American Victory in Iraq!

Hey, if Keith said it, it must be true. His words are gospel.

Isn't that what the loons believe?

He looks insecure to me....

This whole bit seemed to be just an arena for him to let his Leona Helmsley look-alike fans know he doesn't have a tiny penis.

Wonder why he never squashed the NY Post rumors about the limp dick?

If I remember correctly, Karmabites1 (his one-night stand) mentioned it was average sized but he didn't know what to do with it and apparently couldn't keep it hard for long....

His obsession will Bill makes one cringe
Moonbat on the lunatic fringe
Pathetic, not funny
Countdown's losing money
Because Olby has come off the hinge

BUNCH OF SORE LOSERS!!!

ALL O'YA!

LOVE YOUR COUNTRY AND BE WILLING TO LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF REASON!

FUNDAMENTALIST BASTARDS!!!!!!

ALL O'YA!!!!!!!!

A right winger writing poetry is kinda like a Ann Coulter working in a homeless shelter, or RK running in a museum etc.
You definitely don't have the "right" stuff !

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 2, 2007 11:52 AM

...... or you posing something of substance.

Why does Olby think his penis should be on the national news?

Sounds like he'll do anything to talk about himself, no matter what the topic. Wish he'd bring it up on FNiA tonight. I'd love to see Cris's reaction.

"A right winger writing poetry is kinda like a Ann Coulter working in a homeless shelter, or RK running in a museum etc.
You definitely don't have the "right" stuff !"

And how many homeless shelters have you worked in jackass?

The mention of Keith’s penis has crashed the comments section of the Newshole server. All you get is an error message. Been like that since yesterday. What are the loons to do?

So this is what NBC News has become. Huntley and Brinkley must be roling in their graves. Let's see if Brokaw will ever share a screen with him again.

Wheeeze....cough....wheeeze again......see the whole pathetic unbelievably stupid not funny piece of NBC's best journalistic attempt it has to offer at Tom Tomorrow's site.

Maybe KO's penis just looks small next to his huge ass? All things are relative.

But, 6:58, you keep coming back, don't you. Thanks for the feedback. Come again.

Hey, anon, Keith brought up the topic. Why are you so offended? HE started the conversation.

By the way, has he mentioned Miss Katy Tur in his recent interviews? Is she still in the picture? Maybe he'll be back to answering fan emails again.

Keith believes his penis is news
He's obsessed with Bill and Tom Cruise
Collects cards of baseball
Harry Potter et al
There's a Meltdown at NBC Ruse

>I can only imagine what other significant daily activities you had to stop to come over to the computer and talk about Keith Olbermann's penis and ass.

7:18 - I was busy at CouricWatch posting about Katie talking about her vagina. Then I went past the Charlie Gibson site to complain about Charlie blabbing on and on about the size of his butt. Glad you missed me, though.

Nice job, Katy. You really should publish your work, just like Keith has done with his special comments. Maybe you could outsell him.

WHY, did you take your lithium today? you seem like youre in a good mood.

My latest theory is that Keith is a coprophiliac.

"A right winger writing poetry is kinda like a Ann Coulter working in a homeless shelter, or RK running in a museum etc."

Or WDYT giving up drugs for say, 30 minutes.

But I'll bet ya one thing. WDYT and ACCS were sitting around the t.v. at that point going.

A Hu, hu,hu, Keith said penis. Let's do a bong to that!

**********************************

Posted by: louis at December 2, 2007 12:41 PM

Wow! 'Voice of Reason?'

And when did great journalist like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Morrow use the word penis?

Have you been snorting 'Comet' with WDYT?

***********************************

"Do you think KO speaks directly to you when he's on television ?"

But we all know Keith speaks to you even when he's not on the t.v..

And we here at olbywatch think thats just amazing that he can get through and rise above all those other voices in you're head.

Really WDYT, the doctors at the Hospital have told us you've said it gets more crowded up there then NJ Transit's Hoboken Rail Terminal at rush hour.

How do we know? simple.

Dick Cheney gave us the info on his way over to buzz you're mom's house with the black helicopter.

***********************************

Maybe KO's penis just looks small next to his huge ass? All things are relative.
Posted by: at December 2, 2007 6:56 PM

The substance of your post proves you are a total idiot.
Only here at OW!

Keith, is that you?

Or creepy Musto defending his boy?

Or maybe MAN-dow defending his....er her girl?

***********************************

And how many homeless shelters have you worked in jackass?
Posted by: CrossoverManiac at December 2, 2007 6:24 PM

Two ....and you?

But the real question is..........

How many homeless shelters has WDYT lived at?

Not counting the present.

***********************************

And last thought tonight......

Nice job, Katy. You really should publish your work, just like Keith has done with his special comments. Maybe you could outsell him.

Posted by: at December 2, 2007 8:42 PM

What do you mean maybe?

bye! bye!

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=281319777781669

Good article about Bush's legacy, pretty sure Keith didn't write it.

Let's reward incompetence!

BUSH on Mt. RUSHMORE NOW!

MSNBC won't let LonelyBoy48 answer his fan emails anymore. But maybe they'll set him up with a corporate-paid hooker instead. Oh wait. Maybe they already have.

If I'm not mistaken, Wingnuts call Countdown w/ KO an opinion based program, not a news program, right?

The first two clips were from news programs, correct?

One last point, that clip comes from the #1 story in the countdown, which in most cases is not "news", more of a ripping on someone in entertainment (opinion based), special comment (opinion based), or reporting fun things like the Village Voice cartoon (also opinion based).

Nice clip.....all that was missing was a drooling Musto.....ech.....

We will see if the great achievement of the people in Venezuela over leftist ideology will be covered by Mr. Olbermann tonight.....It seems some on this board have changed sides midgame to endorce the outcome.....Too bad the democratic party platform is basically a carbon copy of what Chavez is doing in Venezuela!

Ain't PR agents great? wrote: "But maybe they'll set him up with a corporate-paid hooker instead"

Like the ho he's living with?

Exactly. The timing was perfect for Olbermann to finally gain a real, live-in girlfriend, right in the midst of a sex scandal. This is a man who had never discussed a girlfriend before and then sex scandal hits, and Olbermann can't shut up about his new live-in girlfriend, the first in his life.

BTW, the kid's father now has his own show on MSNBC. Tit for tat? Or tat for tit?

And how many homeless shelters have you worked in jackass?
Posted by: CrossoverManiac at December 2, 2007 6:24 PM

Two ....and you?

Posted by: Why Don't I Think at December 2, 2007 6:26 PM

He said worked at, not lived at.

I'll repeat for those who haven't been paying attention . . .

Musto has been blackballed for outing Hillary in the Village Voice. You won't be seeing him on Circlejerk anytime soon.

"Musto has been blackballed for outing Hillary in the Village Voice."

###
Thank goodness for small favors.

Actually Musto was just on Thursday night. Apprently Oralmann's fascination with Britney trumps Musto's Hillaryisms.

"Actually Musto was just on Thursday night."

###
Oh well, at least Olbermann's paragigantocellular nucleus will remain stimulated sometime during COUNTDOWN.

Too bad for his viewers and the noble writers here at OW who have to sit through the exchanges.

Musto participates in sodomy, wannawipe?

I was not aware of this. I was only discussing the subject matter he and Olbermann concentrate on together and their ravenous looks while discussing same.....

Ech....

Now I understand! Thanks for clearing that up for me, wannawipe.

You are a great reference with such matters of personal sexual preferences!

You should start your own website!

Cee on Chavez @ 9:06 : "It seems some on this board have changed sides in mid game to endorse the outcome:....Thats just your politically blindered perception because you never understood the arguments of your ideological opponents in the first place.....as you wallow around in your little black vs white....us vs them....liberals vs conservatives....democrats bad, republicans good.....world.

Cee also @ 9:06: "Too bad the democratic party platform is basically a carbon copy of what Chavez in doing in Venezuela":....Too bad that is nothing but a bold faced lie. But it's what you want to believe....so I'm sure you'll continue to believe it.

Thanks Patsy!

Grammie

Then, of course, there are dense, unimaginative, self-serving people who set on their fat asses spewing conservative dogma and RNC talking points, all day, every day.

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

Is that why conservatives give about twice as much to charity and donate twice as much time to charity compaired to Liberals? Get your facts straight. It was on ABC news 20/20 by the way. Geat Thanks.

Newsday writer doctors Olbermoron's statement that Denver is "west of the Rockies". Neil Best of Newsday "quotes" Olbermoronn saying: "What, they don't show NFC highlights in Colorado?" What Olbermoronn actually said was: "Do they not get the highlights west of the Rockies?" Of course, Denver is EAST of the Rockies. Check out Neil Best's love note to Olbermoronn and his doctoring of Olbermoronn's ignorance of geography: http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spbest025485330dec02,0,1999539.column?page=2

Too bad that is nothing but a bold faced lie. But it's what you want to believe....so I'm sure you'll continue to believe it.

Posted by: Mike at December 3, 2007 12:01 PM

This gets funnier every time he posts it. "It's a lie!" with not a shred of evidence.

It's funny how I make a response to Cee, and his loyal little dog named "royal king" barks back at me!

Our neighborhood liberal is an unusual fellow. Curmudgeonly and anti-social, he can be found on most weekend mornings and afternoons meticulously tending to his front lawn. His lawn looks like a lawn tennis court, perfectly manicured with the lawn shaved down shorter than Jon Tester's crewcut. Doesn't seem like particularly wise horticultural practice, but we try not to argue with him because he doesn't tolerate disagreement very well.

As we walk our dogs by his house, we wave to him and try to engage him in a little polite conversation, usually trying to steer away from matters that seem to bring on fits of angst for him. He just seems like a singularly unhappy fellow. He will speak of his three divorces and and his grandkids from whom he is estranged. The other day, a small boy around five year old was chasing a loose tennis ball down the street as we were talking to Liberal Nieghbor. The ball landed in Liberal Neighbor's garden and as the five year old wandered in to retrieve it, he received a stern tounge lashing for his trouble.

Liberal Neighbor then continued his conversation with us and launched into a jeremiad over the Republicans "cutting off" thousands of children from the S-CHIP program and how conservatives in general just don't care about "the children". As you have figured out by now, explaining how the Dems are playing politics with this issue and refusing to compromise on reasonable limits to such programs is futile. We send him a cherry Christmas card every year and a nice bottle of wine, which he seems to appreciate. He told us last year that he was surprised we were Republicans because we treat him so well.

Sigh. This guy must watch too much Keith Olbermann. I think I might encourage him towards other programming with hosts that are more emotionally stable and have worked out their issues of insecurity and jealousy. Oh well, Merry Christmas, Happy Hannakauh, Merry Kwaanza and Happy Holidays, especially to all Liberal Nieghbors around the world.

