One of his lamer editions of WPITW.

So do the loons sit there with a grin and think Keith is right- those bilingual cubans don't speak english!

Another reason why I can't understand why they call him smart. That was purely idiotic and made no sense!

If Keith is the best that they've got
The moonbats have smoked too much pot
He not sharp. He's a a tool
MSNBC's fool
About as funny as a blood clot

Olby also claims the "Worst Person in the World" segment is sature and not to be taken seriously. But then he says that conservatives talk radio, Fox News, and the Republican Party is worse than Al-Quada, I have to assume he's serious. Only Olby would have such a hugh ego as to think that people who disagree with him politically than an organization of mass murderers and religious fanatics.

Olby also claims the "Worst Person in the World" segment is sature and not to be taken seriously. But then he says that conservatives talk radio, Fox News, and the Republican Party is worse than Al-Quada, I have to assume he's serious. Only Olby would have such a hugh ego as to think that people who disagree with him politically is worse than an organization of mass murderers and religious fanatics.

Olby did this segment minutes before he and Chris Matthews covered the Dem Debate in Vegas. I thought at the time it was a new low for the petulant paranoid. Apparently, others did too.

excellent comment at ICN from always smart and well-writtne "ImNotBlue"

Here’s what FOXNews.com says about “The O’Reilly Factor”:
“Now in its tenth year on the air, “The O’Reilly Factor” on the FOX News Channel remains the dominant number one cable news program in the USA. …Blending news analysis with investigative reporting, “The Factor” has gained international prominence as well — it is now seen in more than 30 countries.”

VERSUS what MSNBC.com says about “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”:
“Keith Olbermann is host of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.” “Countdown,” a unique newscast that counts down the day’s top stories with Keith’s particular wit and style, telecasts weeknights, 8-9 p.m. ET on MSNBC.”

They key words in FOX’s description are, “news analysis.” In other words: discussion, debate, and opinions about the news. Nothing in “Countdown’s” description says anything about opinion. And now that KO has joined with KOS, it’s obvious what opinion will be presented, so it should say “liberal or Democratic point-of-view.”

Now, let’s take a look, however, at TVGuide.com’s description of both shows. You can find this if you search the “What’s on TV” grid, and then click on the program title.

Here’s the description for “The O’Reilly Factor”:
“The bestselling author mixes news, interviews and analyses, and some of his most passionate commentaries, not surprisingly, deal with liberals (such as, to pick one name at random, Al Franken.) The conservative guru’s ‘No Spin Zone’ has been the major factor in Fox News’ climb (past CNN) to the top of the cable-news chart, with some three million viewers nightly.”

Key words: ‘analyses’, ‘passionate commentaries’, ‘deal with liberals’ (mentions Al Franken), ‘conservative guru’.
Seems to me, that it’s pretty clear this is an opinion program, and from what side of the political spectrum O’Reilly is coming from.

Now, let’s look at “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”:
“The nightly news program ranks the day’s top five stories by what will likely be the next morning’s hottest topics for discussion. ‘It’s a hard-news broadcast produced and hosted by people who are uncontrollably silly,’ quips the wry Olbermann, who also conducts newsmaker interviews.”

Key words: ‘news program’, ‘hard-news broadcast’, ‘newsmaker interviews.’
Where does it say it’s an opinion show? Where does it say he’s a “liberal”? Where does it say he spends much of his show “dealing with conservatives like Bill O’Reilly”? The only ‘discussion’ it talks about, is the discussion YOU’LL be doing AFTER watching it!

There is a clear difference in the billing of these two programs… FNC openly advertises this as a “debate/analysis/opinion program”… MSNBC (and Keith, who was quoted in this description) still think it’s a hard news, and do not talk about its opinion or liberal backbone. That’s a huge difference, and there is no denying it.

Comment by ImNotBlue — January 16, 2008 @ 11:27 pm

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2008/01/16/fox-and-friends-vs-olbermann/

From: Eric Schultz Edwards's national press secretary
Sent: Tue Jan 15 23:29:42 2008

Subject: Frank Luntz Focus Group of Undecided Nevada Voters: EDWARDS WINNER

Edwards Declared the Winner by a Focus Group of Undecided Nevada Voters. On Fox News, Frank Luntz' focus group from Las Vegas of thirty undecided Nevada Democrats declared Edwards the winner. Luntz:

"How many of you thought John Edwards won?" [1/2 crowd raises hand]

"How many of you came in supporting Senator Edwards?" [About 3 people raise hand]

