T. Bus Service discriminated against her religion.

Christine Lutz says she was reading her Bible to her children when the bus driver asked her to stop or get off the bus.

Lutz, a Seventh Day Adventist, and her children were on their way to church.

wasted, I never said you denigraded soldiers, as mike has. Nor, have I seen you claim the war was "needless" or claim soldiers are dying "needlessly" as mike has done countless times. You and 'mike' are worlds apart in some ways. I would never put you in the same boat as him.

Now, what brought you to this blog?

The former Clucker says:

"I can argue policy all day with someone and never feel inclined to attack them personally, unless they pontificate, proslytize (sic) . . ."

Clucker, I am trying to recall an occasion upon which you have refrained from such pontification and proselytizing yourself.

wasted, A friend of mine in Oregon, who is very liberal, I might add, told me if I watched him (Olbermahn) he would make a liberal out of me. Well, I turned him on and couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. Needless to say, watching him did the complete opposite of what my friend said he would do. He infuriated me. I immediately went online and that's how I found this blog.

Clucker, I am trying to recall an occasion upon which you have refrained from such pontification and proselytizing yourself.

Posted by: at December 31, 2007 2:25 PM

I was just thinking the same thing, myself. Did you notice she gave the same childish explanation that 'mike' always uses? The "you did it first" excuse for name calling and personal attacks?

No offense RK, but I don't think anyone could make a liberal out of you.
The same way watching O'Reilly or listening to Savage or Rush infuriates me.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 31, 2007 2:33 PM

None taken.

One last post for 2007 as I finish up work....

I was watching the news on ABC yesterday and they marked the 1 year anniversary of Saddam Hussein's execution. Although far from resolved, the Iraq War is being won by those on the side of freedom and democracy. A stable society free from sectarian strife and the meddling Al Queda and Iran marginalized is closer than it was in 12/06...and the fact that Saddam Hussein was not made a martyr by the Sunni tribesman and their followers was a great sign of hope.

Keith Olbermann's radical anti-American views regarding the troop's emancipation of the Iraqi people out from under the totalitarian Hussein, the role of a free and stable Iraq in the continuing war against radical islamic terrorism that has all of the free world on its hit list.....is what brings me here....I am sorry that some of my views are deeply felt and based on more than mere political comfort....The use of violence against injustice in a violent, fallen world must be deeply examined by everyone and when force is not stopped by a greater force, what are the consequences.

A defeated, internationally uninvolved USA would be a disaster for human beings the world over and I hope those that believe the violence, murder and supression of freedom in the world should not be faced directly when possible remember what the world was like prior to the rise of The USA as a world power.

I for one do not want the world of the 1800's and the first half of the 20th century when the it was either run by selfish imperialistic powers or off target secular penny philosophers promising utopia. The USA still is that same force for human dignity and freedom it was in The Marshall plan and beyond. A force that's goal is to allow individuals freedom of choice to believe what they want and pursue their dreams. The alternatives Bush has stood up against needed to be faced and there are yet more ready to challenge.

The only worry or fear I have is the falsehoods perpetrated by the radical anti-American left as represented by Keith Olbermann will become conventional wisdom....It has eroded, through demogoguery, insult and half-truths, the optimistic and future looking attitude so common before, but, as shown by the closely divided country, has not been victorious.

I appreciate this site for its purpose in showing the wolf in sheep's clothing that is Keith Olbermann...his tactics and lack of integrity is what is damaging to any democracy because he misinforms people.

The simple fact that we are having a caucus to select the nominees for president next week and the wonderful succession of presidents will continue shows the fear mongering and constitutional crisis he has tried to generate is false. Just like the democrats caving in on their rhetoric about wiretapping, the Iraq War, Plame-gate and everything else....from impeachment to censure.....no illegality has ever been proved on the part of those Olbermann accuses and they continue to act within the constitutional roles set for them.

No loss of habeas.
No loss of due process.
No loss of freedom of speech.
No loss of political accommodation or assembly.
No loss OF ANYTHING!

The spitting, emotional, disrespectful, biased, self-important, and whiney Keith Olbermann should remind us all of how serious the REAL work is in the maintenance of our government, freedoms and society.

The Iraqi people remember....look here for their simple optimism and celebrating for the blessings they have received.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKAM15739020071231

Perhaps those complaining and fear-filled Americans who still have so much more than even their own parents had should reflect on the Iraqi people's behavior tonight.

patsy, how many muslims have you invited in your house? None?

OK Jibber Jabber, or 'he who is afraid to post a real name', tell me why it is always all or nothing with you people?

posted by mike

1. Posted by: KEWL! Now we are making progress at December 31, 2007 2:50 PM

2. Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 31, 2007 2:33 PM

3. Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 31, 2007 2:11 PM

4. Posted by: the messenger at December 31, 2007 4:20 AM

5. Posted by: Pricele$$ at December 31, 2007 12:35 AM

6. Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at December 30, 2007 12:26 PM

7. Posted by: Harvey Birdman, attorney at law at December 30, 2007 3:37 PM

8. Posted by: Pawsie at December 29, 2007 10:41 AM

9. Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 31, 2007 2:49 PM

>

patsy, you're lying, again. You've never had a muslim in your house.

patsy, this is America. We measure in 'feet' not meters. Hillary isn't president, yet.

6. Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at December 30, 2007 12:26 PM

Posted by: royal king at December 31, 2007 3:11 PM

I am what I am and thats all that I am

RK: "Hey mike, are these real names?"

You mean like 'Mount Royal King'?

The classic olbyloon diversion from mike. Desperate, to the max. Hypocrite, to the max.

RK: "Hypocrite, to the max."

Sorry, but did I get it 51.56% right?

OK Jibber Jabber, or 'he who is afraid to post a real name', tell me why it is always all or nothing with you people?

posted by mike

1. Posted by: KEWL! Now we are making progress at December 31, 2007 2:50 PM

2. Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 31, 2007 2:33 PM

3. Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 31, 2007 2:11 PM

4. Posted by: the messenger at December 31, 2007 4:20 AM

5. Posted by: Pricele$$ at December 31, 2007 12:35 AM

6. Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at December 30, 2007 12:26 PM

7. Posted by: Harvey Birdman, attorney at law at December 30, 2007 3:37 PM

8. Posted by: Pawsie at December 29, 2007 10:41 AM

9. Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 31, 2007 2:49 PM

>

>

OK Jibber Jabber, or 'he who is afraid to post a real name', tell me why it is always all or nothing with you people?

posted by mike

1. Posted by: KEWL! Now we are making progress at December 31, 2007 2:50 PM

2. Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 31, 2007 2:33 PM

3. Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 31, 2007 2:11 PM

4. Posted by: the messenger at December 31, 2007 4:20 AM

5. Posted by: Pricele$$ at December 31, 2007 12:35 AM

6. Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at December 30, 2007 12:26 PM

7. Posted by: Harvey Birdman, attorney at law at December 30, 2007 3:37 PM

8. Posted by: Pawsie at December 29, 2007 10:41 AM

9. Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 31, 2007 2:49 PM

>

RK: "I'm going to re post these every day. Get used to it 'mike'"

Knock yourself out troll!

OK Jibber Jabber, or 'he who is afraid to post a real name', tell me why it is always all or nothing with you people?

posted by mike

1. Posted by: KEWL! Now we are making progress at December 31, 2007 2:50 PM

2. Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 31, 2007 2:33 PM

3. Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 31, 2007 2:11 PM

4. Posted by: the messenger at December 31, 2007 4:20 AM

5. Posted by: Pricele$$ at December 31, 2007 12:35 AM

6. Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at December 30, 2007 12:26 PM

7. Posted by: Harvey Birdman, attorney at law at December 30, 2007 3:37 PM

8. Posted by: Pawsie at December 29, 2007 10:41 AM

9. Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 31, 2007 2:49 PM

>

Why don't you be a man and address the post, hypocrite? Can't?

How's the famous Sacramento smog when you look west across the Sacramento Valley these days?

I remember when I was stationed at McClellan AFB over 30 years ago how you couldn't even see the beautiful High Sierras on most days.

I heard those evil liberals cleaned most of that up though, with their nasty clean air legislation since then.

RK: "Why can't you be a man and address the post?"

Nothing to "address" Troll. You're hanging yourself again.

Your reading comprehension handicap is on full display again to everyone....once again.

I learned something wierd on this site that I've never encountered in 56 years of living before.

You can be labeled a hypocrite for what OTHER people do....Glory be! I never knew that before!

At least that's what "51.56% Royal King" keeps telling me.

OK Jibber Jabber, or 'he who is afraid to post a real name', tell me why it is always all or nothing with you people?

posted by mike

1. Posted by: KEWL! Now we are making progress at December 31, 2007 2:50 PM

2. Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 31, 2007 2:33 PM

3. Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 31, 2007 2:11 PM

4. Posted by: the messenger at December 31, 2007 4:20 AM

5. Posted by: Pricele$$ at December 31, 2007 12:35 AM

6. Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at December 30, 2007 12:26 PM

7. Posted by: Harvey Birdman, attorney at law at December 30, 2007 3:37 PM

8. Posted by: Pawsie at December 29, 2007 10:41 AM

9. Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 31, 2007 2:49 PM

>

>

RK: "Nothing to address? Really? Can't read, hypocrite mike?"

HA! I love it when you keep making a fool out of yourself by showing your own stupidity over and over again.

And I don't even have to help!

Ok, lets go over this. You, 'mike,' criticised 'jibber jabber' for not using a 'real name.' Right? Yes. All the while, 9 loons on your side do the EXACT same thing. Not a single peep from hypocrite mike/you. Who's the fool? Nothing to address? Really? Can you please explain that to me?

Hello fellow OWers,

Before I get to my New Years Eve festivities, I thought it might be good to start the new year with some notable quotes :

"Don't waste any time in mourning - organize."
-Joe Hill

"Power has to be insecure to be responsive."
-Ralph Nader

"Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune."
-Noam Chomsky

You can be active with the activists, or sleep in with the sleepers
While you're waiting for the great leap forwards"
-Billy Bragg

"We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute."
-Buenaventura Durruti

RK: "OK, lets go over this. You 'mike', criticized 'Jibber Jabber' for not using a real name. Right? Yes. All the while, 9 loons on your side do the EXACT same thing."

ROFLMAO......REALLY!

You REALLY do have the mentality of an 8 year old, don't you 51.56% stud?

OK, I'll explain this simple little thing JUST for you Jeff: 'Jibber jabber' is OBVIOUSLY not a new poster, even though 'jibber jabber' is clearly a new name.....Follow me so far Jeff?...I don't want to go to fast for you now!