Mike, do you deny that the democratic presidential candidates all have plans that go towards greater government control of healthcare? Greater government control of enery (particularly oil)?

Mike, do you deny that social programs and economic policies that redistribute wealth are central to socialism and is a large part of the American left's worldview?

You have blasted me several times about the compassionate aspects of government run healthcare and is exactly the message President Chavez had to his countrymen regarding his policies that would have been promoted in the referendum....ONLY 51% of the people voted against the referendum.....my goodness. Why are you so quick to dismiss the compassion of socialism......it is it's main attraction.

I do not think I lied, and RK was right to point it out....there is actual substance behind my style and you may try to refute it if you like.....

or not......

It seems this is the tact Mr. blank-FLUCKER has taken in regards to my posts....oh how I do miss our exchanges.

And finally......wannawipe.....I was not aware of any OW posters discussing the personal sexual preferences of any of COUNTDOWN guests. Please cite time and poster to better prove your point.

Funny, how you can't deny it.

The problem with most of your arguments Cee, is that the concept of "greater government control" of programs that clearly are not working = socialism.

That only works in your world of black and white absolutes.

Regulated capitalism is NOT socialism any more than a 70 mile an hour speed limit on a public highway is enforced mass transportation..

The advocation of a minimal number of government controlled social programs to address critical needs that are currently falling through the cracks is not Socialism.

Socialism is a pure form of a utopianism which has proven to be largely incompatable with basic human nature. Therefore, in it's pure form, it has failed. Hardly anyone denies that anymore.

totally unregulated and uncontrolled Capitalism is also doomed to inevitable failure. We are an overwhelmingly capitalistic society and will remain so, even after they finally do the inevitable and morally right thing by creating a single payer universal healthcare system.

In my view, the problem with your overall thinking is that you view eveything in terms of stark black and white absolutes.

the problem is that life doean't work that way. It will always be shades of gray.

Then you have a sambo who couldn't manage the janitorial department where I work and a faggot.

Posted by: Phony Soldier at December 3, 2007 1:33 PM

I knew you were a janitor.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Thanks Patsy!

Grammie

Aint no demcrat gonna kill a republican.
The polls have every republican leading.

What you gonna do now punk?
Go home beotch

What do you think about that, you 24%-ers? Huh? GO FUCKING KILL YOURSELVES, YOU FUCKING RAT BASTARD PUSSIES!!!!!

Posted by: Republican Killa at December 3, 2007 3:36 PM

Here are a few censored excepts from emails Olbermann has sent to unappreciative viewers of his limping cable show:

"Hey, save the oxygen for somebody whose brain can use it. Kill yourself."

"Given how far you are from knowing your ass from your elbow about my industry, you couldn't be stupider, wronger, or dumber ..."

"Go f--- your mother."

"You "Americans" still watching that evil f----ing O'Reilly?"

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2006/06/keith_olbermann.html

Yes, doesn't "journalist" Keith acquit himself quite nicely? And aren't you left fringe fellow travelers impressed with the way Republican Killa has learned from Master Olbermann to be a good useful idiot, erupting in spasms of incoherent bile spewing nonsense?

Is wronger a word? Quite to vocabulary from Olbermann.

Look for CNBC reporter Erin Burnett to get WPITW tonight. Her crime in the eyes of Olby (aside from being an attractive woman)? She apologized for calling President Bush a "monkey"

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b88_1196526130&p=1

In Olby's world, calling someone you disagree with (such as Chris Wallace) a "monkey" is acceptable discourse in news reporting and an unforgivable sin to apologize for it.

Comparing Olbermann to Edward R. Murrow is like comparing Robert Tilton to Billy Graham.

Lets compare Anon to George W

One is aggresively protecting our people from the threat of al queda.

The other trolls around right wing blogs from his basement claming there is no terrosist threat.

I report- you decide.

Comparing Olbermann to Edward R. Murrow is like comparing Robert Tilton to Billy Graham.
-----

Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush.

Your right, George W. Bush isn't a socialist dictator who caused the Great Depression and created Social Security, the worst entitlement ever. Bush also didn't let hoards of communist spies infiltrate our government and run our foreign policy causing Stalin to go un-checked and China to turn communist.

Thanks Patsy!

Grammie

ALL RIGHT! I've heard enough. NEW RULE: If you can't say aynthing nice, don't say anything at all.

p.s. All liberals are delusional

Olby's in the tub tonight: Slippery Shuster is at the desk to spew the nightly MSDNC dose of slander and lies. Different host, same spin.

I hate to be the voice of reason here, but someone has to be the adult. I know Mike is incapablel of it

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Top-10-Reasons.htm

McCool, thanks for the link.

I am not a student of Islam but it did seem to articulate the general knowledge that I have of this so called "Religion of Peace".

Grammie

PS Would you consider abstaining from your now infrequent O'Lielly type comments? It just repulses me.

CHICKEN BLOGGER, stuff a sock in it!

Grammie

There she goes again, trying to curb free speech. This Nazi hag is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

Posted by: at December 3, 2007 9:53 PM

Actually, why don't you consider some of the speech laws found in Canada and abroad then make a comparison of a personal request against threats of violence and painful death on a blogboard with the codified speech proscriptions found in some societies further along the path of democratic socialism...

Our wrinkly nazi just loves to try to control people.

Posted by: at December 3, 2007 9:31 PM

I hear kos kiddies calling you. Only a total idiot, like you, would defend O'leilly and his ilk.

Let me guess, that right wing numbnuts, John Stossel ?

Posted by: at December 3, 2007 9:54 PM

Can you prove him wrong? That's what I thought.

On another note, Larry Elder is handing sharpton his ass! TDF!!!!(*){+}=====

"There she goes again, trying to curb free speech. This Nazi hag is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.
Posted by: at December 3, 2007 9:53 PM"

Gee, when I posted "CHICKEN BLOGGER, stuff a sock in it!" I thought I was expressing my opinion that this particular CHICKEN BLOGGER was an ignorant fool of the first class.

"Our wrinkly nazi just loves to try to control people.
Posted by: at December 3, 2007 9:31 PM"

If "CHICKEN BLOGGER, stuff a sock in it!" translates to this:

"There she goes again, trying to curb free speech."

you must be one wimpy whinny, dare I say it, CHICKENHAWK!

TaTa!

Grammie

Thanks Patsy!

Grammie

FDR CAUSED the Great Depression ?

Posted by: at December 3, 2007 9:57 PM

FDR's contribution to deepening and extending the misery of the Great Depression is well known to those who study history carefully rather than the sanitized version taught in most schools. FDR's efforts to vilify businessmen, manage the economy through wage and price controls and to expand governement control into virtually every area of commerce had the effect of discouraging and snuffing out economic activity that was necessary to turning around the markets and the unemployment picture. One can read more about these themes in the excellent new book by Amity Schlaes called The Forgotten Man

Let me guess, that right wing numbnuts, John Stossel ?

Posted by: at December 3, 2007 9:54 PM

Shocker, another olbyloon making a comment he can't back. Shocked, stunned and amazed.

It took you an hour and 3 minutes to divert from having to prove Stossel wrong? I am very disappointed in you.

Bobo, where did you copy and paste that from?

Grammie

Bobo, where did you copy and paste that from?

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at December 4, 2007 12:58 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/03/white-house-obstructing-p_n_75088.html

Yup, he swiped it from HuffPo. That's why it ain't there any more. WDYT is the type of person who comes into someone else's house and refuses to follow house rules. On top of stealing property without attribution. This tells you all you need to know about WDYT. He's not here for a conversation, for debate, or for any kind of intelligent exchange. He's here to paste in crap he lifts from elsewhere, knowing it's against the rules. He does that because even the act of coming up with a few original sentences of his own is too intellectually challenging to him, while pasting in someone else's crap is not only easier, but will tie up the administrators who have to run around and clean up his mess. He's a disruptor, and a mental lightweight. Ignore him and let me keep erasing all his violations. That's why he posts them in the first place!

"Ignore him"

Best advice I've had in a long time, J$.

Grammie

By the way, has he mentioned Miss Katy Tur in his recent interviews? Is she still in the picture? Maybe he'll be back to answering fan emails again.
Posted by: at December 2, 2007 7:09 PM

In the Playboy interview from about a month ago instead of saying "girlfriend" as in past interviews, he says "Katy" I dunno, I would say he's taken the relationship to the next level. (no more generic "girlfriend"---she's actually a person with a name now). ahhh, love.

funny comment from Wendy at Jossip

“One more thing. Keith Olbermann’s penis is really, really tiny. Just saying.” Keith Olbermann, beating his bitter ex-girlfriends’ to the punch, Countdown, November 30

http://www.jossip.com/cable-quotables/cable-quotables-51-20071204/

It will be interesting to see how Olbermann covers this story...(I have a feeling Obama's NOT Hillary's connection will be highlighted---that's if Olbermann covers the story at all):

Bloomberg News
Fundraiser Hsu Indicted for $60 Million Fraud Scheme (Update3)
By David Glovin

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDiJ4OrVn_4A&refer=us

The orange faced hack will be sure to spike the hillary clinton/hsu scandal (ding!).

Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, we heard it the first time you mooed it out.

No need to moo it more than once.

Grammie

Check the playboy interview again. Ms. Tur was trying to prevent her Sugar Daddy from decorating the apartment he paid for. He did not sound pleased. When offered the chance to announce their marriage plans, there was a long pause and a non-commital kind of answer. Perhaps she only had a one-year contract?

That story is still in its infancy.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 4, 2007 6:45 PM

You're the only person I have heard say anything about it. It must be news to just you! If it's true, Rudy wouldn't be the first politician to ever abuse privileges, nor, will he be the last. Google would probably give me a huge list of (d)'s that have done the same thing (i.e. Clinton/travelgate) in .3 seconds. The Hsu story dwarfs the Rudy 'story.'

Dude, or, whatever you are, you need to get some help w/your Plame obsession. It's over, let it go. She wasn't and never will be covert. Take down all of her pictures from your walls. Throw away your blonde wig and stop wearing it around the house. Do you see Valerie behind every hedge? I sure hope not. Sounds like a horrible way to live. I know, move on to the 'Rudy story' that philby is obsessing about. That might help.

Well then, Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, MOOOO away.

Grammie

RK, if Ian Fleming had ever written a book about Valarie Plame do you think she would have been 0034C or 0034D?

Grammie

Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, that is a really lame response.

Take a deep breath, hold it and then let it out slowly. Now put your hopefully calm and relaxed mind to work on a response that won't be an embarrassment to us all, especially you.

Grammie

"She was working ( covertly) to see if Saddam really did have WMD.That is a fact !"

You seem to be a past master at the art of copying and pasting here.

With that extensive experience you have it should be quite easy for you to give us some citations to source documents that prove she was covert and was a "TRUE patriot who had given her life to her job"

Grammie

What substance Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker?

