The Republican Party is sinking fast. Bye-bye lol

The Dem debate showed the adults are in charge. The Republican debate sounded like Jr. High Schoolers.

I saw a show called CCelebrity Boxing a few months ago. It had actors and sports personalities fighting with over size gloves in three one minute rounds. The first was Ron Palillo, Arnold Horshak of Kotter fame versus some other actor. Palillo took it seriously and worked out but the the other guy beat the shit out of him. That was some funny shit.

Then they had Manute Bol vs. William, the Refrigerator, Perry who won. Bol's gloves almost touched the ground when he stood stragiht up.

The final round was Joey Buttafuoco vs. some woman wrestler body builder. Buttafuco too that fight seriously and especially when this gal delivered some good shots to the head. This bastard tried to kill this gal. He beat her up pretty badly and he was even dirty hitting at the break, late, low blows and back of the head. He won on a close card.

I would love to see O'Reilly and Olberturd in a ring. I'd bet $10k right now that Bill would beat the shit out of Olby. I'd give Olbyturd $10k if he would get in the ring with me. That would be a quick fight. It would be worst if it were a street fight but I'd take a sanctioned fight with 16 ounce gloves. You have to wonder how much of a loser network has to be and how much of a loser sho host has to be that one of his biggest draws is his revelations born out of pure jealously and show ratings. He'll never beat Bill. Why should the host of the No. 1 cable news program even ackowledge Olberturd is even breating our free air.

Olbyfuck, if you or your people are reading this, give me a call, any time, any where, any place. We'll debate politics in round one. Then 2,3 and 4 will be in the ring.

Call me.

The still photo on the viewer screen is a real flattering shot of Olbyturd. Talk about your whiney assed, pouter losers. Old Olbyturd is quick to rip on someone's appearance. He must not really look at himslef in the mirror. That Confusias saying about ugly disfiguring one's face is living proof with this boy or any other liberal. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, booooooohooooooo, oh God, I'm burning up from global warming, where's that life jacket, I may drown when the sea rises, I need to get under my bed because Harry Reid told me too, the federal deficit and credit card debt is suffocating me, I can't breathe, someone help me.............................

According to the ridiculous "logic" displayed above at 2:30 PM, we should also put the Democratic nominee in the ring with the republican nominee, and the winner should be pres.

Come to think of it...Gore VS Bush in 2000, OR Kerry VS Bush in 2004.....five 5 minute rounds.....mixed martial arts format.

I'd have put my money on Gore and Kerry, and we'd have a better America today.

And Obama looks like a pretty good bet against McCain, Gulianni, Huckabee, or Romney. Probably wouldn't work too well with Hillary though.


Yea!.....Now THAT makes a LOT of sense "phony"!

The Dem debate showed the adults are in charge. The Republican debate sounded like Jr. High Schoolers.

Posted by: at January 7, 2008 2:16 PM

When was this. When Hillary blubbered that her feelings are hurt when they said no one likes her? That sounds like a Jr. High debate to me.

"The republican debae sounded like Jr. High Schoolers"

And the Factor sez: "When was this."

- Like when Romney stated regarding healthcare; 'a guy making $100,000 a year shouldn't be able to demand a $1000 "fix" at a hospital....That kind of shows how much THIS guy understands the REAL world!

- Like the bickering and backbiting that occured several times between Romney and the others. Apparently, 'nobody likes' that poor little ultra rich man either!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor also sez: "When Hillary blubbered that her feelings were hurt when they said that no one likes her."

Lets put aside the OBVIOUS fact that Hillary was actually trying to be funny and wasn't really 'blubbering', .... the equally obvious fact that she isn't very good at it is the the one of the main reasons she appears to be being pushed aside,.

"You are a moron if you think some token sambo and a Muslim no matter what he says is going to win the White House you must be smoking pot."

THIS kind of racist thinking by the minority party's extremists is exactly why he probably WILL win the White House, .... and it is exactly why REASONABLE republicans are fleeing your party in droves.

Posted by: Mike at January 7, 2008 3:18 PM

I give a true example and Mike passes out distortion and then tries to defend the indefensible. Run along Mike.

tell me if this isn't the most accurate description of olbermann yet. "keith olbermann is reminiscent of the communist agitaters of the 50's-- all rhetoric and phony passion, but no substance" agree or disagree?

"So one Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called 'The Audacity of Hope.' And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.

