When the way over the top Nazi smears start pouring out you know the speaker has lost the argument. So going for the 'high ground' J$ compares Keith to Joseph Goebbels, one one 2 Nazi references.

Like all partisan talking heads (by far most of whom come from the right), Olbermann spins by carefully picking facts. But the histrionics in this post are turning an ant hill into Mt. Everest.

I'm not sure how "it read in part" got missed in J$'s spew but there's no intent to deceive here. The missing Bennett and Hannity quotes don't in any way change Keith's point despite J$'s panties getting so tightly wadded over them and not mentioning Scarlboro and Colmes aren't that big a deal either.

The email is the one originating the claim regarding objective observers. Keith's clearly pointing out the irony right-wing demagogue Hannity is on that list as is Bennett. He's not claiming everyone mentioned in the email is biased.

What this is an example of isn't Keith's outrageous bias but of the obsessive ranting of J$ who feels compelled to spin everything Oblermann says into some extreme evil.

Take a chill pill , J$, and let your right-wing hatred chill for a while. You'll live longer.

"Breaking News" to smear John McCain
The facts Ubermoronn will feign
A journalistic fool
MSNBC's tool
To believe Keith you must be insane

"I'm not sure how "it read in part" got missed in J$'s spew but there's no intent to deceive here."

Posted by: S. Knabt at February 23, 2008 1:55 PM

You know this, how?

Hey, if olbywad can get away with Nazi references ad nauseum, J$'s allowed a couple here and there. The point is, the discredited sportcaster nightly leaves stuff out of his harangues on the right to best suit his and his audience's needs. The guys a friggin joke. A cretin and above all else a COWARD!!!

> He's not claiming everyone mentioned in the email is biased.

How could he? He just ridiculed the email WITHOUT TELLING his viewers who were quoted. What part of "lie by omission" do you not understand?

> When the way over the top Nazi smears start pouring out you know the speaker has lost the argument. So going for the 'high ground' J$ compares Keith to Joseph Goebbels, one one 2 Nazi references.

You really should pay more attention to what goes on here. It wasn't that long ago that we posted a video showing one Olbermann Nazi/Third Reich comparison after another. I wouldn't have made the analogies if he hadn't done so previously, over, and over, and over.

Olbermann calling anyone a fascist is simply the pot calling the kettle black..For all the disdain he has for Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly has dissenting commentary in just about every segment of his news commentary. Olbermann using the same, say 8 socialist aligned hacks to back up his propaganda every night, with NEVER a contrary opinion is Nazism to the nth degree. Shut down the opposition at all costs. Olbermann couldn't debate anyone to save his life, I don't think teleprompters work that quickly. For Olbermann's benefit, Fascism is a socialist ideology. In Germany it was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKER'S PARTY. Note socialist. The left equate fascism and Nazism to the right, and wrongly so, as they were on the right inside the spectrum of socialist ideology. The opposite of socialism is Classical Liberalism, which has NOTHING to do with contemporary liberal stances today. Classical Liberalism comes from our founding fathers and contends that the individual is first and foremost over the collective. Socialism entails the collective being a more important entity than the individual. So, Johnny$ is more than correct in equating Olbermann to Goebbels. My favorite name for him is OLBERGOEBBELS.

I really think it was wrong of Olbermann to label Bush as a fascist. Corrupt - yes, incompetent - yes, crony - yes, but the use of the word "fascism" as an insult has really been obscured. Fascism could be anything that somewhat resembles government. For example, a drinking age, age of consent, pro-life, pro-choice, patriotism, corporatism, collectivism, militarism, anything. The constitution could easily be labeled as a fascist document. Anarchism would actually be antithetical to "fascism"

and by the way before you get talking points from Jonah Goldberg, know that the Italian fascist party hated communists and socialists.

Posted by: sheikyerbouti420 at February 23, 2008 2:37 PM
"In Germany it was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKER'S PARTY. Note socialist. "

Yeah, and East Germany's real name was "The German Democratic Republic". What of it? Names mean jack.

To call fascist either left OR right misses the point. Once you get too far to either extreme, you're basically in the same place. The only question is if the government runs the corporations or if the corporations run the government. Either way, they're both essentially the same entity, so there's really no difference.

Take a look at Naomi Wolf's "10 Steps to Fascism" at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment (yeah yeah I know, she's a liberal, so you won't care what she says despite whether or not her research stacks up). Or simply look at the standard list of fascist traits as listed in Wikipedia: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

It's pretty obvious which direction the current administration is leaning. At least the Republicans were smart enough to finally see through Rudy's BS. I don't think we would have recovered from that nightmare. THANK YOU!!!

-Chiv

P.S. If Grammy and Cecelia are still here, HELLO! Sorry I haven't been around since that one month or so, but besides the fact that I found you two to be pretty much the only ones worth debating, I absolutely HATE this format for discussion. Maybe if the webmaster considered something like phbb (or whatever) so we could have actual topics that would be better. I would have loved to have continued some of those discussions. Cheers!

You know this, how?

Posted by: olby sucks at February 23, 2008 2:05 PM

God you're STUPID rk.

Just to add to what Trent said, I just stumbled across this interesting quote from George Orwell about fascism:

"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

There's another valid angle for looking at it.

I wouldn't have made the analogies if he hadn't done so previously, over, and over, and over.

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 23, 2008 2:12 PM

HE DID IT FIRST!!! MOMMY!!! HE HIT ME FIRST!!!!

Its nice to know that you don't hold yourself to any HIGHER standards than the ones you spend your life criticizing.

Goebbels said, "Not every item of news should be published.
Rather must those who control news policies endeavor
to make every item of news serve a certain purpose."

Sounds like Olbergoebbels to me.

Just to add to what Trent said, I just stumbled across this interesting quote from George Orwell about fascism:

"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

There's another valid angle for looking at it.

Posted by: Chiv at February 23, 2008 3:16 PM

What an excellent quote. I have been guilty of throwing around the word a couple of times before myself, but really if you actually sit down and try to define fascism, and sit down applying it to concepts of the sociological form, it will drive you crazy. Be it microcosmic or macrocosmic.

> Its nice to know that you don't hold yourself to any HIGHER standards

Wow. After spending years throwing back at Olbermann the names and insults he uses on others, documenting them in the Olbersaurus, and discussing this strategy in the FAQ, you just now figured out that we are using Olbermann's words against him? Nothing gets past you, does it?

What an excellent quote.
Trent the Situationist at February 23, 2008 3:31 PM

Yeah, after reading that quote I almost wanted to delete my own previous post for the same reason. :D :D :D

A reminder to check the KO mini-blog in the left column. Just updated with some interesting Olberlinks.

OLBYLOON DEBATING TACTICS 101

"I'm not sure how "it read in part" got missed in J$'s spew but there's no intent to deceive here."

Posted by: S. Knabt at February 23, 2008 1:55 PM

You know this, how?

Posted by: olby sucks at February 23, 2008 2:05 PM

You know this, how?

Posted by: olby sucks at February 23, 2008 2:05 PM

God you're STUPID rk.