"On issue after issue, we're going to show this to you tomorrow night, his language actually scored better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama." [Fox News, 1/15/08]

P.S. Fox News is EVIL and can not host a Democrat debate. They don't like Democrats and mill workers.

from a blogger who hates Chris Matthews:

My in-the-hall sources at 30 Rock have long noted grumpiness on Matthews behalf at the ascendancy of Olbermann at the network. It's pretty clear that Matthews is more in the “old boys” camp of Brokaw, Russert and that crowd—the rep-tied “Villager” circle jerk. Olbermann is outside of that circle, yet is the net's star property. That status is confirmed by his “Boomp” chair capacity and a report from TV Newser covering a piece on Olbermann in the newest issue of Men's Journal:

In the interview with Paul Tullis, one focus is Olbermann's habit of, "trashing people publicly, even his employers."

But he seems to be doing well for himself in the office now. Tullis cites a senior executive at MSNBC, who says “Keith runs MSNBC. It's been an amazing turnaround, because two years ago they were going to cancel him. Because of his success, he's in charge. Chris Matthews is infuriated by it.”

Yikes.

It also can't help that Matthews' recent book “Life's A Campaign”, in spite of a cheap half-hour segment on his show where he had his wife interview him (!) as a plug for the thing has tanked something awful in the marketplace. A publishing bigwig I talked to (I work in publishing) said that the only people buying Matthews' book are D.C. insiders who think he'll ask them something about it at a cocktail party and want tot be prepared. Said bigwig also said this:

“He couldn't give away free copies of it at a lopsided table convention.”

Al of this while Olbermann's “Special Comments” book Truth and Consequences is going to enter the NYT bestseller list just out of the top ten this weekend.

That's gotta hurt.

http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/01/i-meta-on-friday-and-my-heart-stood.html

Here's some good news:

Court allows casino vote

"LAS VEGAS (Reuters) - A federal judge on Thursday allowed Nevada Democrats to hold presidential voting in casino hotels on the Las Vegas Strip..."

""The Democrats can set up their own rules just as the Republicans can," Judge Mahan said. "It is not up to some federal judge to come along and say, I don't like that."

As to any confusion in the rules, Mahan quoted U.S. humorist Will Rogers: "I'm not a member of any organized group. I'm a Democrat."

The judge said he would have been interested in intervening in the party's rules if they discriminated against blacks, women or Jews."

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1553481720080117?sp=true

Bill just went ballistic on a reporter who insisted the legal ploy in Vegas was a Hillary Campaign move. He claims it wasn't. The name on the legal papers filed is a well known friend of the Clintons. Maybe its just a democrat thing to do, lie with contempt to anyone who suggests you do something swarmy.

"I did not have sexual...." Oh, nevermind.

Anyone but Bill's housewife!

"Damn! It's down by more than 2% now. Well, you can't say I didn't try."

Look, if your investments or savings are being lost, turn off the computer, stop blaming someone else, tighten your financial belt, and get a second job.

I lost a lot of money with the dot-com bubble bursting in 2001. I didn't blame Clinton; I blamed myself for not adequately diversifying my portfolio.

I stopped going out to dinner, I didn't buy that new car, I got a second job from my previous employer (data-entry, yep, typing in papers) and I've recovered.

It's called acting as an adult.

Try it.

Sorry steve- we democrats need the government to save us from ourselves.

"Sorry steve- we democrats need the government to save us from ourselves."

I'm not against providing help to those who are destitute because of catastrophes like a natural disaster or because of events beyond their control. Especially children or the elderly or disabled; those that don't have the ability to re-build their lives.

But if you lose money in the stock market, and you're healthy, don't blame others for your losses. You made the investment.

Get a second job, tighten your financial belt and start over again. There are lots of opportunities in this country.

Keith uses this WPITW segment has another vessel as cheap shots at people he doesn't agree with.

Which has to disqualify him from being a serious news person.
And half of the proof he provides is false or not even news worthy.

Chris Matthews is a liberal but at least for the most part he sticks to the facts, ask some hard hitting questions and has people on his show with opposing views.
He should have the 8pm slot, over Keith.

"I know what you're saying."

I apologize for my over-the-top response.

Sure, some of the Administration's policies have contributed to this contraction or correction. The White House doesn't control the economy; but it can have great influence over its direction.

For example, I think Bernake and the Fed have been way too slow forseeing this.

Let's hope whatever recession we have (if we do have one) is mild and not too many people get hurt. I've felt their pain before (so to speak); and it wasn't fun.

