Poor Olby. I picture him sitting home alone just talking to his stuffed animals. I bet that he gave them all names.

Why would any one watch him?

Yawn, 2 cents. You're a fucking pussy.

Posted by: Republican Killa at December 11, 2007 7:02 AM

You must be getting to him J$. Even this usually rambling left wing piece of shit caulk sucker is reduced to this type of post. nice retort of the facts, ...... Killa.

Oh the political espionage of the left's ruling elite...."Both parties should be held to task...." according to the leftist from kos.....

She never addresses the FACTS that the democrats did not bring the horrible torturing to the attention of the public BACK IN 2002!.....Why is it torture now and it was not torture then?.....

Polls? Patriotism? Fear?

Why?....because the democratic party uses torture as it has the war, only as a political issue....NOT a moral or ethical issue. To those now complaining about waterboarding, why has the opinion changed?....

including Kennedy, including Rockefeller, including Durbin, including Reid, including Pelosi, including ANY member of the democratic leadership present for the intel and CIA review back in 2002.

Again, mental midget and Mike now take a moral highground that WAS NOT PRESENT BACK IN 2002 because their leaders did not complain then!

The same with the surge.....we just ignore the predictions and behavior in the past as a political convenience....

Anti-__________________? What is it today?

That is why I have no respect for the opinions of people like mental midget who is no more than a shill for the feckless and morally vapid democratic party....no principle, no policy, no standards......

just anti-_________________

This is not leadership....it is only an example of power-hungry neanderthal behavior that plays to the fears and lowest common denominator of human beings.

An intelligent and well thought out worldview that means more than simple power for the individual has such things as freedom of thought and religion.....fighting to protect the very lives of people conducting their lives in peace and harmony.....protecting the US Constitution from those planning on destroying the very principles it was fashoned from....life, liberty, freedom......oh the anti-American left just keeps showing us all what their priorities are!

Amen Cee. And as usual, the Democrats are barking up the wrong tree. The american people are FOR using aggresive interogation tactics on high level terrorists. And most are not sure if waterboarding is torture or not. So the democrats are just hedging their bets, but apear to be on the side of the terrorists.

And the loons continue to scream that our moral standing as a country in the world is compromised. Can you name another country in the entire world that has NOT performed sleep deprivation tactic on suspects? No. And in many people's eyes this too is torture. So until waterboarding is declared torture, shaddup.

Now NBC is seeing how their tilt to the fringe left is being received by the american public....

QUOTE: NBC has found itself in the lamentable position of giving their advertisers refunds because of poor performance in its ratings.

Say hi to your other friends in the media poor house, Air America and the New York Times. Bawaah!

But ANON, you are quick to declare we have lost. You can't play both sides. It aint over til its over.

Lefty talking point of the day:
"And evidence says torture doesn't actually work"

Biggest lie that needs to be said over and over...
Rights Watch, etc., keep throwing this out... but all day yesterday the CIA has reported that their aggressive tactics have given them critical information.

But keep saying it loons... the lie advances your agenda of protecting terrorists.

Mr. blank-FLUCKER is pulling stuff from his cloaca once again....does the dear man have any objective and reputable sources for his claims....I doubt it.

Oh and again.... what is torture, dear Mr. blank-FLUCKER?....Is waterboarding an example now but not in 2002?

How about sleep deprivation? Loud music. Temperature extremes, Isolation....which the FBI and the military employs? Mmmmm. I wonder what sources Mr. blank-FLUCKER will treat us with to back up his reasonable opinion.

Anon, the Israel's use torture everyday.. and find the results are crucial to their survival.

I do NOT have a problem with torturing (more than waterboarding) top Al Queda suspects. I don't have a problem with the world knowing. If it acts as a deterent, so be it. If it brings intelligence brav.

If it didn't work, would we really do it? The fruits of the known waterboarding sessions since 9/11 have been documented. Fact is, drowning is one of the most terrifying experiences (and fear of drowning probably works). I think 1 in 100 is a low calculation. I think it has a better than 50% rate.

Agreed Anon,
But the grandstanding done by the Democrats in congress right now is only muddying the waters. Its all political. In light of the mood in this country in 2002, there was nary a peep out of the democrats when it came to waterboarding top Al Queda detainees. And McCain was against it THEN, a man alone on an island.

But now the Democrats are decrying the same techniques they embraced 6 years ago. Why the change in posture?

Fact is, I doubt the US would waterboard anyone today unless it was Osama or his right hand man The Doc. Just two. But the terrorism mood the past 4 years has warranted drastic measures for lesser terrorists.

NBC must enjoy eating crow
Seems they always reach a new low
The viewers have voted
The peacock's demoted
As if you didn't already know

ANON is the only loon left today? Poor WDIT and AAP got ran off by Johnny Dollar last night after he proved once again they are liars. Well ANON, it is time for you to come out and call your good friends Jay (are you sure water boarding is tuff enough? )Rockefeller and Nancy Pelosi "WAR CRIMINALS". Next time they need to check with MorON.org before they make a wartime decision. Protecting the country just is not politically wise.

The CIA, in its success rate, is much more akin to the Geheimestaaatspolizei (Gestapo) or Committee for State Security (KGB) than to the Security Service (MI5)/Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure. Now, before the flame-throwing moronic throngs come in and start screaming about my comparing the CIA to the Nazis and the Soviets, I said by success rate, not by tactics. Key difference there, idiots.

posted by philby

If Mrs. Philby says it's "well known" then it must be cold hard fact. Also, she claims that only Israel uses torture. Didn't Hussein and his sons have torture dungeons? Didn't Al Zar Qaui (who philby claims we didn't kill) have the same? Al Qaeda didn't torture, either?

I wonder if waterboarding is tough enough too. Since the number of liberals who have waterboarded each other in protest and demonstration now exceeds the number of actual terrorists who have been waterboarded, I'm convinced its not harsh enough

"Are you auditioning for the dumbest person in America? If so, I think the role is probably yours."

###
RK is not Ms. Congeniality to your Ms. dumbest person in America, Mr. blank-FLUCKER....That award went to wannawipe ages ago.

Got any good gentile Fruit Cake recipes that could be Kosher for an old Hebe, Mr. blank-FLUCKER?.....How about your wife....she must have a tasty one handed down from the Mayflower?

Oh yes....the whitebread blank-FLUCKERS....dreaming of a white Christmas!

pass the egg nog, again, Graeme!

Factor: "ANON is the only loon left today."

No Factor....you're here!

Sally Kohn, a lesbian Jew, has a crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Did she not get the memo that Mahmoud is executing people for being gay and has threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

Once again, the PRESS SECRETARY TO THE PRESEIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES admitted to not knowing anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis....and apparently saw no shame in such ignorance either.

Any comments?