Posted by: at February 23, 2008 3:15 PM

"How Olbermann Tricks His Audience"

Kind of strange, i watch the show and i did not feel tricked. I also am not a gullible lemming either. I know this may be hard to comprehend for some out there, so sit back and listen cafefully, regardless of which 8PM cable news program you prefer to watch. There are some people out there in the world who have the ability to think for themselves, who dont take everything these idiots say as 100% fact, some of us use that big muscle in our heads and dont waste our lives hanging on to everything these hosts say. Some people out there need to get a grip, people dont care about this garbage as much as you think they do. I come to this site occasionally because frankly the childish banter between these two sides is almost to funny to describe, but seriously what is worse, whatever it is that you are claiming Keith did (leave out the full quote...wow...really got him....welcome to news my friend..happens every day) or making NAZI references left and right in your writing. Are you telling me that you dont have the writing ability to make i through one story without a reference, and the argument of "he does it, so that means i can" is lame in its own regard.

Olbermannijad's use of Nazi tactics is no suprise. He's a totalitarinist. He supports The Iranian regime, Syria and Al-Qaeda. I bet also he loves the Castro brothers and Kim Jung Il. Olbermann is very dangerous and he should be investigated for ties Islamic radicals.

Hey! Speaking of misrepresentation of the facts:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge

This...is what you're wrought. Try owning up to it.

> Are you telling me that you dont have the writing ability to make i through one story without a reference

When a "news commentator" does the Seig Heil salute, is reprimanded by the anti-defamation league, compares the rise of the Bush administration to that of the Third Reich, says that Bush is acting like the Nazis, and compares the proposed FISA law to the war crimes of the Third Reich... When Herr Olbermann does all that, he deserves what he gets, Nazi-comparison-wise.

And your statement that I can't do a single post withOUT a Nazi reference is such a laughable, unprovable lie that it identifies you for what you are: an Olbypologist.

"He supports The Iranian regime, Syria and Al-Qaeda."
"Olbermann is very dangerous and he should be investigated for ties Islamic radicals"

PROVE IT, put one bit of any evidence that you have right here on this page. Anything, anything at all that you have, lay it out. I would love to see it, seriously. ANYTHING

The Bush administration is categorically a fascist cabal. Quit whining when people point it out.

My point is this, its called being a bigger person. Almost everyone would agree that referencing anyone to the NAZI's is wrong, Keith doing it included. Im not defending what he says or does, i dont care. But just cause has done it does not make it ok for you to do it. NO ONE SHOULD, you-him or anyone else. That is all, i think that is fair

"There are some people out there in the world who have the ability to think for themselves, who dont take everything these idiots say as 100% fact, some of us use that big muscle in our heads and dont waste our lives hanging on to everything these hosts say. Some people out there need to get a grip, people dont care about this garbage as much as you think they do."

--Anon, 3:56 pm

You have a good point, but the key word in there is SOME. SOME people have a discerning mind and think critically for themselves. But a lot don't. That's why Olbermann gets to me so much. He's an expert propagandist (or at least his writers are) and skilled at doing hit pieces and inflaming passions. What's worse is that even intelligent people can be duped or swayed by dishonest demagogues like Olbermann when they, by no fault of their own, get fed misinformation and lies. I'm intelligent, and even I have been had by Keith on a few occasions. Our only defense as news consumers against irresponsible pundits is to graze at a variety of different sources.

And your statement that I can't do a single post withOUT a Nazi reference is such a laughable, unprovable lie that it identifies you for what you are: an Olbypologist.

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 23, 2008 4:11 PM

Zactly.

>>>>

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge

This...is what you're wrought. Try owning up to it.

Posted by: broadsword at February 23, 2008 4:08 PM

I can see it now. The rolling stone author of the opinion piece w/a joint hanging out of his face while he is writing. New gal sitting w/a joint hanging out of her face while she is reading it. Then she has the nerve to tell us to read it thinking it actually has any credibility. Where else do you get your news, Penthouse?

That's why Olbermann gets to me so much. He's an expert propagandist (or at least his writers are) and skilled at doing hit pieces and inflaming passions.
Posted by: John-O at February 23, 2008 4:43 PM

Honest question since I don't know you or your positions — also, assuming for the sake of argument that your assertion about KO is correct:

Do you feel the same way about Rush, O'Reilly, and the various right-wing smear merchants who use the same tactics?

> Rush, O'Reilly, and the various right-wing smear merchants who use the same tactics?

Rush is a radio talk show host, and does not pretend to be a "journalist" or "news anchor". So why don't you pick another host of a nightly cable news program. If you want one that uses Olbermann's tactics you'll have to find one who never interviews people with an opposing viewpoint, and for more than a year has only interviewed politicians and elected officials from ONE party, with not a single person from the other party allowed to appear. So before you ask someone if they support those "same tactics", identify someone, anyone, on cable news with a show as one-sided, biased, and partisan as Olbermann, with a guest list all from one party, and we can take it from there.

Olbermann would make his Grandpa Goebbels proud. Can't the left wing hate machine find someone smart enough to argue their point without resorting to the Nazi propaganda play book?

Why does MSNBC continue to put up with Keith Olberman's constant harassment toward O'Reilley? When he kept calling Bill a racist, I couldn't believe it. How can Olberman be taken seriously as a new caster, especially one who is covering the election. If not so pathetic and dangerous, it would have been funny when Olberman said to Jesse Jackson," I'm just sorry we had to meet again under these circumstances." He has some real anger and hate issues brewing. If I were Chris Matthews, I would refuse to work with him.

> Rush, O'Reilly, and the various right-wing smear merchants who use the same tactics?

>Rush is a radio talk show host, and does not pretend to be a "journalist" or "news anchor". So why don't you pick another host of a nightly cable news program. If you want one that uses Olbermann's tactics you'll have to find one who never interviews people with an opposing viewpoint, and for more than a year has only interviewed politicians and elected officials from ONE party, with not a single person from the other party allowed to appear. So before you ask someone if they support those "same tactics", identify someone, anyone, on cable news with a show as one-sided, biased, and partisan as Olbermann, with a guest list all from one party, and we can take it from there.

Right on J$ ! There is no comparison. O'Reilly aways has a guest on with an opposing view. Thing is these lemmings don't watch the show and only think what Media Matters tells them to think. They cannot think for themselves and are afraid to watch O'Reilly because they would have to ask themselves,"Hmmm, I don't agree with BO because he seems to represent traditional values but I have to admit he has guests on his show that ARGUE with him".

Unfortunately we can't help these people to think for themselves. I heard a quote that fits these people perfectly: You can't reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into to begin with.

Olby would have fared well in Hitler's germany.

Do you feel the same way about Rush, O'Reilly, and the various right-wing smear merchants who use the same tactics?

Posted by: Chiv at February 23, 2008 6:34 PM

I agree with J$'s post just below yours that first you have to find someone who fits that description (not Rush, not O'Reilly). But to answer your question--it's the TACTICS I feel strongly about, not the ideology of the person. In fact, I'm what would be considered "liberal" on a few major issues. But haters like Olbermann who throw in with the Daily-Kos/ Media Matters political environment have really turned me off to the modern left.

I am either a far right democrat or far left republican, depends on the day.

I like most of the FOX news gang because they are mostly conservatives but they bring people on their shows that are democrats to see the other side of the argument.

I don't see that happening hardly ever on MSNBC especially that Olbermann guy. He is venomous as well. If someone believes something different to his view they are a nazi lover. Scary. I watch Olbermann once in awhile more to see how strange he may get than for anything newsworthy. His show might be interesting if he brought someone on that didn't agree with his ultra left point of view. I haven't seen one Republican guest on his show since I've been watching.
One thing I have noticed he hates Bill O'Reilly with a passion, did O'Reilly steal his wife or kill his dog?
I am just glad his ratings are so low or I would be worried about the ability of Americans to think objectively.