Good luck to you.

When those damn bilingual Cubans going to learn how to be speakin somethin other than Mexican? No body be smarter than me, I be edumacated at Cornell.

Al of this while Olbermann's “Special Comments” book Truth and Consequences is going to enter the NYT bestseller list just out of the top ten this weekend.

That's gotta hurt.

http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/01/i-meta-on-friday-and-my-heart-stood.html

Posted by: news you can use at January 17, 2008 4:12 PM

Well, hell yeah... why would lefties care about political insights from a guy who:

"worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before himself campaigning for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, losing his party's nomination to Pennsylvania Congressman Joshua Eilberg in the Democratic primary in 1974. He was a presidential speechwriter for four years during the Carter administration. Matthews later worked six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_matthews)

...when they can read the book of a sportscaster cum tv demagogue who juxtaposes Bush's head with a groundhog?

Crazy Larry is on the Spinfest right now. His hair is a pink shade of red. He and Olby look like a bowl of loon Froot Loops.

I hope none of you speak with a Southern accent since tonight Olby decided to mock that aspect of a woman's voice.

I wish he'd mock Zsa Zsa Arinna when she speaks on his show.

Wasn't his Karmabites one-night-stand Cuban? Could explain why he's taking potshots at them now.

Another purloined page from Katy's Diary:

. . . Personally, this whole "Bear" business is pretty stupid and juvenile to me, but this was Keith's idea that I have a "pet" name for him and he even picked it out.

This is really weird because it's like high school when you dated someone for like, two weeks and you called them something like "buttercup" or "snuggles" or something real mushy like that. And doesn't your girlfriend usually pick the term of affection for her boyfriend, instead of the guy picking his own term of affection that he wants his girlfriend to call him?

I started going to see his psychiatrist because, when "Bear" has a really bad night (like when he finishes third or worse in his time slot, which is just about every night), he comes home and throws shit around (I mean for real, not like that fake throwing paper wads at the camera!). I am trying to understand how a 50 + year old man can act like he's just entering puberty and esentially wants me to be his Mommy. The psychiatirst explained that Keith really hates women which explains why he insults women for no reason.

Anyway, I guess the one thing is that, with the money left over from buying baseball cards, I get to buy just about anything I want, so I guess I can endure Keith lacking in manly virtues (on multiple levels if you know what I mean, and I think that you do). I've got my sights set on a rock star when I'm done with "Bear". Actually, a rock star would be a step up in stability from Keith, excuse me, "Bear". Sorry but gotta look out for No.1.

Kayt's diary is some funny schizzell!!

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4363

Interesting, if poorly written, questions about why Kucinich was cut out of MSNBC's debate and is continually ignored by "Countdown".

Down with the Corporate Media!

"Why aint ye"

I doubt that even back-woods conservative hillbilly rightwingers use this sort of parlance.

Are the thespians here losing their subtilty?

How do you left wing loons think these people got rich? They got rich becase they studied and worked harder than you. If they gave you dumb turds all the wealth in the country they would have it all back inside two years.

Posted by: Phony Soldier at January 18, 2008 8:37 AM

Education and directed effort are in fact involved in the intensification of economic inequity, but the relationship is more of an intricate feedback loop rather than a simple cause-and-effect.

The wealthy class promotes, protects, and intensifies this self-serving feedback loop through their disproportionate economic/political power, which includes the ability to educate their children in the science of the systemic wealth-farming of the rest of society.

Two years? No, it took them almost four decades to get it back after FDR oversaw the modest redistribution of wealth that defeated the Depression and the Nazis. This time perhaps we can do a more thorough job of it.

All you fascists bound to lose.

SLOB,

In other words, the wealthy class are better parents than the poor folks.

Perhaps you should confront the fact that most poor folks are just plain dumb, too dumb to make sure that their kids learn anything in school.

And the wealthy class did not steal it from the poor, since the poor don't have anything to steal.

Don't be such a dingbat.

SLOB,

"...FDR oversaw the modest redistribution of wealth that defeated the Depression and the Nazis".

That's what defeated the Nazis? Man, you are goofy.

Posted by: Rico at January 18, 2008 10:37 AM

FDR changed the depression into the Great Depression.

I was reading some of Bobby Fischer's quotes today and it sounded like one of Keith's Special Comments. Why isn't Keith hiding out in Iceland?