"It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn’t suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/23/a_politics_of_conscience_1.php

###
Is it just rhetoric?....Mmm...I wonder...Then this....

"So doing the Lord's work is a thread that's run through our politics since the very beginning. And it puts the lie to the notion that the separation of church and state in America means faith should have no role in public life. Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural without its reference to 'the judgments of the Lord.' Or King's 'I Have a Dream' speech without its reference to 'all of God's children.' Or President Kennedy's Inaugural without the words, 'here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own.' At each of these junctures, by summoning a higher truth and embracing a universal faith, our leaders inspired ordinary people to achieve extraordinary things."

###
With these words one is assured of the man's respect for God....nothing ever voiced by the other democratic nominees or one in recent memory....

This is why I am reasurred that Obama is not a the typical secularist candidates the democrats have given us in recent times....

Bye, bye Clintons!

An intentional effort at distraction, you say, Johnny?...

From the ever so sincere... well-intentioned...and generous of heart?

"They are being mean to me" sniff, sniff" -Quote
-Jan 7, 2008 Democrat Frontrunner
Hmmm

With these words one is assured of the man's respect for God....nothing ever voiced by the other democratic nominees or one in recent memory....

This is why I am reasurred that Obama is not a the typical secularist candidates the democrats have given us in recent times....

Bye, bye Clintons!

Posted by: cee at January 7, 2008 4:13 PM

You didn't really think they're offended by religion in the public square or faith guiding political action unless its something uttered by a non-liberal, do you? :D

Billy Jeff Clinton was born again too and often appealed to his faith in Jesus, as well as the dynamic of sin, repentance, restoration.

(In all fairness, Cee, I think you're forgetting about Joe Lieberman.)

So Mike- was Hillary kidding when she welled up today? You spin everything that has a (D).

I undertsand your point, Cecelia....passes are given depending on the intial D or R after the name....

Joe Lieberman was rejected by the democrats, Cec.....Even when he was selected by Gore as VP in 2000....the left screamed.....

Bill Clinton never gave a personal testimony like Obama has....Bush did not for that matter....I am simply very comfortable with Obama's language and the great respect he expresses in specific terms regarding a redeeming God.

Certain posters on this site would go into yells of "pontification," "chrisitanist," and "Jesus fetish," if such words were posted here.

The funny thing is that the left screamed about Bush's "religiosity" while such expressions like Obama's reflect an even more personal and powerful relationship with the living God.

Yes....Obama believes in a living God....the supernatural.....what a fool like those silly founders!

In fact, this made me think this might be another alias of Jeff. Nonetheless, I know it is not the Republican view.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 2:55 PM

Sadly mistaken, fraud. I have no alias's. That's your gig, remember?

Come to think of it...Gore VS Bush in 2000, OR Kerry VS Bush in 2004.....five 5 minute rounds.....mixed martial arts format.

I'd have put my money on Gore and Kerry, and we'd have a better America today.

Posted by: Mike at January 7, 2008 2:57 PM

Well, it's interesting to know where you would have put your money in 2000, Mike, because you're forever swearing that you put your vote on Bush... :D

Cee don't be fooled. if you think that this man Obama is defined by anything beyond his being black, I've got news for you. He isn't. His being black is simply 100% of who he is as a candidate. There is no more substance there. It's only empty headed liberals who can take this empty black vessel and fill it with whatever liberal claptrap they want, while simultaneously asuaging their white guilt.

"Deists" and "Unitarians" and so forth are just fancy names for atheists in my book. Obama will end up spouting the same "separation of church and state" line as all the liberals, which is really code for immolation of church and deification of state.

You should note too, Cee, that in interviews you can read between the lines that Obama became a Christian mostly to further his community organizing and as a "vehicle" for his preexisting (liberal) beliefs. So for him, being "religious" means banning guns, redistributing wealth, and patting gays on the back and all the usual liberal "religious" concerns.

In Obama's case, he's convinced himself that God agrees with him, and that's why he believes in god. "I have met Jesus, and he is me" would be a good motto for his "faith."

The liberals understand this and that's why they are so fine with it.

Cecelia: "Well it's interesting to see where you'd put your money on in 2000, because you're forever swearing that you put your vote in Bush... :D"

As I emphatically DID put my vote "on" Bush in 2000.

Frankly, I don't believe you're dumb enough to really see any contradiction in that statement either, ..... although I'm virtually certain your little troll friend probably will. :D

I don't think the apparent absence of faith is what has made George W. Bush a poor president. So, I guess I have never understood this litmus test you seem to give.
Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 5:08 PM

Well, Cee's "litmus test" a least seems to be consistent, as is his honest admiration for religious ardor.

That's quite unlike your litmus test, as illustrated in your reaction to Romney's speech about his religious faith and in the post you sent here (where you even trot out poor Sen. Reid in order to aim a dart at the guy who was the (R) frontrunner....