CNN does pretty well keeping it fair but doesn't have as much flair as FOX.

Any suggestions for a similar venue as O'Reilly or Olbermann that is middle of the road? I like O'Reilly because he does a descent job of hiding his bias and has good content on his show but I would like to try someone in the middle of the road.

They cannot think for themselves and are afraid to watch O'Reilly because they would have to ask themselves,"Hmmm, I don't agree with BO because he seems to represent traditional values but I have to admit he has guests on his show that ARGUE with him".

Posted by: CountDung at February 23, 2008 8:49 PM

They would HAVE to ask themselves that?
The ONLY reason one might not agree with Fuckstick O'Reilly is because he seems to represent "traditional values"?

Leave it to the knuckleheads out here to assume the world is ONLY black and white. One dislikes O'Reilly or his show and it is because he represents traditional values. That's like saying "They don't like me. It must be because I have a great personality, am exceptionally intelligent and am too good looking."

Like there aren't a million other reasons to hate O'Reilly. He's a pompous windbag who thinks his position is the only viable one no matter what the subject.
Kind of like most of the idiots out here, except you can substitute backwoods for pompous.

So is Johhny Mac trying to raise money from Americans or the ChiComs, or possibly some individuals from Dubai?

I think Keith with his superior intellect and assiduous journalistic skills should get to the bottom of this...

Are Hillary and Barry fascist for wanting to take over the entire health care system, make it one with the government? How about when they rip in to the moneylenders...

Not much difference between their stated goals and the goals of the Nazi party.

But we are led to believe that Bush is a fascist while ignoring all the clattering in the cupboards of the left?

Gimme a break.

I am a middle of the road moderate and think Olbermann is an obsessive borderline psychotic. They are both egotists but O'Reilly has it under control mostly. Try to watch both shows without your obvious bias and learn reality.

Sorry.

but I would like to try someone in the middle of the road.

Posted by: Vince - AZ at February 23, 2008 10:57 PM

Give Glenn Beck a try. He's about as fair as they come.

"So going for the 'high ground' J$ compares Keith to Joseph Goebbels, one one 2 Nazi references."

Actually the comparison to Goebbels is completely appropriate. Like Goebbels, Oralmann is a racist. In the last year he's made racist comments about Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews. Also, just like the Nazi propagandist, Herr Oralmann never, ever, talks to anyone who disagrees with him. He'll only interview fawning hate-spewing Demofascists who share his warped world view.

VIince, I am very conservative and agree completely with your assessment. Unfortunately, there are many here who consider being repulsed by KO is prima facie proof of mentally deranged fascism.

Have you ever taken the Shortest Political Quiz in the World? It literally takes a max of ten minutes. You can find it here:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I said I am very conservative but according to this I strongly lean conservative with a large dollop of Libertarian.

Welcome to OW.

Grammie

Glenn Beck. What time / channel?
I'll try the quiz. Thanx

Wow. I am a Libertarian. I didn't know that.

Thanx again.

No wonder I disagree with them all at some point or another.

I have always self described as very conservative but when I took the little test I found out I am a hybrid conservative libertarian. I was very surprised too.

If you analyse the questions it is not hard to see what the determiners are.

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Grammie

Just when I think the MSM can't surprise me ever again they manage to somehow come through.

"FNC Highlights CNN's Memo Calling for Praise of Fidel Castro" @

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/23/fnc-highlights-cnns-memo-calling-praising-castro

".....E.D. HILL: Castro's resigning, it was big news around the world, as the communist dictator announced he was stepping down in a letter. Castro has been a thorn in the side of every U.S. administration dating back to Dwight Eisenhower, has been known for his brutal repression of free speech and dissidents in Cuba. But, over at CNN, staffers were told in a note to accent the positive in their coverage. For example: "Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba -- namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration -- in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech.

"While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftists in Latin America, for standing up to the United States."....."

I love the last sentence above"While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftists in Latin America, for standing up to the United States."....."

Why confine their reason to praise Fidel Castro just to ameliorate and console in their grief "leftists in Latin America". Why would CNN ignore our home grown leftists such as M Moore (Sicko), Cindy Sheehan, the Black Caucus, Sean Penn etc?

Grammie

"namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration"

I wonder if commy news network mentioned that all of these were total disasters? That's a rhetorical question, of course.

Here is a clip of an Olbermann bio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCRDiBEc-kI

Pretty funny.

"namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration"

I wonder if commy news network mentioned that all of these were total disasters? That's a rhetorical question, of course.

Posted by: olby sucks at February 24, 2008 2:02 AM

Royal King!

Oh, the moonbats are shrieking and wailing in pain: Ralph Nader is running for president. I believe the Dems were doomed already as their hopes are pinned on the Pied Piper of politics and his feel-good warm, fuzzy message of change (which contains no substance whatsoever). Nader's announcement is the nail in the coffin for the Democrats.

Wow. On Meet the Press, David Brooks said Hilary needs to begin exposing Barack Hussein and his sham campaign promises. He suggested that she question Barack's claims that he will unite the divided on The Hill and corner him for explanations about how he plans to accomplish his grand plans. Perhaps Barack Hussein has magic beans.

The selective quote, erasing people from books and pictures -- all are beloved Stalinist tactics. Keith should have been compared to hero of the people Uncle Joe rather than Goebbels. Nonetheless, the point is well made -- Keith is a propagandist and a danger to himself and others (emphasis on OTHERS).

On another note, what we really need is a closet Muslim underexperienced socialist "feel good" President who was educated partially in Islamist hotbed Indonesia and has a wife who has "never been proud of this country" until her husband ran for President! That will fix everything!

Another stellar candidade choice by the Democrat party. They won't even vote for this guy when the time comes -- just another public tantrum by foolish children.

Add the NY Times public editor to the list of people who think the McCain story was a POS.

Well said, kfk.

Will the NYT delve into the interesting marriage Bill and Hillary have?

Why has that not warranted ASSISDUOUS investigation by a seasoned eye like Keef's?

She's a dyke, it's pretty obvious...

Everything on television is some form of propaganda. I prefer Olbermann's brand of it. Sure, sometimes he pisses me off, but I can't stand watching anyone else! I hate all the "personalities" at Fox, and straight news (Williams, Couric, Gibson) isn't satisfying or informative, because they can't have their own opinions about anything.

I would often use the News Hole blog to correct any inconsistencies or anything that I thought was just plain wrong, but they have done an extraordinarily shitty job of keeping up with that this week. Then I have to come here. Olbermann ought to realize that if he visits here regularly.

She's a dyke, it's pretty obvious...

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at February 24, 2008 1:29 PM

And mrs. obama is a racist. Which is why she had her thesis sealed until after the election.

I've been checking out the links in the left rail and came across this from a KO fan who may have suffered some derangement from too much exposure to KO.

"Keith, How AWESOME are you? You and your courage have given the American People the freedom to shed the shackles of fear. Like the " I am Spartacus " moment, you will have millions of Americans feeling the relief of freedom from fear!! THAT is how awesome you are!
Thank you for what you do.... I adore you for it!
Cris - dallas texas (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 2:37 PM)"

I just can't get my mind around the concept of KO as:

!!!!!!!!SPARTICUS!!!!!!!!!! SHEDDING THE SHACKLES OF FEAR.