> I told Johnny BU$HWIPE to go find the fucking thread

Oh, my apologies, liar. I didn't leap to do your homework for you. What, are you mentally incapable of searching the internets? Or do you know that no search in the world will turn up either your lie that I "literally own this blog" or the other lie that I "suggested (seriously)" Bush should be on Mt Rushmore. Because neither one is true.

Don't ask me to pull your fat out of the fire. Your lies are your responsibility. You deal with them.

> Johnny BU$HWIPE thought I was addressing him when I was addressing DUMBSHIT! I mean Bovine!

Really?

> Don't be modest. You, Johnny BU$HWIPE, literally own this blog.

What do you know? Patsy lies, and then lies about his lie! Maybe he is Keith after all.

Sorry AAP, you and exclamation mark and capitalize all you want, no one is buying it. Now go back to Kos or MorON.org and get your talking points so you can defend Jay Rockafellar and Nancy Pelosi the torturing war criminals. Looks like they will be in leg irons too when Bush Co goes on trial. Mike has already placed this story in his dogs that did not bark pile.

John Gibson--- as always.... ON THE MONEY!

Hey, watch it Cecelia. You actually made an on-topic comment. You know that's just going to encourage the liars and Olbyloons to redouble their efforts to talk about everything BUT that.

> Obviously you are unfamiliar with the usage of the word "literally"

And you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word. I am more concerned with what a word means than with how people misuse it to lie about others. You call it "hyperbole". I call it a lie, because I don't literally own this blog. In fact I don't virtually, figurately, or any other -ly own this blog.

Now that you learned how to search the internets, please point out where I ever recommended Bush for Mt Rushmore. Or do you conceed that WDYT lied about that?

The title of Rob Cox Op Ed said Make Room for Another face on Mt. Rushmore. Cox did not write the title of the Op Ed, the Washington Post did which Cox tried to explain to you in the thread. Cox also never stated in his article that he thought Bush's face should be on Mt. Rushmore. Cox only pointed out that Lincoln faced similar criticism during that civil war that Bush has faced and that Lincoln made similar moves to Bush when he faced adversity. How you twist yourself into knots to say the Johnny Dollar thinks Bush should be on Mt. Rushmore is beyond all logic.

Patsy suggested I am responsible for this Mt Rushmore diversion because I "literally own" this blog. OK leave out literally. I don't own it in any other sense. I have no control over who can post; I can't change any of the settings; it's not my site; it's not my software; I only post here as long as I have permission to do so.

If Patsy is saying "Man, you OWN this blog", in the sense that the articles I post are brilliant, thought-provoking, and indisputably correct, that I can agree with. But he was saying I "own" this blog as some sort of argument as to why Bush on Mt Rushmore is my responsibility. THAT is simply false. However, if Patsy meant "own" in the sense of brilliant, correct, and thought-provoking, he should come out and say so; otherwise he's simply not telling the truth.

When, and where did Robert Cox say, "Bush on Mt. Rushmore"? You said that he implied it. Well you implied that Johnny Dollar said, "Bush on Mt. Rushmore" when you said Johnny Dollar owns this site. As for whether or not Bush should be on Mt. Rushmore, that is a diversion from your lie. Hopefully smarter people than you and I will make the decision on who should be on Mt. Rushmore. For me to say that Bush should be on Mt. Rushmore is about a dumb as you saying Bush is the worst president in US History.

When? Where did I say that Johnny Dollar had said "Bush on Mt. Rushmore"?

Posted by: AAP at December 11, 2007 1:45

When, and where did Robert Cox say, "Bush on Mt. Rushmore"? You said that he implied it. Well you implied that Johnny Dollar said, "Bush on Mt. Rushmore" when you said Johnny Dollar owns this site. As for whether or not Bush should be on Mt. Rushmore, that is a diversion from your lie. Hopefully smarter people than you and I will make the decision on who should be on Mt. Rushmore. For me to say that Bush should be on Mt. Rushmore is about a dumb as you saying Bush is the worst president in US History.

Got to go!

Posted by: Later! BU$HWIPES! at December 11, 2007 2:04 PM

Good thinking.

> I asked, as I am doing again, for your opinion on such stupid suggestion

Why do you ask that? What does it have to do with Olbermann? I don't discuss my personal political views because they are not relevant to Keith Olbermann's lies. I could be anything from a Kossack to a Bircher, and it wouldn't change the truth of what I write. Try discussing substance some time, Patsy, instead of ad hominem attacks. A bit of a challenge I'm sure, but a let better than shooting blanks, eh?

> I do think we are all well aware you are much closer to one than the other.

So now you claim to be God? You are omniscient and know not only what you think but what "we all" think? Pretty bold talk for a chickenblogger. You can think whatever you want, but you don't know anything. Not that that's ever stopped you before...

"No, Mr. Dollar, I have never claimed to be God. That would be another poster on this site, Cee. I don't think it is all that difficult, neither omniscience nor clairvoyance required, to plot you with some accuracy on the conservative/liberal, Republican/Democratic graph."

###
HE WHO SHALL NOT BE ADDRESSED DIRECTLY, thank you very much, Mr. blank-FLUCKER....cee is shorter however.

I would appreciate your rationale regarding your point. You can address you post to anyone you choose, if you like Mr. blank-FLUCKER.

Pass the Calvados, Graeme, my boy......HE WHO SHALL NOT BE ADDRESSED DIRECTLY is being positively incommodious! Make sure the country club has his real name on the 'black' list.

> you ridicule Olbermann for his liberal talking points and "spin" and then offer up the conservative view points on the matters discussed.

That's called pointing out Olbermann's bias: he only gives one side of the story. By making this statement you have implicitly agreed that Olby does exactly that: gives only liberal viewpoints. Thank you.

> In your arguments in the message boards you routinely take the conservative position on a matter

Here we go again. Then it should be really easy for you to provide some examples. Pick a major issue, please: immigration, abortion, Iraq... And point out where I took the conservative position. Or don't do it, and be exposed as a chickenbloggerliar.

John Gibson is awesome! But don't those bright studio lights hurt his eyes?

WHat the hell this should be beyond easy. I take it you willl gladl admit you are a lying conservative sack of shit once the arguments are reposted?

Posted by: at December 11, 2007 3:56 PM

Unless you are Wasted Keystrokes, Patsy, or Capon, please don't hold your breath... :D

And by ALL means, Bobo.... hold your breath...

Well, erase all doubt. Demand that Mr. Dollar conduct an immediate IP address search to determine who it is, or isn't, or was, or wasn't, or might be, or might not be, or probably is, or probably isn't. It's best to know for certain. Or with high probability. Or with some liklihood.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 11, 2007 4:15 PM

Sure you want to risk discovering that you're just a figment of Patsy's hologram room?