All you did was make a wild accusation about someone you have never met and don't know.

Try again!

Grammie

And you know these are our "heroes" how exactly? I know Keith's fans are psychotic, i had no idea they were psychic, and in your case, you may be the former, but you are most definately the later.

Bobo, although you made several quotes you did not give any link to where you got your assertions.

As I said earlier, citations please.

If she was in Iraq doing God's work there must be some source, even if not a primary source, that can verify it.

You claim that Fitzpatrick (again no citation) has evidence that she was covert.

Fitzpatrick knew within days of being appointed that it was Richard Armitage who leaked her name to Novak as the person who recommended her husband for the Niger investigation and that she worked for the CIA.

If your assertions are true than Fitzpatrick should have brought felony charges against Armitage (based on his confession and eventually Novak's confirmation) for outing a covert CIA agent. Could there have also been some ancillary charges against Colin Powell because he knew before Fitzpatrick did that Armitage was the one to spill the beans.

These three men knew the who from virtually day one yet they did nothing to stop the feeding frenzy.

Fitxpatrick did not call either Armitage or Powell to testify before the grand jury. With their confessions in hand, confirmation from Novak and evidence from the CIA that she was covert it would seem to be a slam dunk for Fitzpatrick.

The actions, or rather the lack of action, by Fitzpatrick speaks for itself.

Grammie

So you have concluded that simply because Fitzpatrick chose not to pursue felony charges against Armitage for reasons you can only speculate about, .... that it makes Valerie Plame a liar about her own life and career?

Yes. If Fitzy thought he could he would. Gotta go, Beck is on O'Reilly.

I haven't speculated at all why Fitzpatrick chose to spend over a year pursuing what he already knew and only prosecuting a minor player in the drama.

I stated that if Bobo was correct and Plame was a certified by the CIA as a covert agent, that Fitzpatrick had a confession (confirmed by Novak and a contemporaneous confession to Powell) he knew the guilty party within days of his appointment. Yet he did not even have Armitage or Powell testify.

To the best of my knowledge Fitzpatrick never presented any evidence to the Grand Jury or at Libby's trial that Plame was a covert agent.. I think that that raises some very serious questions.

As for Valerie Plame's statements about herself they are as suspect as any POTENTIALLY self serving statements are. She did not testify under oath but rather on the celebrity circuit. I would think that if Fitzpatrick had the goods from the CIA that she was covert than his primary target should have been Armitage

"So you have concluded that simply because Fitzpatrick chose not to pursue felony charges against Armitage for reasons you can only speculate about, .... that it makes Valerie Plame a liar about her own life and career?"

Do you know why Fitzpatrick "chose" to not pursue "felony charges against Armitage"? I don't know nor did I claim to know. That is the question that I posed.

If she was covert, if Armitage confessed to both Fitzpatrick and Colin Powell to have been the one that outed her at the beginning of the investigation why did none of this come out in the the Grand Juery and court proceedings?

I simply raised some reasonable questions about Fitzpatrick's investigation and actions.

Grammie

"Yes. If Fitzy thought he could he would":....Jeff continuing on undaunted with his mindreading fantasies.

"Gotta go, Beck is on O'Reilly":....Yes! The blind interviewing the blindered....being cheered on by the sightless.

":....Yes! The blind interviewing the blindered....being cheered on by the sightless.

Posted by: Mike at December 5, 2007 12:05 AM

This drivel coming from an olbyloon! Priceless!

Beck on O'Reilly and Morris on Hannity. Must watch television, to be sure. A bit like digging an in-grown hair out of your chin, I should think.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 5, 2007 1:20 AM

The four horsemen of 2012.

The official transcript from 11/30/07.....

"One more thing. Keith Olbermann‘s penis is really, really tiny. Just saying.

"That‘s COUNTDOWN for this the 1,675th day since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq. From New York, I‘m Keith Olbermann, good night and good luck."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22081490/

###
Yep.....QUALITY TV journalism......phallus jokes followed by satirical closing of the broadcast using the Iraq struggle for freedom of religion and thought......

Yep....the apologists prepared to defend the hack Olbermann are becoming less and less seen here....Thank goodness for some coming to their senses.

Cee, thanks for the link. I sometimes read all or part of the transcript. However, since they changed their homepage I can't find the transcripts anymore. I looked for this one because I wanted to see the context of it but couldn't find it.

I am confined to any links such as yours. Could you point me to where to go on their homepage to get to the transcripts.

Thanks,

Grammie

Cee, what you are calling "Phallus jokes followed by a satirical closing of the broadcast" is in reality, one of the purest examples of absolute truth that exists in television news today.

And your delusional analysis of "using the Iraq struggle for freedom of religion and thought" is one of the more blatant misrepresentations of what is really happening, and why it has happened....that can be found anywhere on the internets.

At the MSNBC website, I type "countdown transcript" in search and click "search site," Grammie. The newly organized site is hard to navigate.

My dear friends, whiney Mike and Mr. blank-FLUCKER....Oh what a cynical and pointless existence the contrarian leads. Lighting a match instead of cursing the darkness would be a nice thing for you, along with Olbermann, to consider.

When Mr. Olbermann shakes his head to the implication of smaller than average genitalia then in the same breath utters his now worthless statement ending the show, a normal person recoils. I suppose the ideology from which you both approach the clip above makes the reaction different, but I wonder why when all is said and done, the US troop accomplishing the mission in Iraq are protecting the Iraqi people from radical totalitarian islamists who either want an Iran-like state or simply see the conflict as another way to advance Al Queda's influence.

These are facts your cursing in the darkness does not change....nor does Harry Reid's "no solutions/no alternative" obstructionism change.

Oh and Mr. blank-FLUCKER....as a "lay minister," one would hope you would be against the islamic terrorists who attack people because of their religion....that is what the US troops are trying to insure ends. The choice of having a terrorist supporting dictator in the form of the evil and sadistic Saddam Hussein so that there could be religious freedom is not a right choice either, Mr. blank-FLUCKER. Your quick dismissal of Husseins' crimes against humanity (including the gasing of his own people) along with his support of the terrorists killing Christians and Jews in Israel and Lebanon, is rather sad.

I like the following type of true freedom of religion instead of what you would have for us through the dictator, Hussein.....

"St. Joseph Chaldean Church in central Baghdad was jammed with more than 1,000 people. Many had to stand through the service.

"Security was tight outside the church. Every man entering the church was searched. Police cars blocked both ends of the street to prevent car bombs.

"During the mass, Shiite Muslim leader Ammar al-Hakim, son of the head of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite political organization, walked into the church. Father Louis al-Shabi, the chief priest at St. Joseph, escorted al-Hakim to a seat near the alter.

"'Sheik al-Hakim came to join us in our celebrations as we mark this feast,' al-Shabi told the worshippers. 'We welcome this visit as a display of unity among the Iraqi people.'

"Al-Hakim responded, 'We are all the sons of Iraq, and we should put our hands together to build this country. We are confident that the Iraqi people will come out of this crisis and our pain will end.'"

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/07/michael-yons-iconic-image-of-hope-and-unity-in-iraq/

###
I know its from Malkin, (you all just love to hate the cute Korean-American conservative female) but facts are facts. Freedom loving and respectful people of all religious faiths coming together on Easter to confront the totalitarians you choose to not place the responsibility of violence and death, Mr. blank-FLUCKER....oh how you have become blind!

Yes, Mike.....it is the great struggle for freedom of religion and thought you, Olbermann and Mr. blank-FLUCKER place right after penis jokes......it really makes all three of you look foolish!

"Yes Mike....it is the great struggle for freedom of religion and thought you, Olbermann and Mr.blank-FLUCKER place right after penis jokes"

To begin with your latest misrepresentation, you have never read a penis joke coming from me. On the contrary, you HAVE read some posts from me blasting some anti-KO posters for discussing such repulsive drivel.

As for your latest grandeous and ongoing "it is the struggle for freedom and religion" sermon, when did it become such?

- Wasn't that after no WMD were found?
- Didn't that follow the discovery that Saddam had no such potential in the making to create a "mushroom cloud"?
- Wasn't that after it became clear that he had no role whatsoever in 911?
- Or did this romantic rational follow after it was finally evident that not only did he have no affiliation with Al Qeada, he was actually their ideological enemy?
- Or did we develop that rational after it became clear that we had done Al Qeada's bidding for them by invading Iraq and clearing Saddam out of their way?

I think all of the above.

You see 'Cee', I have this handicap of having carefully watched the run-up to the war.....from it's inception, to it's ugly implementation. I just don't remember all these grandeous speaches about how this whole thing was REALLY about spreading "freedom of thought and religion" in foreign lands.

If the notion HAD been approved by Congress and the American people based on THAT rational, you would not be hearing any complaints from the likes of me today.

Truth matters! Especially when the consequences involve war. We just never seem to learn this lesson permanently.

For the record, I hope Iraq finally achieves that highly unlikely and elusive dream of "freedom of speech, thought, and religion", which are concepts that WE hold far more dear than they apparently do, but my opinion remains that it will only happen if THEY make it happen....NOT because of anything we did, or are doing.

Meanwhile, to the eternal consternation of you right wing Neocon ideologues who keep arguing that any means justifies your ideological end, I will NEVER forget that the whole fiasco was enabled on the backs of lies, deception, and incompetency....and then executed just as badly.....which are ALL concepts that that are diametrically opposed to the noble concept of "freedom of thought and religion".

Keep that nobel dream of enforced democracy alive Cee.....and when your next target of enforced reform is The Sudan or some similar land of ideological darkness (that has no oil), I will begin to believe that your own motivations are something more noble than the cynical political opportunism you are constantly (and falsely) accusing the anti war patriots of having.

Cee, thanks. I had tried searching for transcript/s, for Countdown, Olbermann and just couldn't get to the right place.

It literally takes pinning it down to "Countdown Transcripts" to get access to a link that brings you to the right place.

Thanks for helping me out. Now I just I remember how I did it next time I want to check the transcript.

Grammie

I'm doing just fine.

How are you doing Capon Fauntleroy Flucker?

It seems that you are still chugging along sputtering petulant nonsensical jibes as always.

I don't hold that against you though.

As you said you don't tolerate fools and there is no escaping yourself!

Grammie

Just as much as you rely on a national intelligence ESTIMATE to bring to the table some lunacy that Bush is lying now, you disregard the same estimates back in 2002 that justified removing the terrorist supporting Saddam Hussein from power, by force, under violations of UN resolutions and supported by 2 of the three top democratic candidates for the presidency in 2008.....

And now we should abandon the people we liberated based on those same people who came up with the WMD evidence that came up with the Iran NIE.....

You people are so inconsistent.