You know...the litmus test you have, Mr. Sincerity... The one that indicates who you feel happens to be in your way at a particular time...

"I think we ought not be flip about the Mormon issue. As a person of faith, and a citizen, I am deeply, deeply troubled by this. Romney makes it a bit easier for me, because I can't find any reason to vote for him. If I were to live in Nevada, I would find myself in political agreement with Reid on many, but not all, issues. I don't know what I would do. I am glad I don't have to decide.

The Church is fairly clear on the Mormon issue, teaching us Mormonism is simply a cult. I don't want to carry that into politics, but I don't know if I can separate myself from it. After hearing this teaching for 45 years or so, I doubt I can simply file it away.

Given a different candidate, I might be deeply, deeply conflicted.
Posted by: Clucker at August 30, 2007 2:28 PM"

It is the influence of secularism....the denial of the supernatural's existence or, (the same thing) the denial of the influence of the supernatural on us as the created.....

Obama's public expression of that interaction is important to me because it is a tangable example of his faith.....Bill Clinton has not made such a pronouncement nor has Hillary. Jimmy Carter publically has always been an "'aw shucks," I teach Sunday School Christian but has never eloquently stated his firm belief that there is a living, loving God.

The excuse of "up-bringing" should have nothing to do with it....especially from a member of a party so antagonistic to people who believe in a living God and creator....The Democratic Party has members who are actively doing what O'lielly spouts and the representatives, the ruling elite, who have the power to do things through legislation or whatever, have a duty to express their personal beliefs because the have a D beside their name.

Seperation of church and state has nothing to do with it....The attempted seculaization of my life by the federal government entity and the culture through various enducements and even laws continues and the party that has been behind that has been the democrats....The presidential candidate's faith from that party and its public expression is reassuring.

I and millions of Americans do not have the luxury of meeting these men and women one on one.....I believe that anyone with true faith should be able to express their testimony of the power of their relationship with God in ANY forum.....especially when they are a political person who is capable of talking in front of people....

Prior to LBJ....it was a given in their public discourse....now, some have trouble and Obama is not one of them.

Jeff really believe Olbermann is a spokesperson for the party or its policies.

spewed by mrs. philby

I've NEVER said anything remotely resembling that, capone. Lie # what? 100?

Posted by: royal king at January 7, 2008 1:30 PM

I've NEVER said anything remotely resembling that ....

-----

Proof, please.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 2:26 PM

You made the accusation, fraud. Just more spew you can't back.

Posted by: royal king at January 7, 2008 4:44 PM

But I asked for proof first, Jeff ....

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 5:26 PM

Who's the troll? The fraud is.

Frankly, I don't believe you're dumb enough to really see any contradiction in that statement either, ..... although I'm virtually certain your little troll friend probably will. :D

Posted by: Mike at January 7, 2008 5:30 PM

You call it contradiction, I'll say your Freudian Slip is showing... :D

Don't misunderstand me Sue....I am not naieve....I know Obama's leftist stands with regards to abortion, gay marriage, etc....I would have no intention of ever voting for him.

However, the progression of the secularists that form the radical fringe of the left, those that deem "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God," unconstitutional or call the society on which our nation was built was "secular," or that the belief in God is childish, backwards and keeps people from being innovative, capable of high scientific or mathematic achievement....these are the radicals that need to be marginalized.....

Senator Obama, although misguided in many of his beliefs, does not seem to bow to the secularists like previous modern democratic candidates like Clinton and Carter.

Senator Obama, although misguided in many of his beliefs, does not seem to bow to the secularists like previous modern democratic candidates like Clinton and Carter.

Posted by: cee at January 7, 2008 5:50 PM

Give him time. His true colors will show.

The long awaited movie, Anti-Hillary by Dick Morris, is finally available to the public! I was under the assumption he was going to hold it off for a while, guess he wants to get it out now. I told him he was wasting his money way back when. Her and Bill would save him the trouble, I was right.

https://secure.donationreport.com/productlist.html;jsessionid=2B9F8BF4AF512869DC185FF47C6C2647

Well Daddy FLUCKER (cue Mr. Magoo theme), or perhaps after the lovely language in your 6:41PM post, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle), I am simply looking at the representatives of the far left.....secualrists and atheists who continually demean people who believe in God....

They are "anti-science"
They are backwards
They are christianists

Sir Loin of Beef, WDYT and AAP are three wonderful examples on this board......

I go to any blue blog and easily find anti-religous hate speech embraced, laughed at and endorced.