That established, 'Jibber Jabber' obviously chose to use the moniker 'Jibber Jabber' in a childish attempt to harass me with 3 posts filled with no substance and 90% name calling ad hominems. It is also obvious he/she deliberately chose the name 'Jibber Jabber' exclusively to mock me. In other words, 'Jibber Jabber' is a NAME CHANGER....Follow me so far Jeffy?

In other words, 'Jibber Jabber' deliberately chose to avoid using whatever name or moniker he/she normally uses exclusively to embark on a name calling spree against me. In other words, 'Jibber Jabber' did not use his'her "REAL" name or moniker that he/she normally uses.....Follow me so far Jeff?...I understand this may be getting just a little too deep for you.

Therefore, I criticized 'Jibber Jabber' for not using his "real", or normal "name", or moniker when he/she made the deliberate choice to embark on that attack.....Still with me Jeff?

Thus, I did NOT accuse 'Jibber Jabber' of doing "the exact same thing" as SLOB or anyone else who understandably chooses not to use their real life name on this blogboard, including YOU.....Stay with me now Jeff....I KNOW this is hard for you, but if you had normal intelligence, it wouldn't be...but I understand that's not YOUR fault!

So the bottom line Jeff, is that IF you were capable of reading and understanding my ENTIRE responce to 'Jibber Jabber', .... then you would have fully understood the context, and thus you would have also understood the meaning of that single sentence you chose to isolate and latch on to.

But for THAT, you would have had to have normal intelligence!

You really are 'Pricele$$'!

LOL!

So, it's all about being 'new' or 'not?' How would that make a difference? How do you know if he's 'new' or not? Answer, you don't. You are one desperate fool. At least it's on record for all to see.

By your logic, you're still the biggest hypocrite here. Patsy's not 'new.' It's been proven he changes his name every post, not a peep from you. Philby? Same thing. You're 50 some odd names? Get lost, loser. Like Johnny said. Get lost. Pretty sad, indeed.

OK Jibber Jabber, or 'he who is afraid to post a real name', tell me why it is always all or nothing with you people?

posted by mike

1. Posted by: KEWL! Now we are making progress at December 31, 2007 2:50 PM

2. Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at December 31, 2007 2:33 PM

3. Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 31, 2007 2:11 PM

4. Posted by: the messenger at December 31, 2007 4:20 AM

5. Posted by: Pricele$$ at December 31, 2007 12:35 AM

6. Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at December 30, 2007 12:26 PM

7. Posted by: Harvey Birdman, attorney at law at December 30, 2007 3:37 PM

8. Posted by: Pawsie at December 29, 2007 10:41 AM

9. Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 31, 2007 2:49 PM

>

"Did we blink?"

RK: "So, it's all about being 'new' or not?"

You really want to continue on with your stupidity, don't you.....amazing!

NO stupid....it's not about being 'new'! It's about changing your name simply to harass another poster...and then chinging it back to pretend it wasn't you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RK: "How do you know if he's new or not?"

Because stupid....he SAID he wasn't new with his long term critical observation of my posts over an extending period of time.

What did I just tell you about reading and understanding the ENTIRE post, and the ENTIRE response...and not just a single sentence or phrase?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally '51.56% RK' read my 11:05 PM post and TRY to understand that one as well....although I KNOW it's hard for you.

You see, what you keep doing is calling me a 'hypocrite' for criticizing posters who are criticizing ME, because I don't ALSO criticize posters who are NOT criticizing me.

Thats NOT the definition of a "hypocrite", dummy! ......

And if it were, YOU would certainly be the biggest hypocrite of all.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to TRY to stick to one of my New Year resolutions of not responding to trolls like you anymore.

WASHINGTON – It's no longer just a charge of copyright violation in the case of Michael Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Now the radio talk star is going for the legal jugular in his battle with the group that bills itself as a Muslim civil rights organization.

The San Francisco-based talker has amended his lawsuit against CAIR for misusing audio clips of his show as part of a boycott campaign against his three-hour daily program to include charges the group "has consistently sought to silence opponents of violent terror through economic blackmail, frivolous but costly lawsuits, threats of lawsuits and abuses of the legal system."

The amended lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, also charges CAIR with using extortion, threats, abuse of the court system, and obtaining money via interstate commerce under false and fraudulent circumstances – calling it a "political vehicle of international terrorism" and even linking the group with support of al-Qaida.

The federal government recently named CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas.

Hands over hypocritical eyes!

By your logic, you're still the biggest hypocrite here. Patsy's not 'new.' It's been proven he changes his name every post, not a peep from you. Philby? Same thing. You're 50 some odd names? Get lost, loser. Like Johnny said. Get lost. Pretty sad, indeed.

"Get lost loser."

Not a chance troll!

Now go look up the word hypocrite, stupid!

Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to TRY to stick to one of my New Year resolutions of not responding to trolls like you anymore.

Posted by: Mike at January 1, 2008 12:32 AM

What's the other ones? No more heroin? Crank? Quit pimpin' you're wife? Get a job? Stop lying? Take Johnny's advice and get lost?

Now go look up the word hypocrite, stupid!

Posted by: Mike at January 1, 2008 12:42 AM

hypocrite-mike/ 50 some odd others
sometimes he's a noun, sometimes he's just a hypocrite, sometimes he's just a very desperate olbyloon.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to TRY to stick to one of my New Year resolutions of not responding to trolls like you anymore.