Oh and for the 5th or sixth time for whiney Mike, the evidence that Saddam Hussein's removal was not only because he was thought to have WMD by a HUGE majority of the intelligence community but because he was a supporter of islamic radicalism in the form of the equally horrific and totalitarian Hezbollah, as well as a sick criminal who killed his own people and repressed them.....

"Saddam Hussein and his hateful regime will be removed from power," Mr. Blair said. "Iraq will be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction, and the Iraqi people will be free. That is our commitment."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/international/worldspecial/27CND-PREXY.html?ex=1197003600&en=8a74614d25dc6bda&ei=5070

###
Read the article gents....only one week into the invasion and it was lear of the reaons behind the allies invasion....Saddam Hussein was thought to have WMD AND AND AND AND he was a supporter of the type of terrorism that was no longer going to be tolerated after 9/11 AND AND AND AND the Iraqi people were to be liberated from his totalitarianism....FREEDOM!

His atrocities were even there for all to see at the end.....read the article that chronicles Hussein's troops killing british troops when taken prisoner....

Oh but Mike and Mr.blank-FLUCKER want to rewrite history for us and think the only reason Saddam was threatened with removal for MONTHS then followed through with the threat was cooked up intelligence....

NO.

Just as much as you two think the NIE now is "gospel," many thought this NIE was true THEN....

"Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

"Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.

"Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production.

"Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.

"Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

###
It goes on to chroncile convining evidence that MANY believed aboutr Hussein and warranted his removal.

You two are typical of the cowards that now use an NIE to suggest Bush is lying when this NIE in 2002 supported his policy....Well what is it....true now and true then or not true then and not true now?

Take your Monday morning quarterbacking leadership, Mike, rework it and try again. The run up to the war is not as you try to characterize it and is the worst the left has to offer in lies (propaganda).

All I know now is that forces want to stop the freedom that is in Iraq now (thanks for ignoring the Malkin piece.....you two once again show your lack of ability to debate), and they must be met until the forces in Iraq can stop them on their own.

"They are but a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."

###
Nice scriptural lift, lay minister Mr. blank-FLUCKER. Paul, once the Pharicee Saul, would be proud you remembered some of what the Holy Spirit gave him!

I hate to point this out, but my positions, even just over the last 5 hours, have more support, thought and care in them than you have ever showed. My "gong" is facts and history and not abandoning principle (worldview). You, however, the weakest and silliest of eunuchs, go along with the conventional wisdom when it suits your weak mind and try to dress it up with words that have no more depth as your real, vapid worldview.

If you are going to disregard my opinion, fine. But your inconsistencies, lack of empirical evidence and on top of that, lack of even one shread of historical evidence, simply shows us all the fraud that you are.

Along with the fact that you are on your 4th or 5th name on this board.

So, Mr. blank-FLUCKER, keep up the charade....third person references to me by you are starting to be a badge of honor for me.

Cee, you really need to cut Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker some slack here.

He is even more out of sorts and angry than usual because he tried to kick his kid's puppy and missed.

Grammie

You two are typical of the cowards that now use an NIE to suggest Bush is lying when this NIE in 2002 supported his policy....Well what is it....true now and true then or not true then and not true now?

posted by cee

Cee, I hope you don't expect a rational answer. All you will get is "it's not a fair question!" or some crap about Mitt or Rudy. You might get lucky and get a lesson on how to dress from our resident metrosexual!

Wow....looky here....the santimoneous and sermonic Cee, who never served his country himself....has now stooped to the laughable RW tactic of calling his ideological blogboard opponents "cowards".

Further proof of how dirt always finds it's way to the bottom.

>

You two are typical of the cowards that now use an NIE to suggest Bush is lying when this NIE in 2002 supported his policy....Well what is it....true now and true then or not true then and not true now?

posted by cee

A simple question. Impossible for a partisan hack or hacks to answer.

">
I doubt if you've ever been "right" about anything in your pathetic cowardly life.

It wasn't exactly a difficult question. It's not exactly a secret that they cherry picked the 2002 NIE report.

Sorry, no hipocrisy to be found here.

"true now and true then or not true then and not true now."

Another shining example of black vs white, us vs them, left vs right thinking from a small mind that can only think in absolutes without regard to the many shades of gray that life actually consists of.

OH, you got me, 'mike.' I forgot about your 'black and white' diversion. Yes, I was right. Plain as day. You couldn't answer a simple question.

"You couldn't answer a simple question."

Oh, I DID answer the question, ....twice...but you're just to damned stupid to see the answer.

But that's typical for you.

You two are typical of the cowards that now use an NIE to suggest Bush is lying when this NIE in 2002 supported his policy....Well what is it....true now and true then or not true then and not true now?

posted by cee

>First "answer."

It wasn't exactly a difficult question. It's not exactly a secret that they cherry picked the 2002 NIE report.

Sorry, no [hipocrisy]sic to be found here.

Posted by: Mike at December 5, 2007 10:35 PM

>Second "answer."

Another shining example of black vs white, us vs them, left vs right thinking from a small mind that can only think in absolutes without regard to the many shades of gray that life actually consists of.

Posted by: Mike at December 5, 2007 10:40 PM

Sure Mr. blank-FLUCKER....Graeme served in the armed forces.....and I invented the whipple. Come now, he just beat you at tennis on your new Wii last evening and Mrs. blank-FLUCKER congratulated him with his fav.....Swiss-Miss with those little mellows.

Sure whiney Mike.....my saying YOU are selectively using the NIE's for your own rhetoric is black and white thinking?.....Try again.....if anyone is black and white thinking it is you dear one who doesn't understand NIE contains the word ESTIMATE and that means it "could" be wrong.....meaning NOW as well, and for you to use this NIE as a club on Bush's head shows you are the one with the monochromic attitude....not me.....The challenge, "true now, true then...." was a purposeful hyperbolic (and sarcastic)reference to your inconstencies in evaluating Bush's policies before the war WHICH WAS BASED ON VALID INTELLIGENCE SAYING SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD AND WANTED WMD INCLUDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. To say he lied us into war then with is black thinking and to say the NIE now says he tried to lie us into war with Iran but failed is white thinking....Bush has been grey all along.....using all the available empirical and historical evidence to formulate a valid foreign policy that protects the country, insures our allies are protected (including those nasty Jews in Israel, eh Mr. blank-FLUCKER?), AND is compassionate and promotes freedom for religion and thought for those not afforded these basic rights by their totalitarian governments....

THE IRAQIS!

I love how you both ignore my more valid points AND on top of it, get all hurt about the word "coward." Again, you both MAY have served your country.....congrats.....so did Mr. John McCain who I have DOCUMENTED evidence went through a lot more than you two simpletons and has never waivered in believing in the CORE mission of his fellow troops....UNDER THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH....

Liberty.

I do not know what has happened to you two since your self-reported service, but you now have a callous disregard for your fellow person in that you would be willing to abandon them to people willing to kill, without regard to age or gender, based on a religious or political rule/law....radical islamists. You have become cowards in essence for this type of thinking and Mr. blank-FLUCKER won't even engage in debate after he is presented with a cogent and arguable dialogue....

A coward. And like I have ALWAYS said to every poster with a different opinion as mine.....Anything can be posted here and no one can be the wiser....claiming the moral highround of serving in the armed forces is all well and good, but to fall back and attack someone who you have no clue about that they did not serve simply shows you either never, or perhaps have come to the point, of not knowing what "serving" means......

A true noble veteran would never resort to the arguments whiney Mike and Mr. blank-FLUCKER have resorted to....one being the chickenhawk argument....I suggest you think about it gents. Talk to people like McCain who does not use such silly and dishonorable tactics in a discussion involving much grander ideas of liberty and freedom. Your rhetoric shows you both who you really are....not the good veterans you once were....but the callous and narcissistic nay-sayers who curse the darkness and have nothing better to say than someone is beneath their value as a human being to be protected.....

or given an answer.

Ican picture them now. Radar ('mike') and Klinger (Mrs. Philby).

YES!.....Mr. blank-FLUCKER joins whiney Mike in the absolutist...."black and white" genre with the following.....

"I only wish we didn't have so many of your type in our nation."

###
Remember Mike's quote about the free flow of ideas?.....pretty black.....

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

###
Your solution would be, Mr. blank-FLUCKER?.....Send those nasties off to war to be shot in the head or should we just set something up here like your bigoted friends did in the 1930's?...

Oh my, the brave veteran, Mr. blank-FLUCKER using the chickenhawk argument to segregate the population!....what an honorable position for one who has served!

I am sure that would make a wonderful sentiment next Veteran's day, Mr. blank-FLUCKER.....

cowards,

What about that gong or cymbal, Mr. lay minister blank-FLUCKER?....I believe Paul, once Saul, was referring to acting/speaking/teaching without LOVE......

Your sermons sure have not been filled with LOVE lately, dear Mr. blank-FLUCKER! Perhaps Ms. blank-FLUCKER finally unlocked the box and the cajones are FREE FOR USE?

CEEisms:

1) - "A true noble veteran would never resort to to the arguments Whiney Mike and Mr. Blank-FLUCKER have resorted to."

And how the hell would YOU know? After all, you're anything but a "true nobel veteran" yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) - "talk to people like McCain who does not use such silly and dishonorable tactics in a discussion involving much grander ideas of liberty and freedom."

DON'T even think about placing yourself in the same category with John McCain! YOU don't have the credentials to shine that man's shoes or even bow in his presence! NOBODY on this earth has greater respect for John McCain, and what he did for our country than I do, .... except maybe the brave men who endured the same Hell on Earth along with him in that "Hanoi Hilton" all those years ago.

Why have you ignored and scoffed John McCain's morally AND intellectually correct and rock steady stand against torture? You now choose to invoke his name ONLY when you think it suits your cynical purposes to do so!

No, It's true that I don't agree with McCain's stance on the continuation of this was, but unlike you, .... I RESPECT the man and his opinions. I respect them not only because he has earned the right to express them like none other in American government, .... but even more so because he shows utter respect for the opinions of those whom he disagrees with and would never stoop to the level of calling another American a "coward" simply because they disagree with him.

Finally, you cannot convince me that John McCain would have made the same collossal blunders Bush made had we been fortunate enough to have him as president, instead of Bush ..... and that may well have happened if he had not been smeared so badly Swift Boat style in the primaries by Bush republicans.

No Cee.....YOU and YOUR ilk can't hold a candle to the John McCains of this world!

More CEEism's:

1) - "but to fall back and attack someone who you have no clue as to whether they did or did not serve..."

You SAID you did not serve ... remember? ... Just like you SAID you were a doctor. You think these discussions just started last week?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) - "You have become cowards for this type of thinking"

Look at you hypocrite! You sit there at your safe, comfortable, and anonymous keyboard and call me a "coward" for the way I think even as you continue to post an out of context quote implying that I would deny freedom of thought.

So you think the word "coward" is defined by the way someone THINKS. Your brain is far more screwed up than even I thought it was.