Ooo, and lets not forget the republicans are the party of racism and other hatred....you just implied this AM...so your oversensativity to the facts seem a little sad, FLUCKER (cue whatever)

Please tell me people that bring antagonism against people who believe in the supernatural, or God, are not 99.99% democrats.....and that form of bigotry is an historical fact much like you site the flood of racist democrats to the republican party in the south.....

Well? Do you deny that radical secularists call the democratic party their home?

I don't know who'd wait for anything from the adulterous toe sucker.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 6:50 PM

No sense of professional courtesy even, huh? :D

What a hate-filled, judgmental person you are.

Be gone with you! I flush you like the crap that comes from you!!!

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 6:58 PM

I don't know who'd wait for anything from the adulterous toe sucker.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 6:50 PM

I know you could not make it a day, you pontificating pompous piece of shit without deliberately demonizing Democrats, half the people in this nation, by referring to the party as:

---- antagonistic to people who believe in a living God and creator....

What an outrageous lie. What unbelievable crap. What a slander. What an unreptant ass you are.

Well, I did the decent thing. I tried. You'll never be able to do anything but lie, slander and divide. You are, indeed, indcent to your very core.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 6:41 PM

Well? Do you deny that radical secularists call the democratic party their home?

Posted by: cee at January 7, 2008 6:55 PM

Evidently...that odious "crap" only flows one way... :D

Just one example of the anti-religious hatred endorced by democrats.....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/5/65154/44050/269/430957

###
Go to the link, Mr. blank-FLUCKER (cue OLD SPICE jingle)....the lack of respect and care taken by the secularists who used vile and hateful tactics to demean the heart-felt beliefs of millions of people have a place....

In the Democratic party....

Is it not antagonistic?....Is it not dangerous to democracy, civil discourse and compassion for people to imitate special needs adults to make a secularist point?

I monitor the blue blogs regularly for such hate speech such as....

"that Jesus walked with the cross -- He rode the dinosaur for his triumphal entry into Jerusalem the week before. I object to innacurate pictorial presentations."

###
You see, FLUCKER....you just do not understand the radical nature of those in your own party yet pontificate yourself about the radicals in the republican party and come to nice neat conclusions yourself.

Logically FLUCKER, now....why can you conclude the republicans are the party against racial equality as you did this morning yet get all insulted when someone concludes the democrats are the party against religious belief based on the very same logic you employed (members of the party holding certain view points)?

Oh, and I only said the party was a source of antagonism, BTW....I did not even go as far as you did, sir. Oh and remember, I like Obama because he is vocal about his beliefs.....and he's a democrat for goodness sake!

So take your toilet tirade and go sulk in the corner, you over-sensative gas bag.

Mitt Romney gets emotional, philby dwells on, ridiculing him for days. Hillary breaks down, not a single peep! Shocker!

You see, FLUCKER....you just do not understand the radical nature of those in your own party yet pontificate yourself about the radicals in the republican party and come to nice neat conclusions yourself.

Posted by: cee at January 7, 2008 7:12 PM

Now, I MUST disagree with you, Cee.

You are, indeed, naive...

Gotta go, Bill Kristol is on Fox News(#1)....

Am I naive about FLUCKER really understanding the radical nature of those in the Democratic Party, Cecelia or naive about the radicals in the Republican Party?

I guess my naivete has come full circle.

RK, I saw a segment on the sniffling, emotional Hill tonight. You won't hear much more about her because the liberal MSM has thrown her under the bus. Obama is their candidate now. Hillary who? Unless she starts winning soon, Hill will be a faded memory. Let's see if The Orange One has hopped onto the Obama Hussein train.

Philby knows, exactly, the radical nature of those in her party. She constantly agrees with wasted, slob, why and mike. Need any more evidence? To mikes credit, he being the least radical of the bunch. Oh, forgot about the marxist, trent.

Oh well....like FLUCKER said, I tried.....

He demands republicans to face the demons in their party yet denies such hatred in his own party.......

using potty speech in the process.....

Ok....have a nice evening.

Let's see if The Orange One has hopped onto the Obama Hussein train.

Posted by: at January 7, 2008 7:32 PM

All of the nights he hoisted Hillary up on her soapbox, seemingly, all for not. The ONLY way he backs obama is if Hillary drops out. We can't count Hillary out, yet. I don't think she has released the blood hounds, yet. She's not going down w/out one hell of a fight. I think Hillary wants to be pres the most of all the candidates, that will keep her going till the very end.

The pundits are on either side of the blubbering Hillary:

Her tears manufactured: Which only proves she is the manipulative politician many thought she was.

Her tears were a genuine show of emotion: Which only proves she is too weak to be president as many thought she was.