Posted by: Mike at January 1, 2008 12:32 AM

>

Not a chance troll!

Now go look up the word hypocrite, stupid!

Posted by: Mike at January 1, 2008 12:42 AM

No wonder he can't get off the dope!

"no wonder he can't get off the dope"

Great point nameless, except for one small detail.

The OW clock is wrong, and has been wrong for months....."12:42 AM" was actually 11:59 PM EST.

Try again loser.

The OW clock is wrong, and has been wrong for months....."12:42 AM" was actually 11:59 PM EST.

Try again loser.

Posted by: Mike at January 1, 2008 1:53 AM

Was there a point? Splitting hairs, again? Still 10 minutes apart, right?

Who exactly is supposed to care about this?

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at January 1, 2008 11:13 AM

One would think that the liberals, of all people would be interested in the story. It pertains to free speech, does it not? What if it were Olbermann who was trying to be silenced, different? What if it were NPR, different?

One would think that the liberals, of all people would be interested in the story. It pertains to free speech, does it not? What if it were Olbermann who was trying to be silenced, different? What if it were NPR, different?

Keep proving what hacks you are. Couldn't be any more obvious.

One would think that the liberals, of all people would be interested in the story. It pertains to free speech, does it not? What if it were Olbermann who was trying to be silenced, different? What if it were NPR, different?

Keep proving what hacks you are. Couldn't be any more obvious.

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 2:02 PM

Good morning, Royal King!

2:11 would be known as an olbyloon diversion. All the while proving to be a partisan hack.

Good morning, Royal King!

Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at January 1, 2008 2:11 PM

Proof? None?

Good morning, Royal King!

Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at January 1, 2008 2:11 PM

Proof? None?

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 2:16 PM

ha ha. got me there!

I meant to say Good Morning (not) Royal king!

Of course, there is that substantive issue too, i.e. his Wiener envy. All too, too good!

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 1, 2008 2:27 PM

This tripe coming from someone who has Olbermanns penis lodged in their throat. Someone they supposedly don't like!

Indeed! After the informal resolution to ignore RK/J/J-J last name, he has decided to post anonymously. His primary school writing style and his limted vocabulary are just too big a give away. Of course, there is that substantive issue too, i.e. his Wiener envy. All too, too good!

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 1, 2008 2:27 PM

Honestly, I don't care if he posts with several names. It's just when his "discussions" consist of accusing everyone else he disagrees with of using different psuedonyms, it gets on my nerves.

One would think that the liberals, of all people would be interested in the story. It pertains to free speech, does it not? What if it were Olbermann who was trying to be silenced, different? What if it were NPR, different?

Cowards, olbyloons are.

One would think that the liberals, of all people would be interested in the story. It pertains to free speech, does it not? What if it were Olbermann who was trying to be silenced, different? What if it were NPR, different?

Keep proving what hacks you are. Couldn't be any more obvious.

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 2:02 PM

Still nothing?

By the same token, there is no doubt that Wiener's hate-filled speech is targeted against Muslims. But, with very few limitations, one can spew as much hate-filled speech as he wants.

posted by anonymous/philby/jennifer/joel/rudy/too many others/clucker

http://www.savage-productions.com/Transcript_2.html

Should I post more, uninformed hack?

http://www.savage-productions.com/Transcript_2.html

Should I post more, uninformed hack?

Posted by: royal king at January 1, 2008 4:33 PM

That was al the way in 2001, wienerloon!

***Look at me, I can use one of Royal Kings' favorite tactics against him.***

one can spew as much hate-filled speech as he wants.

posted by anonymous/philby/jennifer/joel/rudy/too many others/clucker

As proven with Olbyonesidedkanoby's Extra Speshal Komments. Not hate filled?

Are MoveOn.org ads hate speech or merely partisan political speech? Can or should the two be separated?

Do they serve a valuable purpose in national discourse or are they only out to silence people with whom they disagree? Their infamous "betrayal" ad in the New York Times is the most recent example. They are now disingenuously attacking Rudy Giuliani, claiming he abdicated responsibility to "make money" by not serving as part of the Iraq Study Group. Such charges are ludicrous, of course. Not only was the commission a farce, but Rudy resigned so that there wouldn't be a question of a conflict of interest when he ran for President. No doubt if he had remained MoveOn.org would be making just those charges right now.

I, for one, am happy they associate themselves with Democrats. I'd hate to have to justify their behavior to people who wanted to vote for Republicans. I consider what MoveOn.org does to be hateful and harmful to America. While I do not subscribe to specific penalties for "hate" speech (I believe current laws against things like libel, perjury, etc. are sufficient) anyone who supports such laws and yet gives MoveOn.org a pass is being hypocritical.

It is amazing that in this day and age a group with such openly hostile intentions flourishes. On the other hand, its constituents are the ideological descendants of the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, the Communists and other groups that have throughout history thrived on hatred.

http://reality-hammer.livejournal.com/tag/hate%20speech

"they serve a valuable purpose in national discourse or are they only out to silence people with whom they disagree? Their infamous "betrayal" ad in the New York Times is the most recent example. They are now disingenuously attacking Rudy Giuliani, claiming he abdicated responsibility to "make money" by not serving as part of the Iraq Study Group."