The religion of peace!

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. Qur'an: Sura 2:191

> WHat the hell this should be beyond easy.

Well? What's the hold up?

It seems the only proof the Olbyloons on this site seem to have the Johnny Dollar pushes conservative veiws on this blog is that he is not a fan of Keith Olbermann and he does not hate Fox News. If that is the standard by which we should count people as conservative, then I would say we have the 08 election locked up.

Mrs. Philby, there is nothing 'out of context' in what I posted. Are you defending it? Nothing wrong with it? Condoning it? I invite you to find anything in The Bible that instructs to kill.

Oh, but that was a two part test Mr. ANON. You failed the first part and skipped the 2nd part. O'Reilly is not on Fox News 24/7. How can you be sure that all Fox News viewers like O'Reilly? While Fox News has a small audience compared to the Nationals, which does not mean people who don’t watch Fox News, hate Fox News. As for people who are not fans of Olbermann, I would say there are great multitudes of people who fall into that category.

> Do you agree to admit you are a liar

Haha! All of a sudden, new conditions pop up! I don't know, do you agree to admit you are a liar if you can't find me arguing those conservative positions in these comments, as you claimed? Hmmmmmmmm?

Apparently it ain't so easy as you thought, is it? The ball's in your court. Post those comments you claimed were so easy to find, or stand exposed as a flagrant liar.

"In your arguments in the message boards you routinely take the conservative position on a matter"

Now his search seems to have turned into a search for the needle in the haystack. He wants a reward for something that should be easy to find. I am guessing he will try and contort something you posted on your other website.

Hey chickenblogger, you seem to misunderstand the situation here. YOU made the charge, not me. It's up to YOU to document it, not up to me to do anything until you either keep your word or find an excuse to back out.

RECAP:

CHICKENBLOGGER: In your arguments in the message boards you routinely take the conservative position on a matter
ME: Pick a major issue, please: immigration, abortion, Iraq... And point out where I took the conservative position.

I'm not going to agree to new conditions you want to put on this (without accepting them for yourself I might add). Because the ball is in your court. The burden of proof is on the accuser. You made the charge. There are tens of thousands of comments on this site, and they are easily searchable. So let's have the quotes. My reaction will depend on whether you deliver the goods, or try to pull a fast one.

So? Are you a man of your word? Or will your refusal to back up your allegation expose you as a flagrant liar?

Wow, Bill O'Lielly post something other than a vulgar death threat against his latest conservative straw man? I'm shocked.

You should adopt the name Bojangles, because you are tap dancing up a storm.

Look. You made a charge. Either you can back it up or you can't. I can't force you to do it, but I sure am not going to slobber and beg you to do it. Because if you don't do it, everyone will know that you lied. And that's fine with me.

It's no wonder you are afraid to pick a user name. You're not even man enough to stand by your words, or admit when you're wrong.

WHat the hell this should be beyond easy. I take it you willl gladl admit you are a lying conservative sack of shit once the arguments are reposted?

Posted by: at December 11, 2007 3:56 PM

This is what you said, clown. Don't worry, you won't be the first olbyloon to make a claim w/out being able to back it up. Come back, soon!

I am writing the post now give me about five minutes or so.

Posted by: at December 11, 2007 6:23 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........

You Keith Olbermann lovers have been really mean lately. What gives?

> Here is Johnny Dollar arguing the legal position of conservatives on detainees rights the position that they don�t have any that is.

Wrong. I stated the legality of detainees' rights as they have existed for decades--not my opinion of what the law should be, but the FACT of what the law has been. Perhaps legal analysis is too abstruse for you to comprehend, but the law on detainees has been clear for at least a century. I'd like to see you point out one error in that summary of what the law has been.

> Here he is taking the standard conservative position on the fair study in reporting that media matters is bad:

Wrong again. I cited factual errors in the study. Is lying about people to bias and slant a study a "liberal" value? Only a "conservative" would object to such tactics? Criticizing sloppy methodology in a study has nothing to do with con vs lib.

> Here is Johnny Dollar crying about how unfair the republican candidates have it.

Wrong for a third time. This blog is about media bias, and I was asking questions about media bias. MSNBC uses a different standard in choosing who hosts Dem debates vs who hosts GOP debates. I asked (note: didn't state, but ASKED) is this was appropriate. Apparently asking a question about an obvious fact (MSNBC's double standard) now somehow gets morphed into taking a conservative position? Would you like to know how many liberal tv writers and analysts asked those same questions?

> Johnny Dollar is a lawyer named Mark Koldys

Nothing gets past you does it. What does an ancient article for the NYT have to do with anything anyhow? I said I don't discuss my political positions. That doesn't mean I don't have any. Or that they are the same today as they were 20 years ago. And how does that back up your claim about all the stuff I said on this site?

> does anyone on this blog actually think Dollar is anything but a conservative?

Um, should we get back to what I asked you to demonstrate, that you said would be easy? Show me taking a conservative position on any major issue: Iraq, abortion, illigal immigration, etc. In these comment threads. You reply with an ancient quote from the Times, a statement of legal fact, and criticism of a biased media study.

Where are the "easy to find" conservative positions? You haven't come up with one yet! Iraq. Immigration. Abortion.

Mrs. Philby, there is nothing 'out of context' in what I posted. Are you defending it? Nothing wrong with it? Condoning it? I invite you to find anything in The Bible that instructs to kill.

posted by me

Mrs. Philby, curious as to why you are avoiding this. I don't want to lump you in w/the other loon who can't back his statements.

I was close to being right when I said he would contort something from your other website. It turns out he googled some artical you wrote. He still never proved that you took a conservative postion on this blog.

"Yes, Mr. The, many, many people dislike Olbermann, including many, many moderates, progressive and liberals. I am one of those people. The difference is, we don't obsess over him like you people do. We just don't watch him, and we don't bleat and moan about him all the time."
Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 11, 2007 6:41 PM

Then why do you come to this blog everyday and attack anyone who post against Olbermann?

It's really kind of unfair. Chickenblogger doesn't understand legal analysis, so he thinks my statement of fact about the history of detainee law is somehow an argument that they have no rights--when I was just stating established legal precedent, not taking a position on what the law should be.

He apparently thinks any study that makes Fox looks bad cannot be criticized, so when I point out demonstrable errors in the methodology and lies, that's me taking a "conservative" position. He apparently thinks only a conservative would object to flawed and dishonest studies.

And of course, if I raise an issue about MSNBC's coverage, then--presto!--that means I'm taking a "conservative" position. What's more, over 20 yaers ago I supported Ron Paul. That proves that... well, it doesn't prove a damn thing about what he was supposed to address, but his pickings were pretty slim so he had to toss in something to make it look better.