Another contemptable CEEism:

"get all hurt by the word "coward".

Wrong again. YOU can't possibly "hurt" ME by calling me a coward or with any of the many other names and taunts you have hurled my way strategically buried in the text of your string of never ending sermons.

I've also noticed another sadistic trait about you: If you think you have detected something that bothers an ideological opponent, you keep right on using it repeatedly, ... just as you've now latched on to the ultra hypocritical word "coward" .... because you think we've been "hurt" by it.

You couldn't be more wrong!

All that does is provide further proof of what a small tiny little man you really are.

> he shows utter respect for the opinions of those whom he disagrees with and would never stoop to the level of calling another American a "coward" simply because they disagree with him.

I'm glad you respect Sen McCain. It would seem hard not to. But that doesn't stop Olby, who ridicules him on a regular basis, and even claimed that the senator was delusional. Just because he disagreed with him. If you object to people who "stoop to the level" of calling another "coward" or "delusional", I hope you will express your outrage at Keith Olbermann as well.

Actually Johnny, I have.

It's one of the handful of things I would change about KO, and his show....if I could.

Well Mike, when you repudiate all the lashings the great McCain took when he walked through that Bahgdad marketplace several months ago from the left....including Mr. Olbermann and types like Mr. blank-FLUCKER, than perhaps you have finally made a step in the right direction.....

John McCain has been consitently with the President, even more aggressive in stance during the early part of the insurgency yet you have the 180 degree view.....Why, Mike? Could it be because you have lost the view that the US troops are always fighting for right despite what your new friends on the anti-American left tell you?

Sorry Mike, for John McCain who endured the lies from John Kerry being broadcast over the load speakers of his prison to the attacks he received when he toured the marketplace, the anti-American left has been attacking his spirit....and you have joined them.

To try to place a wedge between McCain and The President he has steadfastly supported, even with disagreements regarding what interogation techniques meet the definition of torture, you look sorrier and sorrier.

Go join Olbermann in his opinion that McCain has some psychological problems and I'll continue to truly support the WHOLE man.

Mr. blank-FLUCKER....I will help you....now listen carefully....

To the ISSUE at hand between whiney Mike and me....invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein....."John McCain has been consitently with the President"

Do you understand?

He was, "even more aggressive in stance" in attacking Iraq....was more hawkish than Bush.

Do you understand?

"To try to place a wedge between McCain and The President he has steadfastly supported, even with disagreements regarding what interogation techniques meet the definition of torture, you look sorrier and sorrier."

###
This applies to you, Mr. blank-FLUCKER....I can assure you, Senator NcCain, who is 100% behind the surge and continued US help for the people of Iraq....your post at 1:16PM is very silly.

Although leftists have continued to try to make Bush seem all by himself in his policy, McCain is one of millions who know the policy is right and moral and premature withdrawl would be a travesty, wrong and a military disaster.

That is why people like you made fun of McCain when he appeared in that market in Bahgdad....go search Huffington Post or kos for the nice comments about your fellow, more noble fellow veteran, Mr. blank-FLUCKER.

"Miles apart?" You are becoming a parody of yourself, Mr. blank-FLUCKER.

"To the ISSUE at hand between whiny Mike and me....invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein ...."John McCain has been consitantly with the President."

Oh, I think he understood perfectly what I meant, and I couldn't have made a better answer to it myself...and thats why i didn't

Oh, I see....it's up to you to pick and choose what McCain has been "consistant with the president" about, and what he hasn't? I hate to break it to you, but you just now added that little caveat about exactly which details he has been consistant "with the president" about, while ignoring the rather substantial issues in which he hasn't.

While I don't recall ridiculing McCain personally for that marketplace photo op, if you believe labeling it for what it WAS constituted a personal attack on the man himself, then you are even more blindered than I thought. He should not have tried to make that point in that manner.

The media and everyone else was supposed to just ignor the gazillion or so troops in place to protect the man as he showed us how safe it was to walk in a dangerous place? Sorry Cee...truth doesn't work that way.

As for 'ISSUES' between us, the only ones I can think of are your incesstant and childish taunting and name calling in lieu of debating issues and facts.

If McCain had been president, which just MIGHT have been except for the Bush Republican campaign dirty smears, I can't say for certain what would have happened...only what I believe would have happened.

First off, I'm not 100% convinced he would have chosen to invade Iraq in the first place. Just because he has shown support does NOT mean he would have made the same decision himself!

Second, there is NO doubt he would have done it differently and FAR more effectively if he had...and these discussions would not be taking place today.

Well, Mike, I would take the real noble gentleman from Arizona anytime over someone like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who are requesting the exact opposite of the fine vet. Your angst about his support for the fight against the terrorists in Iraq is showing as does Mr. blank-FLUCKERS sad attempt at portray miles of seperation between Bush and McCain.....I remember even kos joking about the senile McCain hugging Bush during the 2004 campaign (along with Lieberman) and suggesting somekind of strange relationship.

This is your leftist opposition, Mike. Your bedfellows deride the former POW at will and without thought.

He is on the right side of this debate and as President, he would continue the aggressive stance in Iraq.....obviously, based on your former posts, you would not vote for your fellow vet......

Instead you would vote for people who have not served!.....

Like, Ms. Clinton (chickenhawk)
Like, Mr. Obama (only top tier candidate who has been consistently against the war....but he did not serve)
Like, Mr. Edwards (another chickenhawk but he has decided to be a dove now....awww!)

How ironic!

"Instead you would vote for people who have not served."

Like John Kerry?

Gone for now

John Kerry is a veteran of the Mr. blank-FLUCKER ilk.....oh and those swiftboat veterans for truth were very convincing with regards to the hoax, candidate Kerry......

I say if you throw your metals away and mix with anti-troop leftists like Hanoi Jane Fonda, you should remain comitted to such decisions.....Our dear Mr. Kerry wanted to have it both ways.....it was amazing those metals showed up on his Senate office wall after being thrown into the mud?!?!

Oh and you forgot about my comment about a young McCain having to hear the anti-troop lies of Kerry while he was held prisoner in Hanoi.....you know, soldiers committing war crimes...cutting off people ears, shocking genitalia, etc. etc. etc....

Once anti-American, always anti-American.....We missed a big problem in 2004....GW beat Kerry handily and with the most total votes, ever.

"Is John McCain really this clueless, is he delusional or is he just stupid?"

###

"Go team! If McCain believes that nonsense, then he proves himself unfit top be president. But if it is a ploy by McCain to gain the trust of the hard-right Bush fanatics, then we know that all that "Straight Talk" the media showered love on him for was nothing but a political calculation.

"It's pretty clear now that McCain has serious character issues. He embraces lies and deceptions. He embraces disastrous policies for political reasons. He feigns deep concern about serious issues like torture, but throws those "concerns" overboard in a bid for Bush love and, possibly, a nickname.

"He is the worst type of politician, one who pretends to be different, a straight talker, when in fact his lies are bigger and more important than that of run of the mill politicians. The maverick really is just one more Rubber-Stamp Republican."

###

"In the last few months, we have seen John McCain folding his "principles" on torture after putting up a perfunctory fight. We've seen the amazing spectacle of McCain wearing out his knees as he goes crawling back to the same right wing fundies and Bush strategists who attacked and smeared him in the 2000 primaries. And we've seen McCain providing his own full employment plan for right wing sleazebags.

"So what is McCain's reward for this butt-kissing blitz? It's all about the money, honey."

###

All from dailykos.....

Would you like more from the new left....even their leader, kos, gets in on the action......take a look!

Sorry....if you can find personal attacks from George Bush, let me know, Mr. blank-FLUCKER....otherwise....your blue blog history lesson is not applicable.....

Come now...defend the REAL vet, Mr. blank-FLUCKER!

Nice data, Mr. blank-FLUCKER....what were the actual numbers behind those percentages?.....Did or did not President Bush garner the most popular vote n
numbers ever, or not?

62,040,606 Americans cast their vote for Bush....the most ever for a single candidate....I wonder why, dear Mr. blank-FLUCKER?

Try again, Mr. blank-FLUCKER...your math is a little off.....

36% of 715,100,000 people is 257,436,000 people.

Oh and the OBESITY rate in the USA is not even close to 40% of the population, dear Mr. blank-FLUCKER....try again.....There seems to be a lot wrong with your last post...

You are just declining at a most impressive rate!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22007477/

"About 33 percent of adult men and 35 percent of U.S. women were obese in 2005-2006, according to a comprehensive survey by the federal government that includes physical examinations."

###
My oh my.....Graeme blank-FLUCKER better go to mommy for help with his homework!

Anyone notice the constant personal attacks on John Murtha?

posted by mrs. philby/jennifer/joel/clunker/rudy/anonymous

All well deserved. If you defend Mad man Murtha ("Cold blooded killers"), there is no way you ever served. Honorably, anyways.

Like John Kerry?

Gone for now

Posted by: Mike at December 6, 2007 2:54 PM

When did Ketchup (rice blown up his ass) Kerry enter the race?

62,040,606 is roughly equivalent to the number of obese Americans in 2004.

posted by mrs. philby/rudy/joel/clunker/jennifer/anonymous

Such a classy 'lay minister,' yes? Such compassion, too........

I call 'em as I see 'em. Which actors and musicians have I made derogatory remarks about? I called George Carlin (who I kinda like) a drug addict, which he is. He admits to it. Who else?

I suppose you will ask patsy, philby and O'leily the same question?

Bobo, I see some open quote marks that don't have a close quote mark except both consistently for "abstnence only"

Who did you copy and paste this one from?

My inquiring mind is always eager to follow links to source documents.

Grammie

RK, to the best of my knowledge and memory you may have reached a new height.

Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker, that well known patriot and brave man (or so he says) has called you a yellow-belly. I do like a little variety every once in a while, don't you?

I have been called a traitorous murderous coward (I think Chicken Hawk too) here. I wonder if I will ever rise to the level of yellow-belly.

All one can do is to hope.

Grammie

Which actors and musicians have I made derogatory remarks about? I called George Carlin (who I kinda like) a drug addict, which he is. He admits to it. Who else?

I suppose you will ask patsy, philby and O'leily the same question?

Posted by: royal king at December 6, 2007 8:21 PM

crickets........

No, but, you are afraid to answer my 8:21 questions.

You mean I forgot to close quotes?
Please forgive me....It's a dastardly deed I know...

Could you really be any more anal ?

This story was picked up by many publications today. I read it in the Washington Post !

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 6, 2007 11:20 PM

You attribution guys are so up tight...

There just has to be a book in here somewhere for the non-anal Bobo.

How about:

The Accidental PhD... :D

Well, Bobo, if you are going to quote the story (by this do you mean a particular article) from the WaPo what is so demanding about using quotation marks and giving attribution?