Does this non stop hyperbolic rhetoric leave us with any words to describe genuine horrors.

If Gitmo is an American GULAG what words do we use for real bona fide gulags such as in the Soviet Union?

If Gitmo is an American Death Camp what words do we use for real bona fide death camps such as in Nazi Germany?

Grammie

"Kind of strange, i watch the show and i did not feel tricked. I also am not a gullible lemming either. I know this may be hard to comprehend for some out there, so sit back and listen cafefully, regardless of which 8PM cable news program you prefer to watch. There are some people out there in the world who have the ability to think for themselves, who dont take everything these idiots say as 100% fact, some of us use that big muscle in our heads and dont waste our lives hanging on to everything these hosts say. Some people out there need to get a grip, people dont care about this garbage as much as you think they do. I come to this site occasionally because frankly the childish banter between these two sides is almost to funny to describe, but seriously what is worse, whatever it is that you are claiming Keith did (leave out the full quote...wow...really got him....welcome to news my friend..happens every day) or making NAZI references left and right in your writing. Are you telling me that you dont have the writing ability to make i through one story without a reference, and the argument of "he does it, so that means i can" is lame in its own regard."

Written 2/23 at 3:56

This is is worse than a left wing loon . The statement "If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for anything" describes this person. This is the same person that will vote for Obama. Today a FNC embedded reporter in RI interviewd a woman running a store who said when asked who she would vote for, "I'm voting for Obama because he voted against the war". 25% of people polled in the UK think Churchill was not a real person or mythical. If a voter had to pass an 8th grade equivalency test before entering the voting booth, DC would be 100% Conservative.

The writer admits he watches a show that by his own admission is deceiving the viewer and by his own admission he visits this site because he is attracted to "childish banter".

Sounds to me you are having trouble figuring it out. The fact you took the time to visit this site and contribute is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. Just what do youstand for? You think because you see faults in either side you are therefore more intelligent than one who would side with his chosen side. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on you. If you and I went to Vegas with $100 in our pockets, when we got back home I would either be flat busted or have a couple grand in m y pocket, you would have either $95 or $105. I have seen it long enough the guy that won;t stand for nothing, hides in the back of the pack and won't speak up such as a team brianstorming a problem is nothing more than a coward.

Posted by: ( ) at February 24, 2008 2:55 PM

The troll you are responding to is nothing more than an olbypologist who thinks they are in disguise. The actual 'apology' is right here:

"There are some people out there in the world who have the ability to think for themselves, who dont take everything these idiots say as 100% fact, some of us use that big muscle in our heads and dont waste our lives hanging on to everything these hosts say. Some people out there need to get a grip, people dont care about this garbage as much as you think they do."

UUUHHHGGG, here we go. I am not a "left wing loon", yes given the options i will vote for Obama, i know that Churchill was a real person, nor do i care what a poll in the UK states, i could pass an 8th grade equivalency test, etc, etc, etc. Here is what i feel about this site, i do enjoy it. I think there should be a site that watches what all these new personalities state, i think it is good and will help keep them in check. BUT, there is no conversation here. Just hate, insults, false accusations, etc. So far just on this topic, Keith has been accused of ties to Iran, Al Qaeda, Syria, he has been compared to NAZI's, called a fascist, and so on. And of coarse, then there are insults and accusations thrown at O'Reilly and others. My question is, what good does that do? That is what i am wondering, the premise of this website is good, but it is disheartening to read what some people are saying, on both sides. I like Countdown because i find it ENTERTAINING, that does not make me some sort of idiotic, gullible fool. One more question though, here was the quote from ()
"If a voter had to pass an 8th grade equivalency test before entering the voting booth, DC would be 100% Conservative"

Do you really, honestly believe that. Do you really think that only people with even the smallest amount of intelligence vote Republican and that all people who vote Democrat are inherently stupid. Really is that what you believe?

Yes, I do believe that Democrats (and those who vote Democrat) are inherently stupid.

"obamamania" is a good example. Those people that are flocking like sheep to his sermons, for the most part, have not a clue of his views, voting record or his backgound.

"Those people that are flocking like sheep to his sermons, for the most part, have not a clue of his views, voting record or his backgound."

Well then, by all means, enlighten us.

"Those people that are flocking like sheep to his sermons, for the most part, have not a clue of his views, voting record or his background."

Oh no...it's not like he hasn't written books on the subject, and participated in about 20 debates, and spent several years as a state legislator, and then as a highly respected US Senator. And then we can agnor about 100 or so speeches....including the one about how stupid it would be for us to invade Iraq well before the invasion.

And then we can agnor about 100 or so speeches....

posted by mike

How can you "agnor" "Change!" 500 times a week?

I think I will agnor Mike and Barack Hussein Obama.

I hear that Hillary supporters are going to agnor B. Hussein Obama if he is the Dem nominee. How many will jump ship and vote for Nader or McCain?

The NYT helped them change their minds, Dreamer. Libnuts destroy everything they touch.

"Libnuts destroy everything they touch."

Unlike their Polar opposites who, having started with a balanced budget and relative peace, have managed to create record debts, and an unending war that could have and should have been avoided.

8:5 Anon, your rhetoric could not be more hollow.
'

Will the NYT delve into the interesting marriage Bill and Hillary have?

Why has that not warranted ASSISDUOUS investigation by a seasoned eye like Keef's?

She's a dyke, it's pretty obvious...

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at February 24, 2008 1:29 PM

Get you're finger out of your butt.

If the Dems weren't so anemic and weak that they could get into the White House, then maybe the story would be different. Unfortunately, they are losers and whiners and after 8 years of The Clinton mafia, the nation has chosen to agnor them.

Will the NYT delve into the interesting marriage Bill and Hillary have?

Why has that not warranted ASSISDUOUS investigation by a seasoned eye like Keef's?

She's a dyke, it's pretty obvious...

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at February 24, 2008 1:29 PM

This is what O'Reilly and Bernie were talking about the other night in reference to the times running with a story w/not a shred of evidence. They said it's well known all over Washington, but, with no hard evidence the right wing media (If there's such a thing) won't cover it because they have higher journalistic standards.

Libnuts destroy everything they touch."

Unlike their Polar opposites who, having started with a balanced budget and relative peace, have managed to create record debts, and an unending war that could have and should have been avoided.

8:5 Anon, your rhetoric could not be more hollow.
'

Posted by: Mike at February 24, 2008 8:35 PM

This is the second time you've mention a balanced budget.

I'm just wondering where you think the legislation came from during the Clinton years. Who controlled spending and what sort of markets sparked the economy.

And all so you could feel marginally good about the country for once...

Cecelia: "I'm just wondering where you think the legislation came from during the Clinton years. Who controlled spending and what sort of markets sparked the economy."

While the reason for the surplus is arguable, what disappointed me was that the moment the budget was successfully balanced, the republicans started calling for "tax cuts", ..... using the battle cry of "give it back".