I put up three of the biggest Lib vs Con issues of the day--Iraq, abortion, immigration--and chickenblogger boasted that it would be "easy" to quote me on them. And he managed to completely avoid all three of them! Good work, CB.

Doesn't that prove that 20 years ago you were a libertarian?

> Doesn't that prove that 20 years ago you were a libertarian?

Not really. I was heavily involved in politics in those days and the Ron Paul business was strategic not ideological. CB thinks he has a major gotcha! in exposing that, but it's hardly any secret. It doesn't prove anything, unless you assume that what I believe today is the same as decades ago. (Here's a hint for CB: it isn't.)

Sorry CB.

> you were putting forth the reasons that The Bush adminstration has in fact not violated the constituiton on detainee rights.

Well then you should have quoted me where I said that. You mistakenly quoted me citing the state of the law for the past century. Why don't you cite the quote of me stating what you claim? I'm sure it was just a cut-and-paste error on your part.

> you offered no evidence of what is wrong with the study.

Only listed a bunch of people who were mischaracterized in it, thereby skewing the results.

> but gave no reason as to why that was

Um, these are comment threads, not doctoral theses. The reason these people were mischaracterized is because the study lied about their positions. You want to tell Judge Napolitano, who wants to close Gitmo, repeal the Patriot Act, and prosecute AG Gonzalez, that he's a (C)onservative? Of course you can claim Jonathan Turley is (N)eutral, but I'd advise against it if you want to retain even a shred of credibility.

> Well since you are claiming you are not a republican

Another lie from CB! No I won't bother asking you to quote such a statement from me, because after futzing around for an hour and a half you'll just come up with some quote about the role of deficit-reduction measures on the gross national product and then announce, See? Proof! I'll try to say it again, slowly, so maybe it will sink in: I don't discuss my politics. That's why I don't claim to be a Republican, and also why I don't claim NOT to be a Republican. Clear now?

> I think it backs up by showing that you have been a career conservative in the past

Yup. Makes sense. Just like David Brock and Arianna Huffington--conservative forever.

1. Iraq. 2. Abortion. 3. Immigration. Let me know when you want to actually take up the challenge that you boasted would be so easy.

What a crock, you were putting forth the reasons that The Bush adminstration has in fact not violated the constituiton on detainee rights. As you well know there is much debate about what is and what isn't constitutional, your bringing up "settled law" was in an effort to argue for the legality of what the president is doing. you were taking the conservastive postion. You are a liar!
Posted by: at December 11, 2007 7:26 PM

So bacically you are saying that if he doesn't ignor prior law and say that Bush violated the constitution, he is a conservative?

Media Matters listed
Andrew Napolitano as (C)onservative
John Stossel (C),

I would call those factual errors

John Stossel states that he is a libertarian and has done a show saying that terroism is not a big threat to the United States.

Andrew Napolitano just wrote a book ripping President Bush.
What proof do you have the either of them is conservative other than the fact that they don't march in lock step with Keith Olbermann?

> Here is Johnny Dollar complaining about Geroge Soros. Common Republican complaint.

Keep trying. Exposing the link between a partisan website and Olbermann is part of the function of this blog. It's not a "conservative" position that they work together. It's a FACT.

> taking the posiiton that the far left hates fox news

THAT'S taking a conservative position? You mean the far left LOVES Fox news??? And yet you simultaneously seem to insist that anyone who says anything nice about Fox at all is taking a "conservative" position? Please, CB, pick a side.

> Here is Johnny Dollar objecting to the claim that Abramoff was a republican scandal.

Now you're just flat out lying. My objection is that Olbermann portrayed it as just a Republican scandal, when in fact there were Democrats involved and Olbermann didn't report it. That's simply factual.

Hey, CB: 1. Iraq. 2. Abortion. 3. Immigration. Are you EVER going to actually address that "easy" challenge?

It appears that Tehran Olby's al Qaeda pals have struck again in Algeria, killing at least 52 and injuring 177 in a twin car-bomb attack. I wonder if Olby will mention his homicidal buddies tonight during the show. Hmmm...(crickets chirping).

It appears that Tehran Olby's al Qaeda pals have struck again in Algeria, killing at least 52 and injuring 177 in a twin car-bomb attack. I wonder if Olby will mention his homicidal buddies tonight during the show. Hmmm...(crickets chirping).

Posted by: at December 11, 2007 7:55 PM

I am sure he will claim it is a Bush administraion plot to deflect attention from Hitlery Clinton. Maybe he will call these terroist "clowns" again.

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. Qur'an: Sura 2:191

Posted by: royal king at December 11, 2007 4:47 PM
>>>
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I would be very careful offering passages out-of-context. Samuel, for example (and there are others) is awfully bloody.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 11, 2007 5:07 PM
>>>
I invite you to find anything in The Bible that instructs to kill.

Posted by: royal king at December 11, 2007 5:29 PM

Does anyone have Keith Olbermann's new phone number? I keep calling him and leaving him messages but he won't return my phone calls. What happened? We were once good friends.

It appears that Tehran Olby's al Qaeda pals have struck again in Algeria, killing at least 52 and injuring 177 in a twin car-bomb attack. I wonder if Olby will mention his homicidal buddies tonight during the show. Hmmm...(crickets chirping).

Posted by: at December 11, 2007 7:55 PM

This is good news for the libbys. Olbermahn might actually mention it, if not just an attempt to make Bush and Co. look bad. Now, if it was thwarted attack, it would sure to be a non-barker.

You said you disagreed with who was on the list no evidence why it was wrong. Which I said and ou trying to spin out of. I also notice you ducked the relevant part where you charecterized media matters as a hatchet organization. A conservative viewpoint.

Posted by: at December 11, 2007 8:18 PM

Juan Williams has called Media Matters a hatchet organization, would you call him a conservative?
Bill Maher has attacked Media Matters on Real Time when they attacked Imus. Is he a conservative?

> I quoted you putting forth a legal argument to defend Bush's position. that is enough I think to any sane person.

You are an idiot if you think what you quoted was a defense of Bush's position. You have proved that you incapable of comprehending plain English.

Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Just because Olbermann runs a left-wing, no-conservatives-allowed Hour of Spin doesn't mean that anyone who objects to such a biased, slanted program MUST be a conservative. Just because I criticize Olbermann's left wing bias doesn't mean I hate left-wingers. We have commenters ON THIS VERY SITE who agree with me that Olbermann should allow for a more balanced presentation, even though they are passionate liberals. Perhaps you should tell them that they are secret Republicans.

Your problem is that you see EVERYTHING thru a partisan prism. Object to a "newscast" working in collusion with a activist liberal website? You're a conservative! Point out that Olbermann hasn't interviewed a conservative on his program for over a year? You must be a right-winger! It is beyond your comprehension that anyone would dare utter a word of criticism about Oralmann, and if they do, they must be Republicans.