It's not as if we can't all tell that any fairly coherent piece from you that is not filled with verbal barbs is you doing your plagiarism act.

We won't think any less of you b/c I don't think that is possible.

Grammie

Well, I personally don't see the connection between US policy to promote abstinence in other countries and conditions here.

$350,000,000 taken from the total budget in this country to spend on abstinence programs is not an earth shattering world ending catastrophe.

I do know it works every time it's tried.

Grammie

Bobo, if you don't know that abstinence prevents pregnancy you need to give your Dad a call and ask him to explain it to you.

Grammie

Her brain is still on 1950's time.

You mean before HIV AIDS? Why don't you tell your F R I E N D that the pill doesn't protect against STD's. Guess what does? Abstinence and monogamy after marriage do. You've theoretically had a sexual encounter with every person your partner has. If I truly believed your friend on this board had a daughter, I would be extremely concerned for the girl. It could take years for the virus to damage enough T cells. You're into pop culture: "Three letters took him [her] to his final restin' place . . ."

Condoms aren't 100% effective against transmission either. Given what I think you and A N O N's ages are and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are in monogamous marriages and have been for a number of years, you haven't personally dealt with the issue. Go ahead, just use a condom, Son, Daughter. Your chances of getting AIDS is greatly reduced.

Is "greatly reduced" good enough for a loved one? Oh, but they were probably going to do it anyway. Remember that as they are hooked up to IV's suffering.

Donate blood if you are healthy.

What is the equivalent of knitting for men? Whatever it is, Why, that is what you were doing when information about how the pill does not protect against STD's came out.

You see,,,,there's very little that makes me uptight....despite yours and grandma's imaginations..as opposed to you Lush......who is wound tighter than Joan Rivers face....or maybe Laura Bush's sphincter muscle.

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

Well, you're a sociopath, WDYT.

Your meter reader is wound too tight for you, let alone anyone with the expectation that you not steal or treat the property of others as your own private tub mat.

Grammie can't really help herself.
Her brain is still on 1950's time.....when Ike warned the world of the Military Industrial Complex and Grammie was knitting and missed that newscast too.

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 7, 2007 1:27 AM

Well, it's interesting that you'd mention the 1950s, WDYT, because I'd wager the birth rate among unmarried teens was much lower then and there was no sex education in school or the birth control pill.

When factoring in the rise in the rate of teen pregnancy, perhaps in your scholarly analysis... you could consider the culture around us. Especially the sort of culture that would defend the reasoning that parents should effectively tell their kids that though they don't approve of certain behavior, feel that this behavior can and will be intrinsically harmful to a kid's mind as well as body, that as parents we wouldn't and shouldn't dream of expecting that they act otherwise because goodness knows they're mere animals and can't stop themselves.

That's quite a message for us to send our offspring.

No wonder Capon breathed a sigh of relief to know his daughter was protected from anything that might inconvenience HIM as well...

In some circles that's still considered being a dead-beat dad, but hey.... you give YOUR children the messages about themselves and about you, that you wish to send.

We'll do the same and we'll try to shield them from a prevalent popular culture as best we can, despite its' and your demands for our wholesale surrender...

What I am unclear about is: Are women drawn to cowardly men? I would think not, but Cecelia and you seem to suggest otherwise. Are you exceptions, or are you the rule? It's one of the many unsolved mysteries of women, and if it is some sort of sorority secret, I can understand you not answering.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 12:44 AM

No, I display the rule, Capon. And if you owned anything approaching a "mental mirror", you'd see that quite well.

Cecelia,

Your points of 9:43 are completely on target but any sense of morality tends to fall on deaf ears here.

My prayer was that my children not become sexually active until the proper time, that the first times be with someone they at least think they love and who loves them. There is an old Russian sailors' proverb, "Pray to God, but keep rowing to shore." I prayed, but I also kept rowing. For parents not willing to undertake that task, I view them as nothing more than barnyard animals. For parents willing to rely on teenage abstinence, I view them as fools.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 10:12 AM

Well, then it really is about capitulation to a society that argues that you and your children are little more than barnyard animals.

Don't think for one minute that there's not a social agenda in that, or that any of these folks would wish a lower pregnancy rate in the sense that we return to the values (and the teen pregnancy rate ) of this society BEFORE the advent of the pill...

I call that an agenda, and you've just been called a fool for wishing to resist it.

"There is also an absolute need for the child or children to know that he, she or they may come to either of us to discuss anything. That sometimes requires a degree of tolerance, patience and forgiveness that overwhelms even the best of parents."

About 6 weeks ago, my 6 year old daughter out of the blue related a story that her 7 year old friend told her. In a kid's version, it was how a second grader had oral sex with someone. I later found out it the alleged story involved a second grader and fifth grader. Whether true or not was irrelevant. I had to unexpectedly deal with an issue calmly and spiritually, which I did to the best of my ability, and stressed that she (and her 8 year old brother who was in the room when the story was told) to always talk to me.

That is what a sick world we live in.

To add, I home school so my kids didn't have to live with story that was circulated every day at the elementary school. It robbed them of something, but the impact was lessened by learning at home. I used to think that if circumstances required the kids to go to public school, they would be fine because the real problems begin in middle school. That myth was dispelled.

my wife told me my daughter was taking the pill. She and my daughter thought I'd go ballistic. Best news I ever got.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 1:12 AM

This is how the brain of a secular progressive works.

along with

SODOMY!
SODOMY!
SODOMY!

A simple question for Mr. blank-FLUCKER....

If your children asked you, "Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?" what would your response be?

FORNICATOR!
FORNICATOR!
FORNICATOR!

Tell me the details! Maybe they involve some

SODOMY!
SODOMY!

SODOMIST!

FORNICATOR!
FORNICATOR!
FORNICATOR!

Tell me the details! Maybe they involve some

SODOMY!
SODOMY!

SODOMIST!
Posted by: FORNICATOR! at December 7, 2007 11:42 AM

Thank you so much for you comment, Johnnie-Jeff. In your typical moronic, yellow-belly fashion, you contributed to the discussion not in the least. You never disappoint.
Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 11:43 AM

As for 11:40 comment, have a whole arsenal of stories at the ready, don't you? We (my husband and I) placed the situation in God's Hands and moved on, with sadness but perserverence.

FORNICATOR!
SODOMY!
SODOMIST!
SINNER!

Why...! Why...! Why...!

EVEEEEEEL PARTISAN FAR LEFT SECULARIST!!!

Well, looking at the nice responses with ALL CAPS and exclamation points, it seems we are only having a medical/naturalist discussion and not a moral discussion regarding human sexuality and it being a gift from the creator.

I think you were right, Cecelia.....This discussion is falling on deaf ears.

A simple question for Mr. blank-FLUCKER....

If your children asked you, "Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?" what would your response be?
Posted by: cee at December 7, 2007 11:39 AM

Well, looking at the nice responses with ALL CAPS and exclamation points, it seems we are only having a medical/naturalist discussion and not a moral discussion regarding human sexuality and it being a gift from the creator.

I think you were right, Cecelia.....This discussion is falling on deaf ears.
Posted by: cee at December 7, 2007 12:07 PM

Now let me ask you, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallouise!

If your children asked you,
"Is it a sin to be gay?"
"Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex before you are married?"
what would your response be, HypocryCee?

FORNICATOR!
FORNICATOR!
FORNICATOR!

SODOMY!
SODOMY!

SODOMIST!
SODOMIST!
SODOMIST!

SINNER!
SINNER!

GET OUT OF THE SANCTITY OF MY HOME!

So, we should make the pill illegal, Cecelia?

This is all far less an agenda than it is about good parenting, isn't it? Many of the places with the highest teen birth rates are located in the South. One would think otherwise, given the religious factor, but not. One would think of all the lip service to given to family values it would be otherwise, but not.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 10:46 AM

Well, good think I'm not advocating that the pill be ILLEGAL... or that it is solely the cause of a break down of basic standards...

As for the south, other factors than it being the Bible Belt to consider.

The percentage of the minority pop, because there is a great rate of teenage births among this population, and that comes from a higher poverty rate.

The poverty rate in general among the rest of the population, etc.

You tell a story about a mother who thinks it's a good idea that her teenage daughter considers sexual "compatibility" to be more important than the fundamental goal of just getting to know another person.... a mother who serves cookies (why not dental dams along with the chocolate chips?...) as her daughter plans oral sex with a stranger, and THEN you lecture me that I'm blaming the pill rather than the mindset (and social agendas) of people??

For a guy who just two days ago was arguing that conservatives deserve harsher treatment because they're Holy Joes, you sure can talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Having a basic understanding of what sin is, wannawipe, is required for me to even begin answering your questions.

I have an impression you do not know what sin is. Do I have the correct impression?

I even wonder if Mr. blank-FLUCKER works in such a paradigm....From my experience, the concept of sin is not applicable to secular ethical teaching so the conversation cannot even get off on the right foot.

I am not talking about "right" or "wrong." I am only talking about sin. Sin only applies to the actions of people that is in violation to what God has revealed to be what He has in mind for us.....And the consequences of those actions.

Mr. blank-FLUCKER only seems to be dealing with avoiding the consequences of the sin.....a choice made by most but it does not address the underlying reason one would choose to sin (prior to the consequences) in the first place.

It goes to the root cause of all sin, which is the individual's lack of relationship with The Father....THE central teaching of Jesus Christ.

Cecelia,

I don't know if you are aware that the pill is an abortifacent, if you believe that life begins at conception. I didn't understand the impact of that for a long time. One of the purposes of the pill is to make the uterus hostile to implantation. That is why the Catholic Church opposes Plan B. The pill makes the body mimic pregnancy so that ovulation does not occur, but should it occur, the uterus rejects implantation (miscarriage).

Eating several types of seafood is a sin.
Eating pork, dog, horse, camel, deer, rat, snake, or ship, goat, bovines not properly slaughtered is a sin.
Marrying those out of your tribe, even in the same ethnic group, is a sin.

---------
I am not talking about "right" or "wrong." I am only talking about sin.

Sin only applies to the actions of
people that is in violation to what God has revealed to be what He has in mind for us.....

And the consequences of those actions.

...

It goes to the root cause of all sin, which is the individual's lack of relationship with The Father....THE central teaching of Jesus Christ.
Posted by: cee at December 7, 2007 12:51 PM

===========

I wonder how many days in hell your god has in store for my having eating lobster, frog, turtle, horse, snake, deer, or non kosher burger.

So, you are correct, "the concept of sin is not applicable to secular ethical teaching so the conversation cannot even get off on the right foot." Oh! you mean you can't set the discussion in your own twisted Funny-mental dogmas. But let's not digress, Pastor DUMBUCK! I mean Phallouise!

Tell me, tell us!

If your children asked you,
"Is it a sin to be gay?"
"Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex after you are in a heterosexual marrige?"

what would your response be, HypocryCee?