But balancing the budget was only the FIRST step. We also needed to pay down the national debt and begin to shore up Social Security in the manner that it's original mandate dictated, .... therefore, it was NOT yet time to revert back to massive budget deficits by cutting taxes for those who needed it the least.
'
But that is exactly what Bush Republicans chose to do, .... almost from day 1. I even remember reading about an early high level staff meating in which Cheney famously said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

Whenever I hear a hard core conservative call for more and more tax cuts, .... I wonder WHY they don't seem to care about the massive deficits? WHY don't they care that the war is being financed on borrowed money? WHY don't they care that our future is being mortgaged for short term gain? WHY don't they care about the soaring international debt?

Then when one of them talks about being "against" tax increases, they always speak as though it were an entity upon itself devoid of negative consequences. They speak as if some of us simply LIKE tax cuts, and others simply don't....As if it were nothing more than simply a matter of personal preference.

What I don't know is WHY?

Anon @ 9:36: "After 8 years of the Clinton Mafia, the nation has chosen to agnor them."

Anon, you could probably add "meating" to "agnor" and come up with an even cuter little phrase since you like pointing out routine spelling errors so much.

Anon, you could probably add "meating" to "agnor" and come up with an even cuter little phrase since you like pointing out routine spelling errors so much.

Posted by: Mike at February 24, 2008 10:42 PM

What's the matter, mike? Can't take it? I remember when I misspelled 'imbOcile' on purpose for effect and you brought it up 15 or 20 times after that. Myself and someone else points out your ignorance and you cry like a baby! Not surprised, at all.

You have one funny definition of 'crying' cowboy.

Funny how this is the first time you have ever claimed you mispelled "inbOcile" on purpose.

I hassled you about that for good reason. You have NO business whatsoever calling anyone else an imbecile...and it made YOU look like the stupid one when you misspelled it.

"On purpose" my ass!

Mike-

I like your assumption of "relative peace" during the Clinton years... does this include the first World Trade Center bombing... the attack on the USS Cole... the enforcement in Iraq of no fly zones and air to air combat and bombings (including aspirin factories)... the whole serb/croat thing... the unchecked rise of islamofascist terror throughout the world that included the unabashed rise of OBL and Al Qaeda... or do you think that all happened in the eight months that Bush was president and was having unprecedented trouble getting Congressional approval on even the most minor post assignments?

The responsibility for balancing of the budget is arguable? Gee I thought the law that the Republican Congress passed requiring it was fundamental toward that goal.

Social Security - Gore had a lockbox... W actually stepped up with a viable plan for privatizing a small part of it and giving control to the people... He was the only one who proposed and actual plan and tried to put it into place only to be naysayed by the left side of the aisle and its willing media whores...like KO

Tax cuts put in place by W are responsible for the record tax revenues that have been streaming in and kept us out of the deep recession that would have immediately followed the 9/11 attacks. Also, the war which was justified and voted for by your precious leftists based on the Same info BJ Clinton put out there has been the main contributor to the debt, but I would not want to live in the world that would have accompanied it...it would have shown open season on the us for attacks without retaliation... Al Gore's mythic presidency gives you guys wet dreams...for people who understand international relations and the law of consequences...It would have meant a leftawrd shift towards a smoking pile of ruin

... Of Kourse KO would still have BOR as WPITW while letting the terrorist leaders of the world have free reign

as the professor in War of the Worlds told the soldier when asked where he was going..."Not to your world!"

Scary, you are wrong on EVERY single point you brought up.

Not ONE of your so called facts and assumptions are provable.

But the craziest thing of all that you just said was that this war was "justified"...which means you obviously STILL think it was a good idea, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Whats "scary' is that there are people who believe as you do.

Whats "scary' is that there are people who believe as you do.

Posted by: Mike at February 25, 2008 12:01 AM

Be afraid, be very, very afraid!

Funny how this is the first time you have ever claimed you mispelled "inbOcile" on purpose.

I hassled you about that for good reason. You have NO business whatsoever calling anyone else an imbecile...and it made YOU look like the stupid one when you misspelled it.

"On purpose" my ass!

Posted by: Mike at February 24, 2008 11:44 PM

I told your self righteous ass right after I made the post I did it on purpose. Get off the dope. Also, having said that, i is right next to o, a is nowhere near i! 'agnor.' Prick.

Mike,

Are you disputing the first paragraph from Scary Uncle's 11:51 post? He forgot to mention that during Bubba's reign, some illegal aliens were taking flying lessons, as in Boeing 767. "I don't need to learn how to take off or land the plane, just to fly it for a while, please".

Mike-

My Facts as you call them (check my post and you will see I did not use the word) are every single bit as procable as yours.

What is your proof that I am wrong on EVERY single point? I see no counter-argument or analysis on your part (especially the part about the "peace" Bush inherited from BJC). I see only hyperbole and put downs... as Harry Carey said on so many occassions... "Swing and a miss!"

The REALLY scary part, Mike, is that there are people who believe as YOU do!

"does this include the first World Trade Center bombing... the attack on the USS Cole... the enforcement in Iraq of no fly zones and air to air combat and bombings (including aspirin factories)... the whole serb/croat thing... the unchecked rise of islamofascist terror throughout the world that included the unabashed rise of OBL and Al Qaeda"

posted by scary uncle

Not ONE of your so called facts and assumptions are provable.

posted by mike

I anxiously await for your "disproval" of these points. This oughta be good.

What is your proof that I am wrong on EVERY single point?

posted by scary uncle

When you get a chance, check the archives. This is a common debating tactic of the olbyloons, namely mike. "You're wrong" with not a shred of proof.

Mike-

I know what a stickler you are for spelling... sorry for hitting a c instead of the v in "provable". I know you would never make a spelling error yourself

/sarc off

Whats "scary' is that there are people who believe as you do.

Posted by: Mike at February 25, 2008 12:01 AM

Scary, not to fear, he's used the EXACT line on me several times.

mike has left the building..............

"I anxiously await your "disproval" of these points. This ought to be good."

It's funny how you ask for 'disproof', without providing anything but opinions yourself?

One thing at a time.

First, lets look at your implication that a period that included a few terrorist bombings was not a "period of relative peace."

In my lifetime, I remember....The Cuban Missile Crisis....Bay of Pigs....The Invasion of Panama....The invasion of Grenada....The attack on Libya....The Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon....The Iranian hostage crisis....Vietnam....The disaster in the Iranian desert....USS pueblo....& Gulf One. I'm sure I've missed a few others. None of these occurred during the Clinton years, and terrorism was alive and well long before the first World Trade Center bombing.

Of all of those, the Vietnam period was the only one that could not be described as having occurred in a period of "relative peace". It was another regrettable decision that included no end game, and was intentionally escalated with for contrived reasons (Gulf of Tonkin).

If you REALLY believe that there is ever going to be an extended period completely free of such incidents, and that we can create such a world through US military action, then you are REALLY living in a dream world.

BTW, I am NOT a "stickler" for spelling errors. I make plenty myself. The only time I ever recall criticizing anyone about a spelling error is when they mispelled the very word they used to deride someone else's intelligence.....and then wasn't even smart enough to see the irony in what he did.

"Scary, not to fear. He's used the EXACT line on me several times."

Don't flatter yourself.....To Scary's credit, he actually seems willing to debate....which is something you've NEVER done!

If you REALLY believe that there is ever going to be an extended period completely free of such incidents, and that we can create such a world through US military action, then you are REALLY living in a dream world.

posted by mike

This kinda shoots the shit out of your "If alGore were president none of this would have happened" theory, huh?