Actually Roosevelt spent the country into another Great Depression in 1937. He focused on consumtion which did nothing for the economy. The Early depression was caused by goverment regulation on trade and printing too much money. He did nothing to help that. He bacically threw 25 billion at the problem in 1933 and created no new jobs. He suspended Anti-Trust Act which made the economy worse.

patsy, go back to name jacking, you're much better at that.

That's what defeated the Nazis? Man, you are goofy.

Posted by: Rico at January 18, 2008 10:37 AM

I agree fully with the elaboration provided by ANON regarding my brief statements.

The mistaken interpretation that many brainwashed Americans make regarding WWII and the end of the Great Depression is that "war is good for the economy"; this is not necessarilly the case.

What ended the Depression in sync with the beginning of WWII was not any magical characteristic of war, but the full employment it brought, and focus on the needs/rights of our labor force with which FDR kicked in his highly regulated command economy. This is why today we have had a budget-busting war going for six years and our economy is tanking - Bush's privatized command economy ("mercantilism") is spending at comparable rates as FDR, but since it is a made-up war and we are not really buying or building anything, all of the money is flowing directly to the upper-crust, cosmetically shoring-up the still dismal stock markets. The majority of Americans - the ones who actually buy things and drive the economy - are bypassed.

This is why the huge military/industrial threats posed by Germany and Japan were unequivocally defeated within four years; and why as the current fiasco drags on we are only creating more and more teenage peasant enemies for ourselves than we had when the WTC was taken down with plastic box-cutters.

America's boom years following WWII, when our middle class expanded exponentially and labor was king, occurred under Democratic and Republican administrations that supported income tax brackets as high as 90% for the extremely wealthy. Now that was a healthy economy!

Hey patsy, did Wikipedia tell you Sinbad is dead too? LOL

Economic growth by FDR's foolishness.

New capital made available for investment amounted to $348,000,000 in 1935. This was less than 1/10th of the amount available in 1929. By contrast, the British economy had nearly recovered to its 1929 levels by 1935, and the amount available for investment was almost twice as much as the United States.

Year United States [22] Great Britain [23]
1927 $3,201,000,000 $710,509,000
1928 3,062,000,000 983,033,000
1929 3,668,000,000 759,174,000
1930 3,039,000,000 394,186,500
1931 1,006,000,000 155,728,000
1932 321,000,000 248,191,500
1933 177,000,000 296,856,500
1934 356,000,000 350,388,000
1935 348,000,000 666,710,500

You are dismissed patsey. Your grade is F.

He is also the one who says that Johnny$ said Bush should be on Mt. Rushmore. Another lie. I guess he looked that one up on Wiki too.

"New capital made available for investment amounted to $348,000,000 in 1935."

Factor,

Where are these numbers from? I am interested to see exactly what constitutes for this table "new capital made available for investment".

From 1927 until around 1932 the number of farm/small business forclosures was outrageous - and they were quickly snatched up as "investments" by the same banks, insurance companies, etc. who had created the bubble of the 20's, and who initiated the collapse. I suspect that this "capital" (i.e. family farms, restaurants, barber shops, homes) was pretty much consumed by these entities by the time 1933 rolled around.

Does you source provide similar figures for the years preceeding 1929? I think that they might also prove informative in this regard.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at January 18, 2008 1:51 PM

Nobody said he started the Great Depression. He just made it worse SLOB. WWII ended it.

....FDR's efforts during the '30's were launched uphill against a strong block of mercantilists and the sons of Robber Barons, who's media apparatus made public investment in his initiatives tricky at best.

WWII brought the American public to attention and whole-hog into the battle against fascism, and made FDR's job much easier. It also forced the Wall Street fascists who opposed FDR into an obscurity that lasted for decades.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at January 18, 2008 1:51 PM

Nobody said he started the Great Depression. He just made it worse SLOB. WWII ended it.

Posted by: The Factor at January 18, 2008 1:56 PM

I never said that you said that FDR started the Depression. Read my posts and respond to my arguments that WWII did not end the Depression - FDR's New Deal approach to WWII did. These economics also fueled the remarkable productivity that beat the Nazis. Conversely, Bush's Free-Market Fundamentalist approach to the "War on Terror" is bankrupting the country, and is creating a greater threat than we faced in 2000.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at January 18, 2008 2:02 PM

I don't think FDR needs a press secretary anymore SLOB. Go back to Burger King.

I don't think FDR needs a press secretary anymore SLOB. Go back to Burger King.

Posted by: The Factor at January 18, 2008 2:11 PM

Written like a man holding nothing but a bag of shit. Why do you even try to debate if you're just going to have a petulent melt-down?