How is this different than a bunch of longtime Bush supporters smearing a war hero like John Kerry? it seems to me people such as yourself, are quite fine when your side of the political spectrum engages in these activities, but think it is morally wrong when the other side does it. Why is that? Why can't you condem it when it happens on both sides? Why are you so quick to assume the other side is the one playing dirty when clearly your side is at least every bit as dirty.

That was al the way in 2001, wienerloon!

***Look at me, I can use one of Royal Kings' favorite tactics against him.***

Posted by: Trent the Anarcho-Syndicalist at January 1, 2008 4:44 PM

Wrong, that's the olbyloon sometimes known as 'whys' favorite tactic. Any democrat wrong doing that is older than yesterday does not count according to him. Philby has picked up on that little diversion, also. On the other hand, if it's republican wrond doing, they can go back to the ice ages and it's AOK.

How is this different than a bunch of longtime Bush supporters smearing a war hero like John Kerry? it seems to me people such as yourself, are quite fine when your side of the political spectrum engages in these activities, but think it is morally wrong when the other side does it. Why is that? Why can't you condem it when it happens on both sides? Why are you so quick to assume the other side is the one playing dirty when clearly your side is at least every bit as dirty.

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 5:15 PM

Because John Kerry is a Democrat, silly!

How is this different than a bunch of longtime Bush supporters smearing a war hero like John Kerry? it seems to me people such as yourself, are quite fine when your side of the political spectrum engages in these activities, but think it is morally wrong when the other side does it. Why is that? Why can't you [condem]sic it when it happens on both sides? Why are you so quick to assume the other side is the one playing dirty when clearly your side is at least every bit as dirty.

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 5:15 PM

Funny, I don't remember "People such as yourself" making a peep when Olbyonesidedkanoby was 'smearing' McCain. Why's that?

"Funny, I don't remember "People such as yourself" making a peep when Olbyonesidedkanoby was 'smearing' McCain. Why's that?"

My question was what is the difference between the two, not why didn't you speak up?

How is this different than a bunch of longtime Bush supporters smearing a war hero like John Kerry? it seems to me people such as yourself, are quite fine when your side of the political spectrum engages in these activities, but think it is morally wrong when the other side does it. Why is that? Why can't you condem it when it happens on both sides? Why are you so quick to assume the other side is the one playing dirty when clearly your side is at least every bit as dirty.

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 5:15 PM

Well, it's good to know that some of Kerry's opponents (and fellow soldiers) are prescient enough to have been Bush supporters since the Vietnam War...

Why can't you [condem]sic it when it happens on both sides?

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 5:15 PM

My question was what is the difference between the two, not why didn't you speak up?

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 5:38 PM

Really?

"Well, it's good to know that some of Kerry's opponents (and fellow soldiers) are prescient enough to have been Bush supporters since the Vietnam War..."

Follow the money trail:

"Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000)"

These were the 'Long time Bush Supporters" I spoke of.

You look real smart there don't you girlie?

"Really?"

Yes that is why I wrote "How is that different" English is easy if you follow along.

"How is this different than a bunch of longtime Bush supporters smearing a war hero like John Kerry?"

Why can't you [condem]sic it when it happens on both sides?

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 5:15 PM

So, you're retracting this part?

In English: My question to you was, where were you when Olbyonesidedkanoby was 'smearing' McCain?

"Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000)"

These were the 'Long time Bush Supporters" I spoke of.

You look real smart there don't you girlie?

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 5:48 PM

No, judiging by what you wrote in your post, that I quoted, you just look vague.

Many of the people who are the folks actually engaged in making accusations against Kerry ("smearing" him, in the words YOU used) have been doing it since the late 60's...

ust because YOU didn't write "soldiers" doesn't mean Cecelia isn't capable of knowing exactly what you meant.

She is above-average in the intelligence dept after all. She wouldn't make a mistake.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at January 1, 2008 6:24 PM

I am, indeed, however it just takes average intelligence to understand that anyone could make a mistake and it takes just average intelligence to understand that it was perfectly reasonable for me to assume that the chickenblogger meant the folks who are actually engaged in making accusations against Kerry (the soldiers).

Thus your confusion on both points...

"Many of the people who are the folks actually engaged in making accusations against Kerry ("smearing" him, in the words YOU used) have been doing it since the late 60's..."

Ahh, and so your natural reaction to something that seems a little vague to you is to be rudely sarcastic? Oh and did I mention that some making the allegations were in fact longtime bush supporters as in the actual vets?

"Retired Admiral William Schachte, a principal source for the SBVT allegations about Kerry's first Purple Heart, has donated to both of Bush’s presidential campaigns. Schachte was also a lobbyist for FastShip, a firm that recently announced it was receiving $40 million in federal funding for one of its projects. In addition, Schachte's lobbying firm associate, David Norcross, was chairman of the 2004 Republican convention"

I don't think it seems very vague.

"that the chickenblogger meant the folks who are actually engaged in making accusations against Kerry (the soldiers)."

Then she follows her sarcastic rejoinder with name calling?

"In English: My question to you was, where were you when Olbyonesidedkanoby was 'smearing' McCain?"

Again the very obvious point i was making is why are things different based on which side of the partisan isle they are on? So, to answer your question, though you refuse to answer mine (enven though I asked first and you are merely trying to wiggle out of answering)

I was and am unaware of any smear against McCain by Olberman. If Olbermann actually lied about McCain in some fashion then i would say that is low on his part. Now lets see if you have any integrity at all.