"does this include the first World Trade Center bombing... the attack on the USS Cole... the enforcement in Iraq of no fly zones and air to air combat and bombings (including aspirin factories)... the whole serb/croat thing... the unchecked rise of islamofascist terror throughout the world that included the unabashed rise of OBL and Al Qaeda"

posted by scary uncle

Still waiting for you to prove these didn't happen...........

Olby Sucks" "This kinda shoots the shit out of your "if alGore were president none of this would have happened" theory, huh?"

I see you're incorrectly paraphrasing me using quotes again. I never said that and you know it.

What I said was is that the Iraq invasion would have not happened if Al Gore had become president, and you know that is true as well.

"Scary, not to fear. He's used the EXACT line on me several times."

Don't flatter yourself.....To Scary's credit, he actually seems willing to debate....which is something you've NEVER done!

Posted by: Mike at February 25, 2008 12:43 AM

You're right, scary. Hyperbole and putdowns. Just our daily dose......

"if alGore were president none of this would have happened"

This is EXACTLY what you said.

"Still waiting for you to prove these things didn't happen....."

Nobody said they "didn't happen".

What I said was that they happened within a period of "relative peace".

Olby Sucks, you should change your name once again....This time, change it to "he who always misses the point"....and you'll finally have it right.

"This is EXACTLY what you said."

In reference to the IRAQ WAR only.

DO you have a pont to make here?

Would you care to elaborate as to how it relates to my point about living in a dream world?

Mike,
Ahamdinejad called Israel bacteria, why didn't Teheran Keith name him WPITW? Also why id Keith Pro-Iran?

Scary have you left the building?

If so, I will assume there is no intelligent life on the blog for now and close out for the night.

I never said that and you know it.

posted by mike

>

In reference to the IRAQ WAR only.

posted by mike

Scary, you are wrong on EVERY single point you brought up.

Not ONE of your so called facts and assumptions are provable.

posted by mike

Wow....When did Joe Scarborough become an arm of the Hillary Clinton Campaign?

His show began with a 20 minute long hit piece on Obama, .... and simultaineous love fest for Hillary.

I guess the Washington establishment just isn't going to go down that easily.

"You have one funny definition of 'crying' cowboy."

Mike, you are one of the biggest whiners I have ever read on the net by far. You truely are a liberal.

"On purpose" my ass!"

Mike, being a liberal is calling everyone you disagre with a liar. It doesn't cut it with someone with an IQ greater than a chimp. That's the only way Olby can justify his garbage is to say the Bush administration is stonewalling or lying. A miserable person that whines and calls people liars has some very real issues.

"Mike, you are one of the biggest whiners I have ever read on the net by far, You are truely a liberal."

And YOU, whoever the hell you are, are nothing if not a name caller.

Not only that, you don't have a clue about my politics, which are far more anti-establishment than they are "liberal".

"A miserable person that whines and calls people liars has some very real issues."

Hypocritical whining coming straight from the mouth of a classic "whiner" who knows nothing except how to make ad hominem attacks completely devoid of substance.

"If you REALLY believe that there is ever going to be an extended period completely free of such incidents, and that we can create such a world through US military action, then you are REALLY living in a dream world."

Extended periods. Coining another liberal talking point?

Mike, meet reality. Under George Bush this country has not been attacked nearly 7 years. Count'em Mike, seven. Does that meet your extended period measure or just because it's GW I guess you would say 10 years.

You are just a liberal that refuses to give George Bush any credit for your hatred of the man.

Our military has killed them by the thousands and have the rest hiding in caves.

I almost hope Barak wins in November so people like you get a big dose of reality.

"Mike,being a liberal is calling everyone you disagree with a liar."

definitely a new and interesting definition of "liberal" that most of have never heard before.

"And YOU, whoever the hell you are, are nothing if not a name caller."

"Hypocritical whining coming straight from the mouth of a classic "whiner" who knows nothing except how to make ad hominem attacks completely devoid of substance."

ROTFLMFAO.

You sound like a stuck record whiner.

You do remember records with your impressive history recollection you laid on us?

"definitely a new and interesting definition of "liberal" that most of have never heard before."

You know, I am wrong. There are only a handfull of democrats left, Zell, Lieberman, Ron "Tater Salad" White and a few more liberals. What is comical is you anti-establishments and your hatred of George Bush make you perfectly aligned with left wing nut jobs.

"Mike, meet reality. Under George Bush this country has not been attacked in nearly 7 years."

Finally through with your ad hominem attacks, no name?

Are you REALLY naive enough to believe in that line you just fed me? Are you REALLY naive enough to believe there hasn't been another Terorist attack on US soil because GWB was stupid enough to invade a country that didn't attack us?

What about the nearly 8 years without any Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil BEFORE 911? They don't count do they no name?

What about the 4000 Americans that have been killed attacking the wrong country during thise 7 years? What about the many multiples of that number of American veterans whose lives have been ruined attacking the wrong country?

What about our military that has been overextended and weakened in the process of occupying the wrong country?

What about the heavy burden of additional debt that this country has mortgaged it's very future with in the process of occupying a country that had nothing to do with either the 911 attacks, .... OR Al Qeada?

Better stick with personal attacks no name. You have nothing otherwise.

No name: "your hatred of George Bush makes you perfectly aligned with left wing nut jobs."

Better them than being aligned with the right wing nut jobs!

BYW no name, I am anti-establishment because it is the establishment that has screwed up Washington so badly, .... and turned it into a virtual cesspool of K street lobbying for anything and everything BUT the best interests of mainstream America.

No Name: "I hope Barak Obama wins in November so people like you could get a big dose of reality"

Too late! I've gotten already that "big dose of reality" the last seven years.

When you are starting with an absolute zero, there is simply nowhere to go but up.

Mike,

In 1991 we attacked a country that hadn't attacked us. Were we wrong to have done so?

It's pointless, Rico.....The Iraq war "issue," must be framed in a way to gain maximum leverage for the politician using it....in the case of Obama, it is the only foreign policy "experience" he has: "I did not support the invasion....this makes me the smartest!"

OK.....what does this say about the CURRENT situation....nothing. This is the problem facing the candidates: framing the debate, and I hope we have a much deeper and substanative discussion of middle east policy in relation to radical islamic terrorism, ongoing and escalating threats against Israel, and the idea that DEMOCRACY is at stake in Iraq...a society that is going in a positive direction thanks to The United States....

blindly withdrawing troops will not aid this progress....what is Obama's alternatives?

cee,

For the left there is only one war, and one enemy, and we are it.

Mike-

In response to 1239am

Based on the items you have listed to define relative peace, we are currently in a period of relative peace worldwide, its just that the rough part of that relative is happening with US troops.

I don't subscribe to your dream world theory either...I believe the US and its military can create the opportunity to build a peace...which was the objective in the first place

Also, Iraq was not contrived (ie Gulf of Tonkin)...there was viable proof that was gathered and believed to be true by every major country that has any sort of competent intelligence gathering service. We have found evidence of items having been there, but they had years to hide or move them. We also know for a fact that he had such weapons because he used them against Iran and the Kurds.

PS in regards to 729am---since GWB went into Iraq, Afgahnistan, and just across the border in Pakistan, the number of WORLDWIDE (not just US soil...why should that be the defining element when the war on terror is not just for the US, but the world as well) terror attacks is far less that during the Clinton admin. Also, the reason it was weakened and overextended by this operation is that the step down during the Clinton admin went too far IMHO.