No, they're media critics who are appalled at the constant stream of left propaganda, spin, lies, and outrages that are Oralmann's stock in trade. You seem to suggest that fairness and objectivity in journalism is something only conservatives want. I disagree.

PS: Iraq. Abortion. Immigration.

"Correlation does not equal causation."

That's rich, tell Al Gore that.

"If only there was a case where the reverse was true I might beleive you. If you would even acknowledge a Right winger like say Bill O has done the same thing against the left I might beleive you however it always seems to be the right that is abused in your world. I just wonder why a Non Repoublican would worry so much about perceved injustice to the right and yet get so angry whenever anyone brings up an percevied injustice against the left?"
Posted by: at December 11, 2007 8:28 PM

This is Olbermannwatch, not O'Reilly watch. Why would J$ provide examples of O'Reilly or anyone else doing the same things Olbermann does? Does Olbermann give examples of Democrats doing what Republicans do?

Btw do you beleive Dollar is not a conservative?

Posted by: at December 11, 2007 8:32 PM

No, I have a feeling that Dollar might be a conservative, but I have no proof, just as you have no proof.

This from a man who claims he knows Keith Olbermann's political views?
Posted by: at December 11, 2007 8:56 PM

Keith makes his political views obvious by using left wing blogs to destort and lie about information. He also has far more liberals and Democrats on his show.

I assume that You think Johhny is a conservative because of what he writes?

Posted by: at December 11, 2007 8:56 PM

Yes, based on what he writes about legal cases when they are brought up on this blog. He seems to interpret the law as is and doesn't seem to turn it into living and breathing law. I could be wrong though, I am not a lawyer.

> You also seem to argue more with the lefties on this blog than the righties.

Perhaps because the lefties defend Olby more than the righties do. This blog IS supposed to be about Olbermann, you know!

One of Countdown's regular guests on Mormonism and Islam:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/ebcbb670-93a6-4bbd-b0bf-f12275897ea9

HH: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

LO’D: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.

HH: Well, that’s candid.

LO’D: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…

HH: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.

LO’D: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.

HH: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.

LO’D: I agree.

HH: Lawrence O’Donnell, I appreciate your candor.

h/t Jawa Report

Mrs. Philby, the coward claimed that Johnny "routinely took conservative positions" and that he (the coward) could "easily re post them." He never did, as far as I saw. He dug himself a nice hole, though. By the way, did you find anything in the Bible that instructs to kill others, like in the qur'an?

27:10 If there be a dweeb virgin among you have pity, because every day of his Godforsaken existence is much worse than a day in eternal hellfire.

That's from the book of Losers, PATSY. In other words, it's your biography.

8:53,

In the archives of OW, the following is from the very first post, requesting contributors.

"We intend to watch Keith Olbermann for examples of the usual liberal bias stuff but will be particularly interested in example of Keith lifting questionable, erroneous or false information off of the internet without fact-checking and passing it off as his own reporting as well as booking guests making unsupported, erroenous or irrational statements." (November 2004)

$ started posting in March 2005. Countdown has had the same general format, as far as I can tell, since then (i.e., no opposing point of view). Olby doesn't allow guests such as Rush Limbaugh on the show in order to recap "unsupported, erroenous or irrational statements." It seems he is following the job as outlined. The only guest I recall who would not have supported Olby's viewpoint is John Ashcroft, but I don't recall him making any "unsupported, erroenous or irrational statements." Are you aware of a live conservative guest that $ should have nailed for something who appeared on Countdown?

DUMBSHIT AVERAGE olbermann PARROT can YOU READ!!!!!! WHERE is the word KILL!!! OPEN your PEEPERS and FIND IT DUMBSHIT!!!! IS IT ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR FAMOUS implied STATMENTS???!! I THOUGHT I Stopped YOUR FOOLISH CAPITLIZATION and EXCLAMATION POINTS LAST TIME!!! MAYBE when YOU LEFT WITH YOUR TAIL between your legs AFTER YOU WERE CAUGHT IN YOUR LIE LAST NIGHT, YOu FOUND the SHIFT key ON YOUR KEYBOARD?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO BACK To YOUR REAL JOB, SOMEONE is ASKING FOR FRIES!!!!!

"Perhaps because the lefties defend Olby more than the righties do. This blog IS supposed to be about Olbermann, you know!"

Well actually to quote your recent post this blog is about media bias.

Oh my...wannawipe is still mired in The Torah and unable to understand the concept of sin and redemption.....

Guess what, wannawipe....in order for Jesus Christ to be born, The nation of Israel you are reading about in The Torah had to do all of those things to all of those people....so yes, dear thinkheaded one, the nation of Israel as it stood in The Roman Empire fought wars won, lost and were conqured as well with millions upon millions perishing as a consequence.

The law by which the nation of Israel, God's chosen people (as pronounced by the Jew Himself, Jesus Christ), was stringent and seems unfair to your self-centered, narcissistic eyes....But Jehovah is holy and just.....period. The one God, I AM, Jehovah, as pronounced in the shema is perfect....and for anyone who tries to parse such theology really has no ground to stand on.

Including the sadly misguided lay minister, Mr. blank-FLUCKER.

SO again, your dogma about my dogma is once again challenged....Please indulge us some more oh fanatical secularist wannawipe!

"This blog IS supposed to be about Olbermann, you know!"

Well actually it is supposed to be about media bias as you said a few posts ago.

Except anytime anyone brings up media bias on the left you scream "This is OlbermanWatch!!" then you turn around and ask if chris mathews is too liberal. FYI Chris Matthews is not Olbermann.

cee, I would like to refer you to the last sentence in my 10:04 post and patsy's interjection @ 10:20. Just wanted your opinion.

"Hey, watch it Cecelia. You actually made an on-topic comment. You know that's just going to encourage the liars and Olbyloons to redouble their efforts to talk about everything BUT that"

Hey there Johnny, it is interesting that you never say "This is olbermann watch" when a conservative on this blog posts off topic, why is that?

oh and while we are on the subject:

"John Gibson Corners Daily Kos"

Now why would you care that gibson corners Daily Kos? It almost seems as if you are pointing out that a commentator got the best of a left wing blogger for your readers. one might start thinking you are conservative. perhaps you could point out a time you called attention to a media figure 'corning" a right wing source?

Do any of these Freepers understand that, even casting aside the moral, ethical and practical reasons for treating one's enemy humanely, we do so because if we do not we dehumaize ourselves? This really isn't all that complicated a concept.
Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 7, 2007 11:30 PM

On the way to the office early this morning, I saw a bobcat. She was snarling and spitting. I named her Sharon. Good night everyone.
Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at December 11, 2007 10:02 PM

> Now why would you care that gibson corners Daily Kos?