If (I don't think it is an "if" at all, but for your sake... IF) The swift vets for truth were smearing kerry will you admit that was low?

Ahh, and so your natural reaction to something that seems a little vague to you is to be rudely sarcastic? Oh and did I mention that some making the allegations were in fact longtime bush supporters as in the actual vets?

"Retired Admiral William Schachte, a principal source for the SBVT allegations about Kerry's first Purple Heart, has donated to both of Bush’s presidential campaigns. Schachte was also a lobbyist for FastShip, a firm that recently announced it was receiving $40 million in federal funding for one of its projects. In addition, Schachte's lobbying firm associate, David Norcross, was chairman of the 2004 Republican convention"

I don't think it seems very vague.

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 6:49 PM

I didn't rudely respond to something I thought was vague, by your own words here, I rudely responded to your actual asinine statements that you have now verified here.

It seems you did, indeed, mean some soldier/s (among others), who have disagreed with Kerry far longer than 2000 and who have since supported Kerry's rival for the office presidency.

"asinine statements"

Well, I suppose some might see it as foolish to question whether a person is fair in their standards of judgement as I was attempting to do with RK, but that would mean such a person was fine with there being no consistency in thinking in general. would you describe yourself as such a person? I would hope not.

"asinine statements"

Well, I suppose some might see it as foolish to question whether a person is fair in their standards of judgement as I was attempting to do with RK, but that would mean such a person was fine with there being no consistency in thinking in general. would you describe yourself as such a person? I would hope not.

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 7:16 PM

No, I merely found it asinine to sound as though Kerry's detractors came about as recently as George Bush running for office...

"No, I merely found it asinine to sound as though Kerry's detractors came about as recently as George Bush running for office"

Where did you get that out of "long time Bush Supporters?" I did not imply that kerry had no critics prior to the war and whether he did or not is irrelevelnt to the point i was trying to make.

Where did you get that out of "long time Bush Supporters?" I did not imply that kerry had no critics prior to the war and whether he did or not is irrelevelnt to the point i was trying to make.

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 7:29 PM

What you wished to imply is that Kerry was "smeared" by his critics (at least one of them you admit is a soldier) chiefly because of partisan politics.

You may not have meant to imply that Kerry had no critics before Bush, but you did try to relegate a decades old antipathy against him to a label of their being mere Bush supporters. And this in order to imply they are partisan hacks.

That resulted in valid sarcasm about Bush's term in office.

The swift vets for truth were smearing kerry will you admit that was low?

Posted by: at January 1, 2008 7:01 PM

When a 'smear' has merit, it's not really a 'smear' is it?

"When a 'smear' has merit, it's not really a 'smear' is it?"

In the case of Rudy you are correct.

RK,

You have also proved you have no honesty whatsoever, I even made simple and allowed and "if" in the case of kerry getting smeared and you could not find it in you to denounce. Basically you are hypocrite and an idiot.

"You may not have meant to imply that Kerry had no critics before Bush, but you did try to relegate a decades old antipathy against him to a label of their being mere Bush supporters. And this in order to imply they are partisan hacks."

Not true, I was equating the campain of the swift vets and Pows for truth with a Republican smear campaign related to Bush supporters. As I have proven that many of the funders and at least one of the vets where Bush supporters, and as the Organization was not founded until 2004, I think it silly to say I was trying to relate decades old antipathy against him. I was speaking of a specfic group formed during the campaing that took a certain action during the campain. Thus making your sarcastic rejoinder without merit and rather bitchy.

10:22 and 10:24 are the same person. Could a person be that stupid? I guess so.

"10:22 and 10:24 are the same person. Could a person be that stupid? I guess so."

Great, I've been called stupid by a drooling idiot. Run along little dummie. A person who can't apply the same logic consistentlly is way to stupid for me to play with.

Olbyloon Roadmap: If it's a smear against an (R) it's all good, true or not.

If it's a smear against a (d) the names fly! Especially if it concerns a 'war hero' who got rice blown up his ass while deserting women and children in a boat.

Stupid ass Rk roadmap: Logic is optional it is to be used against the Democrats, when it shines light on a scumbag whose actions left firefighters to die in 9-11, ignore it at all cost.

Corallary to the above: Ignore all evidence that disproves your allegations. If a left winger says any smearing of mcCain is wrong, still accuse him of calling all smears against right wingers true.

to acheive this goal one must be so stupid to not recall a few posts back, or so dense that one didn't comprehend the democrat demonstrating that all smears against the right are not valid. ladies and gentlemen may i present the man dumb and dense enough to fit the above...Royal King!

Please, show me, anonyloon, where I defended Rudy. I eagerly await. Ladies and gents, he won't!

"Please, show me, anonyloon, where I defended Rudy. I eagerly await. Ladies and gents, he won't!"

Wow, that is real tough. What the heck though I just might be able to do it.

"They are now disingenuously attacking Rudy Giuliani, claiming he abdicated responsibility to "make money" by not serving as part of the Iraq Study Group. Such charges are ludicrous,"

Ladies and gentleman the stupidest man on the blog... Royal King!

Islamists Kill Around The Globe While Libs Deny Terrorists/Terrorism Exhists!