Pick your poison.
The bandwagon has left the station.
Anyone but Hillary in 2008

Am I naive about FLUCKER really understanding the radical nature of those in the Democratic Party, Cecelia or naive about the radicals in the Republican Party?

I guess my naivete has come full circle.

Posted by: cee at January 7, 2008 7:30 PM

Let's just say that you are naive in that you project your own sincerity onto those who don't harbor it.

Thanks, why! How bout that 'tuthout' website. Talk about a hoot!

I hate to tell you anon at 8:13 PM, but the antagonism I mentioned above was just shown by you.....

If it is ok for people to express their belief in God to get people to the polls, why is it not ok to know whether or not a person running for elected office believes in God or not anon?

Do you want your cake and eat it to?

The constitution only says one cannot be stopped for running for public office based on religious belief.....It does not mean, as a citizen, I can be concerned about secularists who are pursuing a radical agenda to wipe God out of the society.....

Or be against those who are religious bigots:

http://buffalobeast.com/117/let_there_be_retards.htm

###
Did you go to the link and see the bigotry that was expressed by those who are supposed open-minded progressive and members of the modern day democratic party?

Who really has the litmus test?

Cee's religious litmus test is a good example of why our founding fathers developed a secular Constitution.

Posted by: at January 7, 2008 8:13 PM

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

William Kristol's First Sentence As NYT Columnist: "Thank You, Senator Obama"

Posted by: at January 7, 2008 8:18 PM

And?

"Thank you, Senator Obama. You’ve defeated Senator Clinton in Iowa. It looks as if you’re about to beat her in New Hampshire. There will be no Clinton Restoration. A nation turns its grateful eyes to you."

Bill Kristol

KO reality check...

CABLE NEWS RACE
FRIDAY, JAN 4
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,019,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,995,000
FNC GRETA 1,525,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,451,000
CNN KING 1,440,000
FNH HUME 1,409,000
CNN COOPER 915,000
CNN DOBBS 859,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 845,000
CNNHN GRACE 699,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 499,000

O'lielly, where was KO this weekend while BOR was chasing candidates around NH? Oh, that's right, he was busy at home thinking up ways to insult Cris Collinworth, a colleague, on air. Nice. Stay classy, KO.

He did show the tape, and the Obama staffer was laughing and smirking that he was trying to block the shot.

The Leonas on the fan board have posted their pictures on Friday night's show thread. No wonder he no longer answers email.

"Christians fleeing Iraq" Posted by: at January 7, 2008 8:35 PM

Posting a 3 month old story when the situation in Iraq for Christians has changed?...how very KO of you...

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4048616&page=1

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraqxmas26dec26,1,1409956.story?coll=la-news-a_section

Olbermann just likened Obama to Tiger Woods - that comparison was hyped at DU this weekend by their administrator. Coincidence?

Monsieur Capon Blank-Flucker might I make a mild suggestion to you in the interest of sparing you some unnecessary work.

Why don't you list all the famous politicians and people that you DO NOT know. Doing this would remove the burden of telling us day in and day out how many famous people you know and how well you are connected.

Grammie

Someone who hasn't seen tonight's show said @ 7:46 PM: "The ONLY way he backs obama is if Hillary drops out."

That particular "someone" is almost always wrong, so it's no surprise that he was also wrong in this case.

I can just hear it now: ...... Who's going to say it first?.... The man who in reality, never really backed any particular Democratic candidate over any other one in the first place, .... is now going to be accused of 'turning against' Hillary.

Olby throws Hillary under the bus tonight.

I don't particularly care for Hillary, but I thought a show of emotion from her was a good thing.

What's up with Keith's forehead. Is today Ash Wednesday?

Mrs. Hawkins:

When I was a child, I met Abraham Lincoln.
He told me about that wild fling the two of you had in Cairo (Illinois) when he was a teenager. He advised me to have my first sexual experience with a woman old enough to be my grandmother, too. They're very appreciative and can teach you a lot, he said.

I never met Warren G. Harding, and although I saw Tallulah Bankhead, she was all the way across the elevator from me.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 9:39 PM

Miss Bankhead later wrote in her autobiography that she had tried to teach Capon much but he was always too ...fast... a study...

I can just hear it now: ...... Who's going to say it first?.... The man who in reality, never really backed any particular Democratic candidate over any other one in the first place, .... is now going to be accused of 'turning against' Hillary.

Posted by: Mike at January 7, 2008 9:28 PM

Well, then you should be primed to listen because he has, indeed, dumped her.