Sorry wannawipe, you are wrong.

Those you list are violations of the law as prescribed to the nation of Israel. I have no teaching from Jesus, The Messiah, that those prescribed laws are indeed sin. His teachings contain the answer you seek....

The greatest commandment, THE SHEMA, defines what sin is....

We are to LOVE the one true God, Jehovah.

What is love, wannawipe? Love is obeying. Love is giving yourself to the authority of God 100%....100%.....And Christ says that the only way to that is through His saving grace.

So, sin is all that is not in what God instructs us not to do that comes from the unsaved nature we have. The gospels and the writings of the apostles are consistent with this view.

Please let me know if you understand this concept. Because in order for you to learn something, you have to leave your incorrect prejudices behind.

"your own twisted Funny-mental dogmas"

###
I was not aware that THE SHEMA was a fundamental dogma.

Again wannawipe, you have some incorredt assumptions that make the discussion very difficult to have since you have basic definitions wrong.

How about your opinion, Mr. lay minister blank-FLUCKER?....Do you agree with the notion that the shema is a fundamentalist dogma?

Are you the same Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallouise! that once claimed that since The Father and Jesus are the same, and they exist since the beginning of time, therefore "morals begin with Jesus" and speak as one?

However, now you claim that:
"Those you list are violations of the law as prescribed to the nation of Israel. I have no teaching from Jesus, The Messiah, that those prescribed laws are indeed sin."
and
"Sin only applies to the actions of
people that is in violation to what God has revealed to be what He has in mind for us.....
And the consequences of those actions."

Could you, Oh Woolly Pastor DUMBFUCK! tell us "what He has in mind for us..." in Leviticus Ch 11?
Please repeat the good ol' "Jesus also came to change our diet. The Father told him to do so."

Once again, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallouise! goes further trying to re-define his first, now compromised, definition of sin:

"Sin only applies to the actions of people that is in violation to what God has revealed to be what He has in mind for us.....And the consequences of those actions."

complemented by

"sin is all that is not in what God instructs us not to do that comes from the unsaved nature we have."

Stop making a Funny-Mental ass out of yourself Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean HypocryCee, just answer the simple question you posed.

Tell me, tell us!

If your children asked you,
"Is it a sin to be gay?"
"Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex after you are in a heterosexual marriage?"

what would your response be, HypocryCee?

Should we assume that you Woolly Pastor DUMBFUCK! don't have enough ovaries to answer the same question you ask from others?

you have some incorredt assumptions that make the discussion very difficult to have since you have basic definitions wrong.
Posted by: cee at December 7, 2007 1:31 PM

THE SHEMA is a piece of Funny-Mentalist dogma.

and no, "Secularism" is NOT a religion, as your "basic definition" tells you.

You're one sick dude, aap. But, you must know that, by now.

How about I do a "Christopher Hitchens"?

Will you BU$HWIPES like me if I do a "rabid new-clownish secularist"?

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/excerpts/2007-11-01-portable-atheist_N.htm

Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

By Christopher Hitchens

One is continually told, as an unbeliever, that it is old-fashioned to rail against the primitive stupidities and cruelties of religion because after all, in these enlightened times, the old superstitions have died away. Nine times out of ten, in debate with a cleric, one will be told not of some dogma of religious certitude but of some instance of charitable or humanitarian work undertaken by a religious person. Of course, this says nothing about the belief system involved: it may be true that Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam succeeds in weaning young black men off narcotics, but this would not alter the fact that the NoI is a racist crackpot organization. And has not Hamas—which publishes The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion on its website—won a reputation for its provision of social services? My own response has been to issue a challenge: name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer. As yet, I have had no takers. (Whereas, oddly enough, if you ask an audience to name a wicked statement or action directly attributable to religious faith, nobody has any difficulty in finding an example.)

No, the fact is that the bacilli are always lurking in the old texts and are latent in the theory and practice of religion. This anthology hopes to identify and isolate the bacilli more precisely.

aap, is phillip pullman your mentor and guiding light?

Of course, this says nothing about the belief system involved: it may be true that Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam succeeds in weaning young black men off narcotics, but this would not alter the fact that the NoI is a racist crackpot organization

posted by patsy

Patsy, mrs. philby will be very upset with you for posting this. She is a self proclaimed fan of louis.

Have never read his works. Haven't even seen screen adaptations.

"name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

EASY! The shema.....Love the LORD your (the one) God.

See, wannawipe, you are beginning to lose your preconceived, flawed and man centered/derived notions about sin, morality and "ethics," however slowly. Just like when you and SLOB (Lucy Van Pelt) brought up Linus from PEANUTS, God was working again to show you His presence and love!

Praise Jehovah!

I would have loved to have been in that audience with Mr. Hitchens....it is such an easy question. The ethic to have faith in the invisible creator is something a nonbeliever is incapable of doing!

Oh dear, oh my....I am getting so excited to see wannawipe's hard and course veneer show a slight crack!

Don't you agree, Mr. blank-FLUCKER, our wonderful lay minister?

Hello, Mr. blank-FLUCKER....aren't you glad God is making his presence known to wannawipe?

Hello?

You there, Mr. blank-FLUCKER?

What in the fuck makes you think that every thinker, every author, do not here and there make mistakes?

Oh, my bad. You are a Dr. Wiener loyalist.
And blind follower of Limpo, Ingraham, Gibson, Beck, Billdo, et al talking heads in the lower scrotum of the New-Clowns.

I meant, "lower stratum"

She's busy namejacking on another thread.

Oh dear, oh my....I am getting so excited to see wannawipe's hard and course veneer show a slight crack!

Don't you agree, Mr. blank-FLUCKER, our wonderful lay minister?
Posted by: cee at December 7, 2007 2:53 PM

I don't have anything against gays, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallouise! but I reeeeeeally don't want to hear about your visions and turn-ons.

YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!

Oh no, the lay minister ducks from his pronounced faith once again.....even from this!.....

"THE SHEMA is a piece of Funny-Mentalist dogma."

###
Well, Mr. blank-FLUCKER, I hope your commrade in arms isn't right because then what you are practicing, what Sentaors Obama and Clinton are practicing, what millions of people believe is false. The demand to believe in God on faith is a falsehood.....a dogma that has no place in wannawipe's world.

Mmmm.....The secularist does not practice a religion? Wannawipe's dogma about my dogma seems like a step in that direction.

"I mean Phallouise! but I reeeeeeally don't want to hear about your visions and turn-ons."

###
Aw wannawipe, the scriptures proclaim that the angels rejoice when one soul is saved! I am joyful when anyone lets down their guard and allows a small seed of truth enter their argument. You bringing up Hitchen's challenge was that small opening just like when you and Lucy brought up the lovable Linus.....Schulz's lovable achetype of the person of faith who approaches Christ as he wanted.....like a child.

Keep it going wannawipe....He will continue to work!

Right Mr. blank-FLUCKER?

Go read the whole "excerpt," you moron!

The only reason I did not post the whole article was because Johnny BU$HWIPE could come and do one of his infamous FASCISTO-BUSHWIPE acts of "copyright defense"

------------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/excerpts/2007-11-01-portable-atheist_N.htm

Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

By Christopher Hitchens

================

Let's get back to your original idiocy, Pastor DUMBFUCK!

Tell me, tell us!

If your children asked you,
"Is it a sin to be gay?"
"Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex after you are in a heterosexual marriage?"

what would your response be, HypocryCee?

Should we assume that you Woolly Pastor DUMBFUCK! don't have enough ovaries to answer the same question you ask from others?

Again, wannawipe, I repeat....you have to display to me you are using the word "sin" correctly in those questions of yours. I know what sin means but so far you have either been incorrect OR you have refused to accept the correct definiton as pronounced in the shema.

This is the fundamental problem with secularist thought. There is ONLY horizontal relationship....person to person.....There is NO vertical relationship......person to his/her creator....The definition of sin is absolutely predicated on the idea of the vertical relationship with it's solution.....grace (love in action).

That is wh I started the instruction of you in the shema, wannawipe....LOVE the LORD......if you do not recognize this "ethic," your defintion of sin is wrong and you are incapable of understanding an honest response.

Keep trying, though....you are slowly getting there.....

Right Mr. blank-FLUCKER? Hello?

There he is again, avoiding easy, fundamental ideas like......

"THE SHEMA is a piece of Funny-Mentalist dogma."

###
Mr. blank-FLUCKER seems to like to tout his lay minister credentials for other rhetorical jousts....but when a dogmatic secularist is running rabid on a thread, his mighty fortress defendng God's goodness and His kingdom is empty.....

Sin

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sin
Main Entry:
1sin
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is
Date:
before 12th century

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible -it's a sin to waste food- c: an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

---------------
you have to display to me you are using the word "sin" correctly in those questions of yours. I know what sin means but so far you have either been incorrect OR you have refused to accept the correct definiton as pronounced in the shema.
===============

Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean HypocryCee!
These questions are YOUR questions!

---------------------------------
If your children asked you, "Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?" what would your response be?
Posted by: cee at December 7, 2007 11:39 AM
=====================

Let's get back to your original idiocy, Pastor DUMBFUCK!

Tell me, tell us!

If your children asked you,
"Is it a sin to be gay?"
"Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex after you are in a heterosexual marriage?"

what would your response be, HypocryCee?

Unless you can't answer your own question because you, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean HypocryCee! "are using the word -sin- (in) correctly in those questions of yours"

-----------------
That is wh I started the instruction of you in the shema, wannawipe....LOVE the LORD......if you do not recognize this "ethic," your defintion of sin is wrong and you are incapable of understanding an honest response.
=================

You didn't start your half-assed pontification with the Shema, Pastor DUMBFUCK! You started incompetently with one of your Phallu-Cees, a fucking straw man set up for A N O N Y M O U S, expecting a chance for your sermon.

Here is your chance, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee! Answer! Preach it! Pastor DUMBFUCK!

If your children asked you,
"Is it a sin to be gay?"
"Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex after you are in a heterosexual marriage?"

what would your response be, HypocryCee?

Should we assume that you Woolly Pastor DUMBFUCK! don't have enough ovaries to answer the same question you ask from others?

"You didn't start your half-assed pontification with the Shema, Pastor DUMBFUCK! You started incompetently with one of your Phallu-Cees, a fucking straw man set up for A N O N Y M O U S, expecting a chance for your sermon."

###
No, wannawipe, I asked a question in the context of a moral discussion that provided an opportunity for Mr. blank-FLUCKER another opportunity to show me his wonderful testimony as a follower of Christ. He chose no to respond.

You see wannawipe, my answer is as follows,

We are all created in God's image and He loves us more than we could ever imagine. He wants a real and honest relationship but our sin, all of our sin, makes such a relationship impossible. But because He loves us so much, He allowed His own son to be the eternal and final sacrifice. Those willing to accept this gift of redemption can enter into the relationship with Jehovah and no longer be in violation of the greatest commandment....as prescribed in the shema....love the LORD your (the one) God.