Sigh. Because the Olbermahn discussion doesn't come into the segment until half way through, and I don't want people to start listening and then say, hey, where's the Olbermann stuff? Also there might be some people who might be interested because someone from Kos is on it. But it wouldn't have been posted here at all if it was just Gibson vs Kos. It was the Olby angle that got it here.

PATSY,

We always appreciate your virginal emissions.

"Sigh. Because the Olbermahn discussion doesn't come into the segment until half way through, and I don't want people to start listening and then say, hey, where's the Olbermann stuff? Also there might be some people who might be interested because someone from Kos is on it. But it wouldn't have been posted here at all if it was just Gibson vs Kos. It was the Olby angle that got it here"

Well you won't mind then if i make a suggestion to make you look less partisan.

How about John gibson gets toOlbermann (halfway through the clip)

That way your readers will know to wait for the Olbermann segement and won't erroneously think they are looking at this to see Gibson "corner" Kos. I assume as a man wanting to make sure that you are not percieved as having a conservative bias will get right on that.

Still haven't seen any of these "re posts" of where Johnny "routinely takes conservative positions." Are you conceding?

"Still haven't seen any of these "re posts" of where Johnny "routinely takes conservative positions." Are you conceding?"

That is because you are an idiot. next.

Typical olbyloon response. An intelligent person would have posted something to actually prove I was an idiot rather than just make the childish claim w/no proof. Your decision. It's official, you're an olbyloon.

"Typical olbyloon response. An intelligent person would have posted something to actually prove I was an idiot rather than just make the childish claim w/no proof. Your decision. It's official, you're an olbyloon."

I did prove it. Now two questions:

1) how would you of all people know what an intelligent person would do?

2) Where did I did I demonstrate any feelings towards olbermann one way or the other you hapless nitwit?

Oh and because I am bored i found another example of Johnny Demonstrating that he is a conservative. Not that anyone on this site thinks he is other than. The below quote shows Johnny arguing that possible moves by the democrats were a stunt. Notice this has nothing to do with Olbermann but with the democratic congress. it is also wrong.

"So now it's the function of Congress to try people and find them guilty? A "Censure" by Congress is precisely what I called it in the first paragraph I wrote: a stunt. There is no constitutional authority to censure a President; the constitution gives Congress that authority to censure its own members, not a separate but equal branch of the government"

johnny dollar at March 14, 2006 11:53 AM

Now Notice when the democrats do this it is a stunt. No mention from Dollar of a 1998, resolution to censure President Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. No callig it a stunt then.

Nor did he mention this has been done before in 1834 the Senate censured Democratic President Andrew Jackson.

And of course for the second president of the United states A censure motioned was brought up in 1800. But when the democrats do it is a stunt.

Torture works, and frankly.. I don't care if Abdul Jabaar ibn Achmed ibn Abdullah ibn whoever the hell gets tortured.. I say bring the rack back out and start stretching these bastards for intel!

And of course for the second president of the United states A censure motioned was brought up in 1800. But when the democrats do it is a stunt.

Posted by: at December 12, 2007 2:59 AM

When did the criteria shift from you proving that Johnny advocates conservative politics on the OW boards, to proving that he is a conservative?

If voicing an opinion about the Constitution which falls against the opinion of Dem pols is conservative advocacy, then Alan Dershowitz is guilty of being a conservative advocate too.

Who knows, this may be a distinction that's lost on you, or maybe not. However, there are others here who can get it.

I just did a google image search on "edward andrews" the late, great character actor. Freakin eh if Olby isn't looking more and more like him every day. Andrews, however, didn't lie to collect a paycheck, didn't deliver his sermons in a "church-lady" style. In fact, Edward Andrews was very cool compared to the paranoid leftist with a TV program. HA!

I just did a google image search on "edward andrews" the late, great character actor. Freakin eh if Olby isn't looking more and more like him every day. Andrews, however, didn't lie to collect a paycheck, didn't deliver his sermons in a "church-lady" style. In fact, Edward Andrews was very cool compared to the paranoid leftist with a TV program. HA!

Posted by: Truer Words have never at December 12, 2007 8:20 AM

Did somebody say "leftist"?
where? where? Where?

The deeper meaning of reposting your words is that if one cannot be decent to strangers on a message board, it is quite hypocritical to condemn others who use harsh methods to obtain information that they believe will save lives. I am taking John McCain's words to heart, but I would like to see the reaction of other POW's to waterboarding. Concerning the effectiveness of waterboarding, I posted a partial synopsis of the story of Jeremiah Denton, a POW who was tortured for seven years and apparently never gave up any information. He said without faith, he would never have had the strength to survive. That is the supernatural unexplainable to people like AAP.

"it's always about you, ..."

Yeah, right. I pose as you to insult myself so that I can reply back. This is all began with your crude comments. But you knew that already.

"I am taking McCain's words to heard, but I would like to see the reaction of other POW's to waterboarding."

I find it very disheartening that you and many other Americans are apparently willing to discard principle so readily.

It's as if you REALLY believe that a 'noble' end justifiies any means?

Whether or not waterboarding works or not, a very debatable issue itself, should not be the point at all.

I will continue to believe that if we stoop to the moral and ethical level of our enemies, we prove to the world that we are no better than they are.

"I will continue to believe that if we stoop to the moral and ethical level of our enemies, we prove to the world that we are no better than they are."

###
Waterboarding is not the moral equivalent to the beheading of innocents, using planes as missles to destroy buildings filled with innocent civilians, random car bombings or roadside bombs....the aggressive techniques to get information that will prevent thousands of deaths at the hands of terrorism IS NOT the same nor is it a correct argument to say it is the ends justifying the means.

I find it disheartening that people are so quick to judge fellow Americans who have sworn to protect innocent human life and say they are the same as muslim radicals.

The point is protecting people from terrorists who have been successful in the past in taking advantage of our open society. Our society is still open....people of any creed, race or nationality can come and go....yet, the very same people who demand 100% success in protection from terrorism are so quick to condemn the procedures that will lead to security.

McCain and his fellow POW's were on the right side of the fight against totalitarian communism in Vietnam....Their opinion is more powerful and if waterboarding is now deemed as "torture" and not "appressive interogation techniques," so be it....BUT STILL, IT IS NO WHERE NEAR WHAT THEY WENT UNDER NOR WHAT THE RADICAL MUSLIMS DO....

NO ONE has been shown, in my opinion, to have stooped down to the moral level of our enemies and whiney Mike's assertion that they have is wrong.

Cee, I don't really give a damn what YOU think any more because you have shown yourself to have no morals or ethics yourself.

Consistantly calling someone who's name is "Mike", "whiney mike" because you don't like their philosophy is but one rather benign but consistant example.