I've been watching HRC's speeches and today was NOT the first time she's made references to national security issues and stated that she's the best candidate to handle future threats. She's appealed to all aspects of her experience.

Oh, yeah... he's gone with lefty vox populi.

He does it all for you... :D

"Are you telling us a dog defacating is better quality viewing than O'Reilly?"

If it is then what dose that say about KO whose viewer ship is much lower?...LOL!!!

Cecelia: "He has indeed, dumped her."....But how can you 'dump' someone you've never really 'courted' in the first place?

But thanks, Cecelia, for calling your dear little friend who calls himself 'royal king' wrong.

We don't usually get that kind of help from you.

So M Long..Is National Treasure " Book of Treasure " the best movie of the year ? Is TV guide the best magazine in the country ?

Posted by: Bill O'lielly at January 7, 2008 9:13 PM

woah trippy.

But thanks, Cecelia, for calling your dear little friend who calls himself 'royal king' wrong.

We don't usually get that kind of help from you.

Posted by: Mike at January 7, 2008 10:21 PM

Really?

Olby throws Hillary under the bus tonight.

I don't particularly care for Hillary, but I thought a show of emotion from her was a good thing.

Posted by: The Artist FNA at January 7, 2008 9:30 PM

This just proves, even more, how spineless and unfaithful Olbermahn really is.

The man who in reality, never really backed any particular Democratic candidate over any other one in the first place, .... is now going to be accused of 'turning against' Hillary.

Posted by: Mike at January 7, 2008 9:28 PM

Do you find it odd you are the ONLY one making that claim?

Some unnamed person above was claiming that Hillary and Bill had never made an expression of faith. This is false, Hillary has made a big deal of her Methodist faith in campaigning.

She has also tied her policy proscriptions to her Methodist faith.

Pay attention.

100 % factually true.

The Olbyhating Zombies can't handle it.

Posted by: at January 7, 2008 11:12 PM

Can you post some evidence? I would love to see it. I have a feeling you can't, though.

Olbermhan Blasts Bush Backs Clinton

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/450

"and now his forehead, I meant to say."
Posted by: at January 7, 2008 11:15 PM

You couldn't even write a fragmented sentence without an error?

That's witty, Cecelia. I've always known your not just some sour old bag.

Posted by: A N O N Y M O U S at January 7, 2008 9:56 PM

I've always known you aren't either. You just like to wear their clothes.

Hi CeCe

Hi CeCe

Posted by: Trent the only other person on OW at January 8, 2008 2:32 AM

Back atya, sweety.

RK, this link is awesome.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/450

Somehow I missed it other than broad strokes when it happened.

Great thanks and I am greatly pleasured :).

Grammie

Great thanks and I am greatly pleasured :).

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 8, 2008 2:58 AM

I better stick around and provide a chaperone... :D

Cecelia, please don't ruin my one and only chance to have a REAL MAN pay attention to me after ten years. :)

I am all aflutter that I might have captured a real man's attention after a long and lonely decade.

Hopefully you will be one of those chaperones that nods off to sleep when things get interesting. :)

Grammie

Good point Cee overall, Cee, but I think we disagree a bit. Obama's "faith" was simply conveniently acquired. He wants redistribute wealth to poor people first, so he met Jesus second. He wants to pat gays on the back first, so he met Jesus second. He wants to abolish guns and the miltary first, so he met Jesus second. I don't just find this coopting of religion for the purpose of "helping the poor" and "world peace" innocuous. It's a hijack. And I don't think we do well as real believers to support it. It's worse than nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I feel the same way that the federal government seems like it will not rest until religion is abolished and all us dirty unwashed bible thumping honky crackers are forced to watch reruns of Ellen and Rosie all day instead of going to church. But the fact that their black jesus chosen one is using the language of religion to get us to a very unreligious pointis in no way comforting to me. I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Barack Obama's race is simply the man's entire identity. If he was white he would be laughed off the stage.

two funny comments from the "fluff" piece:

FYI: Maybe Olbermann should spend less time watching what's going on at Fox and more time watching what's going on right under his nose. That twenty-something "beautiful" girlfriend of his? He might be interested in knowing that when he's not around she makes a beeline straight to a a very hunky guy, decades younger than Olbermann, but without Olbermann's fat paycheck. SHE is the one who really has the best of both worlds. Wonder if Olbermann knows that part of his paycheck is going to support his girlfriend's boyfriend?
1/7/2008 7:38 AM

www.olbermannwatch.com/Katy%20Tur11.jpg
beautiful..yeah, right.....
Posted by: kelli
1/7/2008 1:21 AM

http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=kr-kctm&tid=9444

Barack Obama's race is simply the man's entire identity. If he was white he would be laughed off the stage.