Written like a man holding nothing but a bag of . Why do you even try to debate if you're just going to have a petulent melt-down?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at January 18, 2008 2:28 PM

No it is written by a man who watched another man resort to typing up a bunch of ant-capitalist buzz words and slogans for an argument.

No it is written by a man who watched another man resort to typing up a bunch of ant-capitalist buzz words and slogans for an argument.

Posted by: The Factor at January 18, 2008 2:47 PM

You're right; my posts did include the words "American Public", and "family farms, restaurants, barber shops, homes". These are unequivocally "anti-capitalist buzz-words".

...and to you righties, any argument that does not begin with "Ronaldus Maximus brought Morning to America" is an "anti-capitalist" slogan.

Factor is clearly the winner in this argument and the historical record supports his assertions. SLOB simply resorts to "robber barons" and "mercantilists" blather and thinks that wins the day.

I would only add to Factor's spot on analysis at 12:28 and 1:41 the following: Roosevelt's massive government programs produced a further drag on the already horrible effects of the Depression by squeezing out private enterprise and discouraging the private sector job creation desperately needed to truly turn around the collapsing economy. SLOB delights in pronouncing entrepeneurs as the evil doers, but fails to consider the consequences of government programs and policies that keep such "robber barons" on the sidelines. This was the primary dynamic that caused Wenedell Wilkie to run on the Republican ticket in 1936 after a lifetime as a Democrat.

In addition to this, Roosevelt embarked upon extremely aggressive measures to punish large corporations, measures which many today consider to be wrong headed, economically injurious and non-meritorious. Roosevelt put men in place in his administration whose agenda was in line with his singular vision of corporate America as evil agents of exploition. The country paid the price when corporate America reacted to such an environment created by Roosevelt with caution and restraint at a time when robust and energetic action was needed to create jobs. Thus, as Factor pointed out, the Depression lasted much longer than it should have.

All of this is chronicled in great detail in the excellent new book by Amity Schlaes (sp.?) "The Forgotten Man"

You're welcome.

On second thought, stay just the way you are. Keeping reading limited far right propoganda. The sun of your day is sinking faster than the stock market after a Bush speech. When the new day dawns, you'll be lucky to be able to find a job shucking oysters.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 18, 2008 4:32 PM

I got all my right wing propoganda when I was in college and took American History, Micro-Economics, and Macro-Economics. I should have taken a film class at NYU or USC.

I am truly surprised to find you took an economics class. You write as if you had never even walked past an economics primer in a used bookstore.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 18, 2008 4:54 PM

Well no of them were taught by Paul Krugman.

Well none of them were taught by Paul Krugman.

Posted by: The Factor at January 18, 2008 4:58 PM

Don't forget, The Factor, patsy is the one reminding us you told us that Bush is not a real conservative. I never said that. I don't even like him.

Now, Fred Thompson! WOOOOOO!

Posted by: royal king at January 18, 2008 1:43 PM

I see you took the time to link my name to my website, this time, patsy, when you jacked my name. Did you learn anything while you were there?

In vain, I searched the response of clucker (or anonymous as he/she now refers to himself/herself) for a substantive reply to the propositions advanced in my post at 3:45. Here is what I found instead:

"very narrow book"

"well out of her field of expertise"

"right wing agenda"

"limited far right propoganda"

"you'll be lucky to be able to find a job shucking oysters."

Well.

Clucker is an interesting poster at times. Generally , he seems like a fairly clever, jovial and magnanimous person. But, while he is not prone to the tempermental outbursts that SLOB will display when he runs up against arguments that he simply cannot rebut, Clucker does have a nasty side as well.

Often times he will fall back into his faux elitist mode (all Southern Republicans are hicks) or he will cobble together some condescending blather that he hopes will impress others. When he takes this latter tack he'll usually through in a few gratuitous strereotypes (see above "shucking oysters") which is a signal that he is frustrated and flummoxed.

I knew my 3:45 comment would generate this kind of response because FDR is revered as a God by the hard left and any word of criticism is simply not tolerated.

FDR Scandals

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html

6:56 is not me. Johnny, I think it's time to ban patsy.

Just wait until Cee gets a hold of this info.

ADULTERER!
FORNICATOR!
FAR LEFT ELITIST!
FORNICATOR!
FORNICATOR!

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html

A compilation of the SCANDALs and acts of TREASON by FDR

http://www.freerepublic-com/forum/a3b5e19d63af3.htm

TREASONOUS FORNICATOR!