Consistantly reposting an out of context quote implying I believe something I don't even though you have been advised so at least ten times is another rather benign example.

Repeatedly taunting those you disagree with instead of simply making coherent arguments to the contrary is yet another.

That said, you just made a classic argument for relativism: You argue that because we aren't quite stooping down to THEIR level, that makes it all A-OK.

It fascinates me how I personally have a far superior code of ethics than you do....even theough you keep holding yourself up as THE paragon of Christian virtue on this site.

And once again, YOU don't have the moral fortitude to shine John McCain's shoes!

"It fascinates me how I personally have a far superior code of ethics than you do....even theough you keep holding yourself up as THE paragon of Christian virtue on this site."

###
Keep believing that on, whiney....you and Mr. blank-FLUCKER can continue your self appointed judge and jury of moral superiority here at OW....I just like to knock down the arrogant high and mighty folks down a few notches and it seems that so far, neither you or Mr. blank-FLUCKER have been able to provide one argument that places you back above looking down your noses at the masses.

You, Mikey, are the one who, with very little evidence, have determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that US citizens have become just as bad as the enemy....You have no proof of that.....Mr. blank-FLUCKER can also judge others in his slippers and house coat sipping egg nog with his silly son, Graeme, but I see no consistency in his worldview that holds the lives of innocent victims of radical ideologies in lesser state than any other human being.

In fact, you and Mr. blank-FLUCKER have dehumanized people, even suggesting their thoughts and creations are cancers that should be destroyed. The same attitude as Mr. Olbermann calling someone "subhuman" last evening because the person holds a certain opinion.

No Mikey....you and those like you ready to dehumanize and marginalize people you do not agree with are the same ilk who saw wisdom in much the left professes....elitism. You are what you say you loathe!

Same with Mr. blank-FLUCKER.....the liberty he has to enjoy his classy lifestyle is a result of blood and toil of others....not just himself. "Leave me the hell alone" is a wonderful worldview that I am sure the founding fathers would endorce!

5:12 was me, cee...gladly showing the hypocricy of the elitist left of America....

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

I find it very disheartening that you and many other Americans are apparently willing to discard principle so readily. (Mike)

I wouldn't view my attitude in those terms. I suggested that I would like some other
feedback. I don't know how an interrogator could build a relationship with people who have been raised with such hatred of fellow human beings. It is my understanding based on what I read that waterboarding was used in very few cases, one of them Khalid Sheik Mohammad who cut the head off of Daniel Pearl. I saw a beheading video, and there is just no way to prepare yourself for that horror. Common sense tells you that to get through to a person who could commit such a barbaric act would take years. A Muslim of the breed of Khalid SM can't change perspectives about Americans, or should I say non-Muslims, in short order. Someone mentioned how the women of Basra are being persecuted, even beheaded for not following strict dress codes. And these are Muslims!

I don't think Cee's view is all that uncommon among decent people. But there are shades of perspective. It is not to say that, "Well, let's waterboard because they do worse." At least, that is not what I believe. John McCain feels it is wrong. That says a lot for me.

Anon no namer at 5:12 PM: "I just like to knock down the arrogant high and mighty folks down a few notches...."

Well then, maybe you should try a little harder, since you've failed miserably to make a dent so far.

Or was that just YOU again Cee...hiding behind a non identity?

Mike never answered my challenge, Sharon....Is waterboarding morally equivalent to beheading....yes or no?

He is implying it is....it is his duty to back such an assertion....

Should we waterboard is a whole different question. Should we play loud music, or sleep deprive or put people under extreme temperatures?

Are these techniques morally equivalent to what the radical islamists did on 9/11 and want to do again?

And the other question that remains UNANSWERED by the oh so superior Mr. blank-FLUCKER and whiney Mike......did the democrat leadership only use torture as a political issue since 2002 making their objections now MORALLY VAPID?

Wait for it whiney....I am on the hospital computer and my name was not set....look at the 5:15 post that has your favorite quote!

Cee again: "You mikey, are the one who, with very little evidence, have determined beyond a shadow of a doubt have become just as bad as the enemy."

I guess you just chose to ignore the point I just made about relativism in my 4:56 post before posting THAT lie?

And once again Cee....keep right on TAUNTING, complete with misrepresentations that suit your fancy.....just as you just did again at 5:15.

It does nothing but shine a spotlight on your lack of ethics.

And just for good measure for the morally superior I will repost the end of my brilliant post.....

McCain and his fellow POW's were on the right side of the fight against totalitarian communism in Vietnam....Their opinion is more powerful and if waterboarding is now deemed as "torture" and not "appressive interogation techniques," so be it....BUT STILL, IT IS NO WHERE NEAR WHAT THEY WENT UNDER NOR WHAT THE RADICAL MUSLIMS DO....

NO ONE has been shown, in my opinion, to have stooped down to the moral level of our enemies and whiney Mike's assertion that they have is wrong.

(appressive was a typo, Mr. blank-FLUCKER....it was to be aggressive)

Cee: "Mike never answered my question Sharon....is waterboarding morally equivalent to beheading....yes or no?"

You just lied again!

Once again I absolutely DID answer your rhetorical "question" in my 4:56 post. The answer can be found in paragraph 5.

Read my post again, whiney....I did not say it was ok...I said that to label it torture is arguable especially in the context of self-defense or in defending innocent human life.

It goes back to pascifism....I know for a fact you are not a pascifist....so to claim your morality when it comes to use of force is not "relative" based on the circumstance would be false.

If you and Mr. blank-FLUCKER are now pascifists....congrats! But I would doubt that based on you history of posts here.

The use of force on anyother human being is a judgement call made with great care and is not relativism....I never said it was right to waterboard, I simply made the argument that for you to say such activity makes us no better than the beheaders is ridiculous and not defensable.

sorry....it should be "pacifism" and "pacifist"

Cee: "I never said it was right to waterboard"

But the Geneva convention DID....in no uncertain terms...and we signed on to it years ago!

Our constitution also forbids "Cruel and unusual punishment". There is NO ambiguity, nor are there any gray areas here!

THAT is what America stands for....and yes, it even trumps safety and security!

Your argument sounds much like the bank robber sitting in prison feeling all smug and superior because at least HE....is not a child abuser!

The computer keeps dropping my name....me again at 5:37.....

Um Mike....I did not lie....your statement previous is clear....you assert:

"I will continue to believe that if we stoop to the moral and ethical level of our enemies, we prove to the world that we are no better than they are"

###
Your claimed answer at 5:33 does not totally contradict your elitist and sanitary "ivory tower" conclusion. So Mikey....try again....if you are going to say Bush and the CIA have gone down to the level of the radical islamist terrorists, you will get push back by Americans who do not see the connection....like myself.