Posted by: Canape Sue at January 8, 2008 12:33 PM

I agree. He has accomplished nothing, besides being a part time senator.

Makes you look rather foolish (again) doesn't it girly?

Posted by: at January 8, 2008 2:31 PM

Let's just cut to the chase so we all can gasp at your brilliance and be done with you, Einstein...

You say everyone one can make a free choice based upon "listening" to the candidates and making our own determinations.

You then go on to CONTRADICTORILY imply

1.But if you support Bush, indeed, if you are a Republican, you very likely are not a free thinker, you have been brainwashed by Karl Rove...

Now to make more palatable, what even this clown senses is nothing more than an juvenile ad hominym, he/she adds:

2. You CAN also be a mindslave if your happen to blindly follow a Democrat as well, (Clinton is the example given)....

Now the addition of #2 doesn't change the fact that #1 is little more than an ad hominym and a non sequitur (if you agree with Rove/Bush you are therefore a Rove mindslave) so our clown here again tries to give it the veneer of "logic" by adding:

3. But even a Republican and a Bush supporter COULD be a free thinker, if only they chose to be...

Well, it is only necessary to state such an obvious fact (that healthy person has freedom of choice and thought) if you are doing so only to put forth a contrast by implying that a certain "choice"-- backing Bush- isn't really a "choice" at all. Rather, it is an indication that you've become a "Rove droid" who mindlessly "follows his plan".

Therefore this clown has limited the concept of "freedom" and "choice" by suggesting that the choosing of one particular politician and even a particular political outlook isn't just a wrong free choice, a bad free choice, a misguided free choice/outlook.... it's not a choice at all It's just the outcropping of some sort of yielding over of your faculties to.... Karl Rove....

So via his excruciatingly sophomoric ad hominym, he's contracted his own rhetorical device and revealed himself to be what he is-- a partisan simpleton who really has no appreciation for individuality or "choice" and someone who must deem the majority of people, who have made a choice he disdains, to be little more than willingly brain-dead zombies.

Bottom line, you're an egocentric moron. But then, YOU know that...

You want evidence that Olbermann has not come out for any democrat?

Posted by:cowy at January 8, 2008 7:13 PM

Yes, got any? I anxiously await.......

You can't back your spew, but, I am stupid? Priceless!!!!!!!

"You can't back your spew, but, I am stupid?"

You really have to ask this question? You have been called a moron by every liberal on this blog and a fair amount of conservatives at one time or another. Of course you are an idiot! Even liberls who have praised other Republicans for their intellect call you stupid. No one has called you anyhting but you know Rk where this is smoke there is usally fire.

Now in your inattention you may have failed to notice another operative phrase "MOST OF YOU" meaning he has explicitly stated that not everyone who supports Bush does so because of Karl Rove's plan. meaning that SOME people must have used their judgement capabilities to make their determination! Meaning their was no contradiciton.

Bottom line I'm quite a bit smarter than you. But then, you know that.

Posted by: at January 8, 2008 8:12 PM

The spiel above could be condensed to: WK said "MOST" of you let Rove do your thinking for you. He did not say that "all" of you do. He said "some" of you choose to do you own thinking, therefore what he said isn't contradictory.

Well, of course that's really not a distinction at all. If I were to say, "It's good to follow politics and to get involved in the process, and to vote as you feel is best. Some liberals do that, but most of them just mindlessly follow anything that sounds like socialism", nothing I've said is anything more than an ad hominym that contradicts the essential point of my first sentence.

Even if we turned the sentence around and instead I said, "MOST liberals do that, but just a FEW of them just mindlessly follow socialism" it would not make one bit of difference. The sentence has no basis in logic, it is purely a subjective statement.

The fact that it is possible that there could be ONE liberal or FORTY MILLION liberals who mindlessly drift towards anything that sounds collectivist, doesn't make the statement any more reality based. It continues to be what it is -- nothing more than an opinion/slur that reveals nothing but my cynicism about a process I had just seemingly championed.

Bottom line, you're not a "bit" smarter than a prairie dog, let alone anyone else posting here.

You really have to ask this question? You have been called a moron by every liberal on this blog and a fair amount of conservatives at one time or another. Of course you are an idiot! Even [liberls]sic who have praised other Republicans for their intellect call you stupid. No one has called you [anyhting]sic but you know Rk where this is smoke there is usally fire.

Posted by: at January 9, 2008 2:23 AM

You are the definition of a "desperate coward." Oh and a lyin' olbyloon.