The State of Jihad: 2007

By Bill RoggioJanuary 1, 2008 2:10 PM

The US and her allies in Europe, the Middle East, and beyond have witnessed both stunning successes and dramatic setbacks in the Long War during 2007. Pakistan has continued its slide towards a failed state, with the government having relinquished control over additional territory to the Taliban and, thus, al Qaeda. Suicide bombings and attacks on all segments of the state plagued Pakistan as the Taliban and al Qaeda cemented their new safe havens. Iraq, which seemed all but lost at the end of 2006 as the US appeared to lose the all-important political will, has turned around with the change in counterinsurgency plan and the surge of troops US and Iraqi troops. Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed Shia terrorists are losing ground and local support in Iraq. Afghanistan has seen its worst year of violence since the Taliban was defeated in late 2001; suicide bombings and IED attacks skyrocketed due to the problems in Pakistan.

The war also continues in dozens of lesser theaters. India suffered numerous blows from Pakistani-based terrorists. Al Qaeda has revitalized itself in Algeria and greater northern Africa. A brutal insurgency is being waged in Somalia after the Islamic Courts was ousted at the end of 2006. The Philippines saw some progress against Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah in the southern provinces. Thailand's Islamist insurgency ballooned in 2007. Al Qaeda is attempting to revive the jihad in Chechnya and the greater Caucasus. Saudi Arabia and Yemen continue to breed the next generation of al Qaeda fighters.

"They are now disingenuously attacking Rudy Giuliani, claiming he abdicated responsibility to "make money" by not serving as part of the Iraq Study Group. Such charges are ludicrous,"

Ladies and gentleman the stupidest man on the blog... Royal King!

Posted by: at January 2, 2008 12:04 AM
Touché!, 12:04. Well done!

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 2, 2008 12:10 AM

Simple question to olbyloons. Are those my words? I eagerly await. Then, you can both run w/your tails beteen your asses like you have many times before.

If you can't read, I'll explain. The article is about moveon.orgy and hate speech. The "Rudy" part was used as an example from recent.

This was the best part and most true, I might add.

"It is amazing that in this day and age a group with such openly hostile intentions flourishes. On the other hand, its constituents are the ideological descendants of the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, the Communists and other groups that have throughout history thrived on hatred."

By the way, your desperation is shining, as always.

I ask again, show me where (I) defended Rudy. I still await.

"Simple question to olbyloons. Are those my words? I eagerly await. Then, you can both run w/your tails beteen your asses like you have many times before."

Ahh, So the fact that you improperly cite sources of writings that YOU posted, that happen to defend Rudy is your way of showing that you never defended Rudy.

Once again Olbermann watch's stupidest man.

Ahh, So the fact that you improperly cite sources of writings that YOU posted, that happen to defend Rudy is your way of showing that you never defended Rudy.

Once again Olbermann watch's stupidest man.

Posted by: at January 2, 2008 1:08 AM

No, cowy, Rudy wasn't the point of the post. I didn't "defend" him in any way. I don't expect a flaming coward to understand, though.

Ahh I see, So no doubt you disagree with the post which is why you posted it but since we are playing another one of your childish games, perhaps you can show me where I accused you of defending Rudy to begin with? *here's a hint I didn't*

"RFLMAO!" To quote a certain olbyloon. You loons are deeeeeeesperate, today!

Was there something of substance that needed responding to? I don't see it.

that is because you are stupid.

Posted by: at January 2, 2008 3:48 PM

Thanks, cowy. If there was something you would have pointed it out. Name calling is the 'cowy' way out. Thanks fr your insight.

No Jeff...you see, you really don't get it.

With anyone else, it would have been name calling.

With YOU, he was stating a simple fact.

The man just handed you your ass, ... and you don't even know it. But rest assured, everyone else does.

You really ARE stupid!

Still nothing.

Thanks, Hyde!

I ask again, show me where (I) defended Rudy. I still await.

Posted by: royal king at January 2, 2008 12:49 AM

I know you are best at diversions, so, here was the original argument. I posted an article that merely MENTIONED Rudy in one small part of it, you got all frothy as you always do and start hittin the bottle or bong or whatever it is you pump in your body and put your little olbyloon spin on it. Maybe all of them? Anyways, your desperation is shining, again.

You loons must get your dope from the same person. It's some bad shit, obviously.

"I know you are best at diversions, so, here was the original argument. I posted an aricle that merely MENTIONED Rudy in one small part of it. You got all frothy and start hittin the bottle or bong or whatever it is you pump in your body and put an Olbyloon spin on it. Maybe all of them? Anyways, your desperation is shining, again."

????????????????????????????????????

What is the hell was THAT?????

ROFLMAO!

On almost every thread, you drug addicts claim I 'got my ass handed to me." Yet, you have no irrefutable evidence. You do reralize that, right? Maybe you should put a fan in front of your pc screen so you can see, you know, keep the smoke out of the way? Better yet, get off the dope.

8:27, it's way over you tiny head. Try not to interject, hypocrite.

RK: "8:27, it's way over your head."

Yea, kind of like that special ed student I saw playing dinosaur name games today in Burger King.

RK: "8:27, it's way over your tiny head."

Yea, kind of like that special ed student I saw playing dinosaur name games today in Burger King.

Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 8:39 PM

Precisely! I can picture you staring at the little boy. Did you go online and try to find his address, yet? Or, did you just follow him home?

I imagine he hid his tracks better than Jeff.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 2, 2008 9:40 PM

Resorting to defending a pedophile/stalker? No surprise.

"Precisely, I can just see you staring at that little boy."