Finally, if you are indeed anti-establishment, you cannot be for Obama as he comes from the US Senate...that's a pretty big establishment job in pretty much the biggest establishment place there is...therefore I take it you are backing Nader?????

Yep. I know the Iraq war is just one of many issues the left is prepared to use to manipulate people based on their fears and prejudices. The consequences of short-sighted foreign policy will not be known for a long time and some American voters are not considering such facts.

What happens if Iraq fails to maintain their democracy? I do not recall Obama ever answering this question.

Why is it important to take Iran's rhetoric seriously regarding wiping Israel off the map? Ditto here...In fact I have never heard Obama even utter the word, "Israel."

Why is it necessary The United States maintain a military presence in the middle east with Al Queda being marginalized? This is anathema to the American left. Yet, they have no rebuttal to the fact that Al Queda has declined in activity and influence both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Engagement is the only option....especially after what happened on 9/11.

The American people have a choice...A return to an inward looking approach or a policy that is working that meets the enemy and prevents horrible events like 9/11.

We will see what choice is made.

"In 1991 we attacked a country that didn't attack us. Were we wrong in doing so?"

You've GOT to be kidding Rico!

1) - In 1991, the UN COLLECTIVELY evicted a country out of another country when they attacked and occupied a country that had not attacked them. We were only the leader.

2) - While the UN has been used an an excuse for our action, the ones who argue that point always leave out the fact that our action was opposed by that same UN.

3) - In 1991, we did not OCCUPY the country we oposed.

4) - In 1991, we had a definite end game that guaranteed we would not become bogged down.

5) - In 1991, our action was financed largely by others.

Most of us who have opposed this war have NOT done so because we think it makes the US look like an ogre.....we have done so because we have HURT ourselves immeasurably in the process....and have accomplished nothing tangible in regards to our own national interest.
And Cee, the question about how we got there IS vitally important....because we do not want to become stuck with yet another president whose judgement is as poor as the one we have now.....and it is ALWAYS vital to understand what went wrong before any problem can be fixed.

"Finally, if you are indeed anti-establishment, you cannot be for Obama as he comes from the US Senate...that's a pretty big establishment job in pretty much the biggest establishment place there is...therefore I take it you are backing Nader?????"

###
Great point. Obama is not an anti-establishment candidate as shown by his fundraising and now increasing support of the democratic party establishment.....This is the problem with the democratic party. They were 100% behind Clinton and ready to annoint her last fall, but she was a flawed candidate (an obvious fact and not electable), and as this became clear to normal people, the only alternative was the charasmatic and eloquent neophyte, Senator Obama....He is now becoming the establishment candidate with the same ideas, policy positions and constuency as the typical leftist the democrats put forth every election cycle.....

Kucinich or Nader are "anti-establishment," calling for impeachment, refusing corporate backing and truly walking the walk....Obama is NOT.

So, as the next 8 months unfold, the truth will surface that this election, although having the first serious African-American contender, is no different than 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, etc......The establishment, DC power elite have their usual cohorts representing them and the choice will be made.....

business as usual.

"therefore I take it you are backing Nader."

No, because Nader only has a chance to be a spoiler....AGAIN. He lacks charisma, exposure, AND an established party affiliation, which means supporting him would only help the greater of two evils (the republicans)....AGAIN. Obama has also shown decent judgement in the majority of his positions to date.

While Obama is indeed a US Senator, I do not consider him part of the establishment because he has only been in the Senate for two years and has not (yet) become tainted the way so many of them do when they make it a career.

Mike, Senator Obama claims wisdom for opposing the war from the start....given....now what?....The positive progress since the surge and beyond is the ONLY choice we face as a country and Obama only addresses it with something along the lines like, "I will have all combat troops out within 16 months, except if there is something happenning on the ground that makes that impractical."

What? Talk about padding your bet....Also, he was against the surge and every objective measure, including evaluating political process, has been positive since last year....The radical Shia have even just recently extended their cease-fire! Obama was against this successful policy.

So, please fast-forward from 6 years ago! The time is NOW and we must prepare to support the growing democratic nation with security and resources...We did it with Japan and Germany....with South Korea as well....Iraq deserves just as much/

"or a policy that meets the enemy and is working that meets the enemy and prevents horrible events like 9/11."

Cee's self delusion continues while the real enemy who actually attacked us on 911 remains alive, well, fat, & happy in the REAL ground zero of international terrorism.

"Mike,, Senator Obama claims wisdom for opposing the war from the start....given....now what?"

We need a leader who has shown wisdom and the correct vision in the past in order to expect the same in the future.

Is that because Obama has rarely shown up for work since being elected Senator? He has been running for president for over a year now...if I was from IL and donated to his senate campaign there, I would sue for a refund...

as far as not tainted....his corporate donations exceed McCain's

personally I do not like Senators as presidents...I tend to prefer governors...they have an executive mindset vs a legislative one...the legislators live in their own world...but I do like someone to have political experience because most of the job is dealing witht he legislature...of course this means I am not a fan of Obama or McCain...I wish could start over from scratch for BOT sides

"while the real enemy who actually attacked us on 911 remains alive, well, fat, & happy in the REAL ground zero of international terrorism."

###
Proof please.....

My resurrance that Bush has done the right thing these past 6 years is supported as follows....

"We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa’ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11."

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf

###
And the FACT that Al Queda has not successfully hit civilian targets in The US is further proof that engagement has worked as opposed to what the left did in the 1990's and is requesting we return to now....

No delusion, Mike...I look at the WTC absent NYC skyline as the proof of failed policy by the Clinton administration and I look forward to adults conducting our foreign policy without regard to simplistic political power deals and what "feels good."

Empty rhetoric is a dangerous thing and Obama has offerred nothing but feel good rhetoric when it comes to serious policy matters.

Also Cee, it is not a given that "the surge" has been entirely responsible for Iraq's return to it's previous levels of violence.

As you have conceded yourself, Sadr is largely responsible for what is happening himself, but has not become a fan of democracy or reconcilliation just because he is holding his Madi Army at bay.

There were many signs that Al Qeada was already being rejected internally by both the Shia and the Sunni prior to "The Surge", and there is no tangible evidence that things may not have quieted down anyway had we not adopted the reccomendations of the Iraq Study Group, instead of just flippantly blowing them off like we did.

The main difference is that we might have been much closer to an acceptable final solution today.

"personally I do not like senators as presidents....I prefer governors."

Then you get presidents like this one, Jimmy carter, and Bill Clinton, and you are ignoring the legacy of the last elected president who was a senator.....John F. Kennedy.

This "executive mindset" thing is vastly overated in regards to the presidency.

I do not deal in "might," Mike.

You have no way to know for sure that if we had followed a different course than the surge we would be better off...

No way.

And Presidents do not deal in, "might's." They deal in reality and the reality is that there has been positive political reconcilliation and the radical Shia have allowed the process to continue without violent interference and Obama was opposed to increacing security last year that made such things possible. Also, Al Queda has not been given a propaganda tool in premature US withrawal....That little gem is still possible under a different adminstration because Bush fought and won against such a policy since 2006.

So Mike, dealing in "might's," and "could's" is worthless....the surge policy is intact and has to be either stopped (Obama) or continued (McCain) and we will see the results. I bet you that if US Troops are withdrawn quickly and without regard to the effect on continued stable democracy in Iraq, the person making that decision will be held accountable and the results on their credibility internationally and domestically will not be very good.