Did I mention the FReepers are also reliable sources of real conservative shit?

FORNICATOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR!

7:16 not me. It's coward/mexican patsy with his gay lover chiming in after him at 7:38.

A N O N,

"Redistribution of wealth" did not win WW II. First of all, there wasn't really any wealth to redistribute during the Great Depression. Even most of the rich folk were poor then. The truth is that WW II ended the Great Depression.

Be aware that I have not criticized FDR in any way. To the contrary, I frequently compliment him for the terrific job he did annihilating Japan.

PATSY,

Why don't you try to convince everybody here at OW that you have ever had sex with a human? Now seems like as good a time as any. But I have to tell you, nobody is going to believe you.

Thanks, Patsy!

Grammie

Anon, I think you misread the theme of "Forgotten Man". You seem to think it some kind of Kitty Kelley beat down of Roosevelt. I think actually Schaeles presents a very balanced and necessary picture of FDR'c economic program in the 30's. I don't believe she ever makes any assertions contradicting your statement that FDR did much to change the national mood and that was a needed change.

Your whole tone goes back to the statement I made previously about the hard left brooking no ill words about FDR (and perhaps this is true of the conservative movement with regard to Reagan although I personally think that Iran-Contra was a very embarrassing episode for which Reagan bears some responsibility). You seem so thin skinned about the mere suggestion that we should take another look at government action during the Rooosvelt years and ask if this was the right prescription for our country to get it back on track as quickly as possible. And I think that Schlaes supports her thesis with very solid evidence, statistics, documents and interviews.

It is interesting to me that on the one hand you state that FDR had two overarching tasks (one of which was economic recovery). Yet on the other hand you criticize Schlaes for focusing on FDR's economic recovery policies because this was only a "small segment" of his administration. What? That's like saying that bringing down the Soviet Union (or laying the groundwork for such) was only a "small segment " of Reagan's eight years. I think you had not made the case that Schlaes book is unfair to FDR.

BTW-- Anyone who would attempt to know what GWB's legacy will be 50 years from now doesn't know what they're talking about.

Rico, patsy is gay as a 3 dollar bill. That's why he refers to women as "whores" every time you bring up getting laid. Psychology 101.

I knew you would be all over that one, 'why.' I've noticed how you constantly defend all the lesbians Olbermahn has on his comedy show, all the while ridiculing Cheney's daughter.

Here's a news flash: She doesn't have to be defended

posted by why

Then why do you have to tell us once a week of all her magnanimous accomplishments in life? Just curious. Yes, you've ridiculed Cheney's daughter on several occasions. Hypocrite? Indeed. Hack? Indeed.

I've just finished editing another Coservapedia article. Check it out.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo

According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[6] with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[7] The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

"Redistribution of wealth" did not win WW II. First of all, there wasn't really any wealth to redistribute during the Great Depression. Even most of the rich folk were poor then."

No, not really. There was a crap-load of money made during the depression, due largely to dirt-low wages and well-financed scavenging of the foreclosure market.

...actually it wasn't so much "scavenging" as it was "harvesting".

This windfall of capital was not widespread; but that's sort of the point behind a class-level scheme to exploit a disaster orchestrated for just such a purpose.

FDR through the 30's was not successful in countering the massive influence of these profiteers, but WWII facilitated his implementation of the New Deal without opposition.

So sure, you could say "WWII ended the GR Depression", but you have to be ready to lay out the mechanism by which it could do so.

...and then you need to consider how our current "war" could be so much longer and so much less successful than was WWII. After all, even the very authors of the invasion and occupation of Iraq have described our enemies in terms like "deadenders", "lurking killers", and "19 kids lured onto airpalnes". - an these are the people who for six years have been fighting to a standstill the highest priced, best-trained, and most technologically advanced military force in the world? What the fuck!?!? Its clear that somebody is pulling America's leg.

Are you people absolutely witless, that you can't see the absurdity of the "war on terror"?

I've just finished editing another Coservapedia article. Check it out.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo

According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[6] with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[7] The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

Posted by: royal king at January 19, 2008 1:36 PM

This fucking hillarious. I assume this is someone posting as RK in order to poke fun at his stupidity; but one never knows.

1:36 is not me. It's the coward. Johnny, how much am I going to have to pay you to ban that loser? Yes, slob, he's one of yours. Proud?

First off, I don't read or use 'conservapedia' and second off I'm not shocked at all that you would condone and egg on the loser known as patsy. You both are certifiable.