Posted by:cowy at January 9, 2008 2:23 AM

Where's WDYT hiding? Under the bed? Too embarrassed to use that name anymore? No big news from 'truthout' to post today?

Thanks for our daily dose of idiocy, philby. I'm sure you aren't done, yet. The day I take advice from a fraud, like you, is the day I vote for Hillary. Won't happen.

So unless you can demonstrate that the statement "People are capable" has been negated by, "Karl Rove has a plan and most of you follow it" (and you have not) Then you have lost this argument.

Meaning that the guy dumber than a prairie dog is smarter than you.

Posted by: at January 9, 2008 1:54 PM

WK wrote:

"HILLARY Clinton is not BILL Clinton.
AL GORE is not BILL CLINTON. Believe it or not, people are capable of listening to candidates and determining for themselves who they like."

Translation-- Though you are so cynical and/or blinkered as to think that people like me can't think for ourselves, *I (and like-minded people or other people who *I deem as making their own decisions) can and do think for ourselves.

WK wrote:

"Just because Rove has a plan for all of you to follow and most of you do doesn't mean that everyone needs to follow the leader.
Some people are capable of determining for themselves who they like and wish would win."

Translation-- If YOU suggest that I/us are not thinking for ourselves it's because you're so used to the Rove laser brain wave machine making you and/or your fellows into zombies, that you assume that's what happened to us too...OTHERWISE ****you would not have have reflexively implied such a broad-brushed, illogical, partisan ad hominym conclusion.

So then, friends and countrymen.... *I can make an outright accusation that's even MORE cynical, illogical, partisan ad hominym, by saying that MOST of you Republicans don't think for yourselves on account of the fact that you've put your mind on hold and given yourself over to Darth Karl Rove Vader.... and I can say it with NO CONTRADICTION as to how I casted your mere implication.

Why, you ask? Because ( as some fool will come along and argue...) I tried to make it sound more logical, non-partisan and less reflexive and ad hominym by adding that one of more of you do think for yourselves, some Democrats also don't think for themselves, but everybody COULD think for themselves...

(sigh)....

You're brilliant...

Compared to you yes.

Posted by: at January 9, 2008 4:16 PM

I beg to differ......

Afraid not, Bozo.

I wrote:

"*I can make an outright accusation that's even MORE cynical, illogical, partisan ad hominym, by saying that MOST of you Republicans don't think for yourselves on account of the fact that you've put your mind on hold and given yourself over to Darth Karl Rove Vader.... and I can say it with NO CONTRADICTION as to how I casted your mere implication."

The above statement perfectly follows the scenario of people wiillfully putting THEIR OWN minds on hold and willfully given themselves over to someone else's guidance.

Again, that WK said the act of "following" Rove's plan is willful voluntary act... that no one has to do it... that even some Democrats do it.... is just window dressing.

WK implied that making a reflexive assumption about some people connoted a particular frame of mind, and then contradicted his own position on such a thing by making a direct statement that is far more illogical, reflexive and partisan, than any implication Cee might have made.

Now, I will simplify this for you. in order to contradict something one must negate it. For example if I write: Jack runs fast.

To contradict this statment you could write:

Jack is slow.

See how it works? So eas even a clown like you can get it. Well, maybe not.

Now, I will simplify this for you. in order to contradict something one must negate it. For example if I write: Jack runs fast.

To contradict this statment you could write:

Jack is slow.

See how it works? So eas even a clown like you can get it. Well, maybe not.

Posted by: at January 9, 2008 5:26 PM

Oh, that's some analogy there, whizkid... try this one:

Position 1-- "It is a generalization based upon projection to merely assume my peers and I don't think for ourselves."

Position 2 "You do so because the majority of your peers don't think for themselves"

1) People are capable of making choices on a candidate independent of Bill Clinton's legacy, I consider myself such a person.

2) Most of you however do not make choice independent of Karl Rove.

In both examples ALL people have the capability to make a choice., In both examples there is nothing written that negates that capability. Meaning no contradiction.

Posted by: at January 9, 2008 6:42 PM

Number 2 is inaccurately stated.

That people CAN come to their own conclusions is a self-evident given. (You've wasted tons of bandwidth arguing that they can, could, etc.)

WK is arguing that it is erroneous to assume that people can or have not and Cee is so presumptuous to make this erroneous assumption BECAUSE most Republicans do not think for themselves.

He negates his position that such assumptions are presumptuous and erroneous by making the same assumption himself.

Thanks, 'why!'

The statements Janet put forth as being contradictory are in fact not.

Posted by: at January 10, 2008 2:41 PM

Really?

"Really?"

Don't worry it's over your head.

which?