Well, he wasn't exactly a little boy....and he looked a little bit like you, come to think of it.

He had that same confused look on his face anyway.

Totally oblivious that there are always five or six fresh instances of him looking like a fool just a click or two away.

Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at January 3, 2008 10:55 AM

Do show.

Wasted, I'm trying to think of all the vile and stupid things RK has called me just in the last few days:

Lets see now, among other things, he has called me......A pedophile, ...... a pimp, ....... and he also called my wife a prostitute.

At least I know I've made him mad.

Still nothing, unbelievable.

That's a great description, phony phony soldier. You loons are shoveling shit against the tide. Perfect.

Wasted, the poster sometimes known as "royal King" is the best argument against right wing ideology that I can think of.

Who in their right mind would want to associate themselves with that kind of twisted thinking?

"Proof Mike?
Oh sorry... That can easily be proven so he won't ask for that."

You're giving this idiot WAY too much credit.

You and I both know that I could repost the quote, and he would STILL either deny or ignor it.

Sorry to report that I just don't have the time to parse every word either Keith Olbermann OR Johnny Dollar. However, when I have looked for specific problems with J$'s "recaps" in the past, I have had NO problem in finding them.

Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 3:16 PM

Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 12:04 AM

Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 12:14 PM

Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 12:49 PM
Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 2:59 PM
Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 3:16 PM

Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 3:23 PM
Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 3:32 PM
Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 4:39 PM
Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 4:52 PM
Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 5:36 PM

Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 5:40 PM
Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 5:50 PM

>

Thanks Jeff/some 50 odd other names!

That's original, liar. That's, what, 10 diversions in 20 minutes?

"That's original, liar. Thats, what, 10 diversions in 20 minutes?"

No, I think you've done MORE than that actually!

Sorry to report that I just don't have the time to parse every word either Keith Olbermann OR Johnny Dollar. However, when I have looked for specific problems with J$'s "recaps" in the past, I have had NO problem in finding them.

Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 3:16 PM

The original argument which 'mike' ran full speed from.

RK: "The original argument which 'mike' ran full speed from."

This idiot is posted my own argument, which stands on it's own merit quite nicely, and then that 'sez' I "ran" from it.

How can I run from my own argument stupid?

Sorry to report that I just don't have the time to parse every word either Keith Olbermann OR Johnny Dollar. However, when I have looked for specific problems with J$'s "recaps" in the past, I have had NO problem in finding them.

Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 3:16 PM

You claimed I diverted, when it was actually you. I wouldn't expect you or your coward water packer to understand, though.

How can I run from my own argument stupid?

Posted by: Mike at January 3, 2008 2:28 PM

It's called shooting your mouth off w/out being able to back it. You do it every time you post.

RK: "You claimed I diverted when it was actually you."

Uh huh...dummy!

As usual, YOU were not even involved. the only part YOU were playing in this thing was in trying to instigate an argument between me and J$.

Thats what makes you nothing but a troll.

As usual, YOU were not even involved. the only part YOU were playing in this thing was in trying to instigate an argument between me and J$.

Thats what makes you nothing but a troll.

Posted by: Mike at January 3, 2008 3:22 PM

When you interject, like you do all the time, what does that make you? Ayy? A mega troll! Cecelia hit the nail on the head.

I think RoKi ought to go over to St. Sharon's JAWA site. The level of discourse would increase on both sites.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 3, 2008 4:41 PM

No sorry excuses for 'mike?' I wouldn't expect you to agree with the fact he and you are total hypocrites.

No Crying now RK, just because you were humliated, again.

Posted by: at January 3, 2008 5:10 PM

You're about to pass 'mike' for having the most lies. Got any more?

5:10, Like most retarded folks, RK doesn't know it when he's been humiliated....and thats why he keeps coming back for more after being knocked down over and over again.

As usual, YOU were not even involved. the only part YOU were playing in this thing was in trying to instigate an argument between me and J$.

Thats what makes you nothing but a troll.

Posted by: Mike at January 3, 2008 3:22 PM

When you interject, like you do all the time, what does that make you? Ayy? A mega troll! Cecelia hit the nail on the head.

"When you interject, like you do all the time. What does that make you? AYY. A mega troll! Cecelia hit the nail on the head."

Cecelia won't come to your defense today so you drag something out of the distant pass?

Remember just two days ago when I told you that if you would quit trolling my posts, I would never address you again....troll?

Well.....You responded to that by injecting me into a series of troll posts you made the next day, ..... even though I wasn't even around.

You obviously aren't going to stop trolling even though you make yourself look like a blooming idiot 99% of the time...So therefore I feel 99% free to help you to humiliate yourself.

Not that you really need any help.

Keep spinning little dipshit.

Remember just two days ago when I told you that if you would quit trolling my posts, I would never address you again....troll?

posted by mike

Nice word play. That's not what you said. Your New Years resolution was to quit responding, period. It lasted about 10 minutes. Should I find it?

You obviously aren't going to stop trolling even though you make yourself look like a blooming idiot 99% of the time...So therefore I feel 99% free to help you to humiliate yourself.

Not that you really need any help.

Posted by: Mike at January 3, 2008 5:54 PM

Sorry to report that I just don't have the time to parse every word either Keith Olbermann OR Johnny Dollar. However, when I have looked for specific problems with J$'s "recaps" in the past, I have had NO problem in finding them.

Posted by: Mike at January 2, 2008 3:16 PM