All that was intended by God before sin poisoned that relationship is made right through His power and timing. All struggles with any sin, will be made right only by Him for those who surrender their will to Him. Christ pronounced sex outside the relationship between one man and one woman as not by The Father's will so any such behavior is sin. Forgivable by Christ's atonement and made clean only by His power. Christ pronounced greed as not by The Father's will so any such behavior is sin. Forgivable by Christ's atonement and made clean only by His power. Christ pronounced worship of any other gods as not by The Father's will so any such behavior is sin. Forgivable by Christ's atonement and made clean only by His power. Christ pronounced murder as not by The Father's will so any such behavior is sin. Forgivable by Christ's atonement and made clean only by His power.

I could go on, wannawipe, but I know you are either scratching your head because of your lack of insight into what sin actually is or ready with some profanity filled reaction as to not meet the substance of the entire idea that God is NOT interested in you following His "rules." He wants to reestablish the love affair that was meant to be with you that would make all such man has created to replace it, seem silly, a waste of time and never able to fill that void.....

Including fornication
Including sodomy
Including adultery
Including coveting
Including stealing
Including whatever sin seperates you from your loving creator.

And I gd replace "you" with "me" because I am no better or worse a sinner than you, wannawipe.

And I'd gladly replace "you" with "me" because I am no better or worse a sinner than you, wannawipe.

(Wireless keyboard at work does not always work correctly)

So....no response.....

I am so disappointed, especially with Mr. blank-FLUCKER....Olbermann Watch's lay minister only for arguments that have nothing to do with morality.....

So nice to smell the wood burning as wannawipe composes a response.....

Tick, tock.

Good night folks....have a pleasant weekend.

Let's recap how it took you, Pastor DUMBFUCK! around 4 hours to finally grow an ovary and answer:

1)
---------------------------------------------------
A simple question for Mr. blank-FLUCKER....

If your children asked you, "Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?" what would your response be?
Posted by: cee at December 7, 2007 11:39 AM

--------------------------------------------

2)
-----------------------------------------
Now let me ask you, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallouise!

If your children asked you,
"Is it a sin to be gay?"
"Is it a sin to have sex before you are married?"
"Is it a sin to be gay and have gay sex before you are married?"
what would your response be, HypocryCee?

FORNICATOR!
FORNICATOR!
FORNICATOR!

SODOMY!
SODOMY!

SODOMIST!
SODOMIST!
SODOMIST!

SINNER!
SINNER!

GET OUT OF THE SANCTITY OF MY HOME!
Posted by: YOU ARE BETTER OFF RUNNING AWAY, HypocryCee at December 7, 2007 12:18 PM
-----------------------------

3)
-------------------------------
...You see wannawipe, my answer is as follows...

Posted by: cee at December 7, 2007 4:32 PM

And I'd gladly replace "you" with "me" because I am no better or worse a sinner than you, wannawipe.

(Wireless keyboard at work does not always work correctly)

So....no response.....

I am so disappointed, especially with Mr. blank-FLUCKER....Olbermann Watch's lay minister only for arguments that have nothing to do with morality.....

So nice to smell the wood burning as wannawipe composes a response.....

Tick, tock.

Good night folks....have a pleasant weekend.
Posted by: cee at December 7, 2007 5:15 PM
----------------------

4)
---------------------------
You are out of fucking mind, again, if for a moment you thought I'd fallen defeated to your sermon, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee. I did have something better to do, then I came back to read your idiocy.

Enjoy the response to both of your December 7, 2007 4:32 PM and 5:15 PM posts.

You are dammned right, Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee!

You "could go on" in your circular (ill)logic forever. Since The Father is Jesus and since Jesus is the Father again, it was actually Jesus talking to Moses in Mt. Sinai.

1) "Christ pronounced sex outside the relationship between one man and one woman as not by The Father's will so any such behavior is sin. Forgivable by Christ's atonement and made clean only by His power."

No, Pastor DUMBFUCK! See Exodus 20:14 You shall not commit adultery. (which refers to marriage)

2) "Christ pronounced greed as not by The Father's will so any such behavior is sin."

No, Pastor DUMBFUCK! See Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Before you bitch about "covetousness" not being the same as "greed":

Greed
Function:
noun
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Covetous
Function:
adjective
1 : marked by inordinate desire for wealth or possessions or for another's possessions
2 : having a craving for possession -covetous of power-
— covetously -adverb
— covetousness -noun

synonyms covetous, greedy, acquisitive, grasping, avaricious mean having or showing a strong desire for especially material possessions. covetous implies inordinate desire often for another's possessions -covetous of his brother's country estate-. greedy stresses lack of restraint and often of discrimination in desire -greedy for status symbols-

3) "Christ pronounced worship of any other gods as not by The Father's will so any such behavior is sin."

No, Pastor DUMBFUCK! See Exodus 20:3-5
3 Do not have any other gods before Me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me

I think Exodus 20:5 is really cool. "for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"
Some all-loving God this is.

4) "Christ pronounced murder as not by The Father's will so any such behavior is sin"
No, Pastor DUMBFUCK! See Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.
Except when Spraying Chimpocracy and Freedumbs obeying a "great moral imperative"

5) "I could go on, wannawipe, but I know you are either scratching your head because of your lack of insight into what sin actually is or ready with some profanity filled reaction as to not meet the substance of the entire idea that God is NOT interested in you following His "rules." He wants to reestablish the love affair that was meant to be with you that would make all such man has created to replace it, seem silly, a waste of time and never able to fill that void....."

See section 3) above

6)
"Including fornication
Including sodomy
Including adultery
Including coveting
Including stealing
Including whatever sin seperates you from your loving creator."

So, eveeeeel far left secularist didn't do too bad calculating that Pastor DUMBFUCK! I mean Phallu-Cee! just wanted a chance to spit out its sermon including its favorite sins committed by Bill Clinton.

No, Pastor DUMBFUCK! See Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

posted by patsy/some 100 others

Nothing like putting your foot in your ass, eh, patsy? I know you've done at least 2 of the above. (ox and donkey)

"I don't think anyone gives a damn."

###
Oh boy, the lay minister Mr. blank FLUCKER deserts the basic core of Christianity with a profanity to boot....

Enjoy your "holiday season," Mr. blank-FLUCKER....It seems that is all it really mean to you, for now.

And my dear wannawipe. As usual you overlook your own ignorance and once again you misuse definitions. In your anger filled post, not once did you recall the following scriptures that put all of The Torah in proper prospective....

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

###
Once again, the shema comes to the fore ....having faith....loving the one true God....the LORD (I AM)...right in the middle of the passage.

Your worry and disgust with "the rules," or the law is natural because of your fallen nature wannawipe. I am that way as well because all men are born of the same nature. Mr. blank-FLUCKER showed that nature in his 10:48 post.

God's solution to that unchangable nature has always been to be in relationship with Him and those rules we so despise no longer are despised because of our love affair with The Father, through His son. This applies to the idea that Christ is our groom and we are His bride. Or the idea of us approaching Christ like little children.

Your and my anger over the law and its restrictions is the darkness you and I so enjoy to do as we please. It is not consistent with the holiness of God.

So wannawipe, I am sad you do not understand my answer, but it is the message Christ preached. It is what "sin" means. All of the horizontal goodness that springs forth from the intial and necessary vertical love relationship is what you seek in other avenues, whether it be in sexual sin or the many other sins that attempt to satisfy the nature, and the scriptures, time and again, show examples of how those replacements lead to death and suffering.

Mr. blank-FLUCKER seems content in just cursing the truth as well, but my prayer is that both of you will see, through the supernatural revelation of God, the real purpose of Christ being born this Christmas season and not simply accept the lesser, unquenching, and man-centered messages.

I answered your questions despite you never illustrating an understanding, or faith for that matter, that there is a heavenly Father who loves you very much. The word "jealousy" is consistent with that nature of God because of His intense, passionate love for those He created. Jehovah, as described in the entire scriptures, is consistent when one remembers the shema and the word, LOVE.

The choice is yours, wannawipe....Continue ignoring the relationship with Christ that He stated was the solution and keep concentrating on the "relgion" of laws....The apostles and Christ Himself showed this was not what they were talking about and that makes Christianity the unique truth compared to rest.

It is about receiving the love and loving back a living savior, not counting rules violated by yourself and others "SINNER, FORNICATOR, ETC," or doing good deeds to make a grade. It is only about a practical and maturing relationship.

Oh look.....a sermon on OW!

It's a public board, remember, mike?

Could I borrow a Tums from someone?

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 8, 2007 3:56 PM
Oh look.....a sermon on OW!

Posted by: Mike at December 8, 2007 4:14 PM

Olbyloon debating tactics.

Was that sermon that was posted at 10:00 AM come under your definition of a 'debate', Jeff?

Was that sermon that was posted at 10:00 AM come under your definition of a 'debate', Jeff?

Posted by: Mike at December 8, 2007 5:44 PM

Oh, please. Cee was answering Patsy's post wherein he referenced Exodus.

Once again, Mr. blank-FLUCKER makes an unsupported and nonspecific dig....

A question....Give me one instance in any of my posts that illustrates a lack of scriptural undrstanding, lay minister who does not think it's worth "a damn" to express the truth of Christ's message.

Just one....I would really enjoy hearing your sanitized version of the good news, sir.

The enthusiasm as the Obama/Oprah rally yesterday was contagious. How nice it is to have something so positive in the midst of this very negative time.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 9, 2007 10:01 AM

We agree again my humble servant Anonymous, as contagious as a veneral disease I believe. Hopefully this gathering of anti-Americans will help to further our cause.

I will never forget how my cell Oprah came to our cause only days after I slaughtered nearly 3,000 American citizens, by telling Americans not to overreact to any muslims because of the few that did their job so well!

A true anti-American if I ever saw one, and her speech on her show brought tears to my eyes....The satan president Bush is rallying his citizens for our heads, while at the same time this wonderful traitor Oprah is asking for forgiveness.

A beautiful day for our cause, and one I will never forget! Contagious indeed!

Ayeee! Akuba!!!!!!

Schieffer: “Is THAT our message to the world? That we are a government of laws except when it is inconvenient? If so, then what was done in the name of security has greatly harmed security. Weapons keep our enemies at bay, but our real security risks are whether the rest of the world comes to share our values, or the values of those who oppose us.”

Posted by: Why Don't You Think at December 9, 2007 8:17 PM

Oh, yes why, thank you soooooooo much. The enemy loooooves to hear crap like that. The terrorists want to wipe us off the planet and fools here continue to defend them. All I can say is it's a good thing we have people that understand the true threat of terrorism in charge.