And again, waterboarding seemed ok to your ruling elite in 2002....why is it not ok now?.....relativism, maybe? Political laziness?

That is the ilk you and Mr. blank-FLUCKER are from....the left who use such issues to gain personal political power.....nevermind the principle!

The Geneva Conventions do not cover the type of prisoner that waterboarding was allegedly used on, dear Mike....The left in America wants to extend American jurisprudence to enemy combatants who have no national affiliation and employ terrorism against innocent civilians as a tactic....fine....that is also a matter of opinion.

Cruel and unusual punishment applies to those under the US system....POWS have not been historically....but even that is being questioned now by the radical fringe left.....also another matter of opinion.

Professionals who have taken an oath to protect the US Constitution using the aggressive interogation techniques, including waterboarding, ARE NOT morally equivalent to the radical muslim terrorists.....Their motives are not malevolent in their using the techinques and are only for the purpose of protecting lives.

Just as when I shoot a firearm in my own home at an intruder.....if he dies I am not equivalent to a murderer.

Please Mike....stop the bleeding....your opinion of your fellow Americans is incorrect.

Cee: "and again, waterboarding seemed Ok to your ruling elite in 2002..."

Showing both your passion for TAUNTING, and your DISHONESTY in full form again!

As I have already stated, I have no "ruling elite"....and I don't have a clue what in the hell it is you are talking about with such inane statements.

That said, I condemn EVERY week kneed politician that helped enable the disastrous, un-American, and fear based policies that were embarked on in 2002 and 2003.

SOME have at least had the guts and moral fortitude to acknowledge there mistakes!

SOME have at least had the guts and moral fortitude to acknowledge there mistakes!

Posted by: Mike at December 12, 2007 5:55 PM

It takes no guts and moral fortitude to acknowledge a mistake only when you are caught being a hypocrite.

Cee: "The Geneva Conventions do not cover the type of prisoner that waterboarding was alledgedly used on, dear Mike"

Keep on dreaming an hiding behind that non-argument. Keep on thinking that inventing a technicality makes non compliance a-OK.

The same can be said for your "cruel and unusual punishment" diversion. Not using "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" is as much as American PRINCIPLE regarding universal conduct as it is a right narrowly given only to American citizens.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cee: "Please Mike....stop the bleeding"

Just as soon as we, as principled Americans, re-unite under tried and true established standards of conduct....and renounce our unfortunate and shameful desent into International disgrace....and agree to show the world what it is America REALLY stands for...once again!

LOL!

As I have already stated, I have no "ruling elite"....and I [don't have a clue] what in the hell it is you are talking about with such inane statements.

posted by mike

Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy,Clinton, etc.....

"I will continue to believe that if we stoop to the moral and ethical level of our enemies, we prove to the world that we are no better than they are"

posted by mike

We're not slashing throats, strapping bombs on little kids or cutting out tongues. We're just giving them a little drink of water.........stop being so dramatic.

8:37 and 10:36: Successful at making absolutely no sense, again.

"We're not slashing throats, strapping bombs on little kids or cutting out tongues."

Completely unaddressed, as usual.

RK: "Completely unaddressed, as usual."

It required no reply. It stood tall on it's own inanity.

Just what I expected, nothing. Silence is golden.

"Silence is golden"

Silence is usually the best response when someone makes a meaningless point.

"I will continue to believe that if we stoop to the moral and ethical level of our enemies, we prove to the world that we are no better than they are"

posted by mike

We're not slashing throats, strapping bombs on little kids or cutting out tongues. We're just giving them a little drink of water.........stop being so dramatic.

Posted by: royal king at December 12, 2007 8:09 PM

>Silence

As I have already stated, I have no "ruling elite"....and I [don't have a clue] what in the hell it is you are talking about with such inane statements.

posted by mike

Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy,Clinton, etc.....

Posted by: royal king at December 12, 2007 8:03 PM

>Silence

If we allow ourselves to stoop to the level of our enemies, we prove to the world that we are no better than they are!

Need to hear it again for a little more emphasis jeff?

AND, once again for emphasis:

I have no "ruling elite"!

Need to hear THAT one again too Jeff?

If we allow ourselves to stoop to the level of our enemies, we prove to the world that we are no better than they are!

posted by mike

We're not slashing throats, strapping bombs on little kids or cutting out tongues, are we??? We're just giving them a little drink of water.........stop being so dramatic.

What part of "the level of our enemies" do you not understand?

"What part of "the level of our enemies" do you not understand?"

Wrong question!

What part of not starting down that slippery slope of callously disregarding established Geneva Convention standards don't YOU understand?

Who said anything about Geneva Conventions? The topic was "the level of our enemies." Spin, divert.

Poor Mr. blank-FLUCKER once again shows his ignorance and arrogance.

The moral questions presented by our wonderful and independent (I have no ruling elite) Mike have to do with the emotional and fearful reaction that The United States of America has lost our way.....

If anything is further from the truth, it is that fear tactic.

I do not fear losing my rights because I know that those I have elected are, to the best of their abilities, trying to balance that absolute requirement in their oath of office with the real world, practical challenges presented by terrorism.

Mr. blank-FLUCKER, smug as usual, seems to believe that it is ok to fear monger with regards to habeus corpus rights and wire tapping....again, no evidence that any American citizen has been improperly detained or their privacy rights violated....but that when "non-leftists" fight security threats....real and documented....whether they were communist infiltration allowed by Roosevelt and Truman in the 40's and 50's or 9/11 which was primarily the fault of Bill Clinton....he smugly suggests that that is fear mongering.

I have continued to live my life....as has my dear neighbor, Lou, without fear.....We cry a lot in remembering her husband, but fear?...No.

Mike and Mr. blank-FLUCKER are talking the leftist line well....fear is a weapon used by the right to make people make mistakes....(BTW, Mike, you are a victim of the left's ruling elite because THAT is exactly their lie to cause fear and then cause votes to come to their position....a la the torture issue not being an issue in 2002, the war spending issue that they are now retreating from and also the claims against wire tapping...where is that important "issue." Fear, fear fear from your and Mr. blank-FLUCKER's ruling elite on the left)

The election in 2004 was a mistake because of irrational fear of terrorism?

Well, again, history tells a different tale.

Oh, and Mike...when you want to equate waterboarding to 9/11, I will ask you to remember what Lou said....She has not seen anything ANY American has done (including the eeeevil neocons lead by W)as lost principle or morally equivalent to the murderers of her husband. You are fear mongering with such pablum.

So, fear is a weapon used by the ruling class to gain support....but not those you claim....The left are the chicken-littles claiming wars are lost, America has lost their moral soul, and the feds are outside your door listening to Mr. blank-FLUCKER talk to his silly son Graeme regarding condom use and "treating the girls right!"

Please....fear....you guys are so sad you are projecting!