If Obama becomes President and oversees a failure in Iraq, people will not put the blame on Bush....it will be where it belongs....on the current Commander-in-Chief.

Cee: "you have no way to know for sure that if we had followed a different course then the surge we would be better off."

Granted....but we don't know for certain that we wouldn't be either. Remember that "The surge" was not sold as a certainty either, even by it's supporters.

One valid point that your side has is that Al Qeada might try to use it as a propaganda tool if we withdraw, but I believe reasonable and intelligent people would take that with a grain of salt as long as Al Qeada is not left in charge, ... a scenario that I believe is HIGHLY unlikely.

Regarding your last sentence, I do not understand your logic at all. Lets look at a possible scenario involving yourself: ..... IF you were to treat a patient unsuccessfully after an incompetent doctor had treated them wrongly, therebye irreversably damaging vital organs, .... would YOU then get the blame if the patient ultimately dies?

I didn't think so either.

Mike, thank you my friend for your relentless support. Without people like you, my other friend, Barack, would not stand a chance.

Go Obama!

Mike @1048

I noticed you skipped RR former governor of CA, whose presidency help to change the globe by bringing about the end of the Soviet Union...he was a pretty good guy!

Plus, I think you fall into the trap of the mythical JFK and not the real occurences of his presidency...Due to his death in office, the whole Camelot thing is just completely overblown.

Also, the Kennedy clan can hardly be referred to as anit-establishment...generally speaking, they are the establishment

PS...I think RFK would have been to one out of all of them that could have been the most effective public servant

Scary: Yes, I intentionally skipped RR because he was something of a contradiction in my opinion. A potentially great president tainted by an obsession with a banana republican revolution that caused him to cross the line ehtically and morally with "Iran/Contra".

I liked Reagan. His charisma was legendary, and he had a way of taking his aganda directly to the people that has not been duplicated since. I just wish he had remained objective enough to avoid the Iran/contra debacle.

I attribute Reagan's overall success to his fantastic ability to communicate rather than any "executive mindset" that he may have picked up while governor of California. He attained his ability as "The Great Communicator" more from Hollywood than anywhere else.

And no, JFK was not perfect either, but he certainly kept his head during the Cubam Missile Crisis, possibly aoiding mutual destruction, .... but he also had his "Bay of Pigs".

Overall, both JFK and RR would have to rate as very good....and cancel each other out as far as the 'governor vs Senator' question. But then, we have the others already mentioned to tip the balance back towards 'senator' again.

And no, I don't consider the Kennedy's to be anti-establishment. I don't even like Ted. He can't hold a candle to either of his deceased brothers, either ethically or professionally.

That said, being "Anti-establishment" is not necessarily an ideal permanent state of being, ..... it is just what is called for now under the present set of circumstances.

Mike

Don't let the DU's, KosKids, or HuffPo's know what you said about Teddy...after all, they consider him and his family American Royalty

On MEET THE PRESS this weekend Nader stated his candidacy would highlight the need for a single-payer health insurance, labor law reform, Pentagon waste, corporate crime, the illegal occupation of Palestine, and impeachment -- Nader claimed Clinton, Obama, and McCain have taken these issues off the table.

I remember the 2006 election..... Impeachment was called for by many on the radical left and even on this board. In fact, Olbermann has called for such measures! Why is Nader persona non grata to the very same people calling Bush a liar and crook.....impeachable offenses?

I am very confused at the ease of some to forgo their principles regarding right and wrong.

I am very confused at the ease of some to forgo their principles regarding right and wrong.

Posted by: cee at February 25, 2008 2:29 PM

I think you are making the incorrect assumption that they had principles or have principles other than power at all cost.

I know Factor.....The abandonment of Saint Ralph for the angelic Obamessiah will surely make a geat passion play for the religious left!

More good news today......

"Monday’s results also show John McCain continuing to hold a very modest lead against both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in general election match-ups. McCain now leads Obama 47% to 43% and Clinton 47% to 44%. McCain has consistently held a modest lead over Clinton but he moved ahead of Obama only in the past few days."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

###
I guess the "freight train" the left keeps warning me about is more like a Lionel.....And this is before we even get into the junior Senator's record, and difficult associations with people in the Nation of Islam community.....

When Obama pulls more than 50% in polling, I'll become discouraged....especially with Nader entering the race.

CHANGE!

'Why is anybody concerned about this?"

Hillary Clinton about:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm

###
He, he, he....Clinton Co. is really letting loose!....And Obama is taking the bait and decrying it....Why is Obama upset?

The democrat primary candidates are concerned over what they are WEARING now! Are they serious? I thought the democrats were about issues and rational?

Oh my....this is getting absurd....This little picture can actually cause a stir in the campaign really shows how deep the whole process is on the left......

Again, who are the adults? The dems?....I don't think so.....

What will Olbermann say about this important issue tonight, on COUNTDOWN?.....Obama in Somali clothing! Run! Run! Run!

Unbelievable!

Where are all the left's apologists?

Mike?
WDYT?
broadsword?
Sir Loin of Milquetoast?

cee,
Teheran Keith Olbermannijad will say nothing or very little. He won't condemn Hillary for this. Jjust like he said nothing about his friend Ahmadinejad calling Israel bacteris.
Mike and the Teheran Keith supporters will say nothing.

You people are grasping at anything aren't you.. This election is over.. McCain will look awful in any debates against Obama.. The eight year reign of republican error is over.

Poor O'lielly....not only does he not believe in God....but he does not believe in holding elections.....

What polls are you looking at, O'lielly?....Oh, and what Electoral College scenarios are you looking at?....It is the same layout as it was in 2000 and 2004.....split 50/50 and the states leaning blue/red or toss-up....the same....

Obama is a cardboard cutout....and has lots of silly little skeletons still waiting to be discussed....like his connections with people high up in The Nation of Islam.....It is going to be an interesting campaign!

BTW....how can you, an atheist, be so excited about Obamessiah?.....A born-again Christian and no there is the rational secular leftist Ralph Nader in the race?.....

Don't you vote on principle, O'lielly?

Cee, you have been much too hard on Bill O'leilly.

Everyone KNOWS that the Pats won the last Super Bowl! They were shoo ins and could not have possibly loss which is why the game was cancelled and the Pats DECLARED the winners!

That is what happened, isn't it?

Grammie

Keith really hates Hillary. The turning point for him was when she criticized MSNBC and said Fox had been more fair in coverage of her campaign. Keith is a tool .

Keefy sure likes using that C.U.N.T. acronym. Actually, it sounds like something he would devise, had he the brain power.

What's the difference between Keith Olbermann and a steamy bag of dog crap?
ANSWER: O'liellys tongue.

Please, Clem Cadittlehopper, lets not dishonor Red Skelton!

Grammie

Red Skelton is the greatest!

I agree to the max, Crazy Gugenheim.

That is why I was distressed at having anything associated with him used to reference KO.

I miss Red Skelton, Danny Kaye, Carol Burnett, Flip Wilson etc. They were soothingly funny without the obscenities and viciousness that is so prevalent today.

Grammie

>How could he? He just ridiculed the email WITHOUT TELLING his viewers who were quoted. What part of "lie by omission" do you not understand?

Your trademark rush to smear anyone you disagree with as a liar. My point is not all omissions are lies and I think I clearly made my point: your proverbial mountain out of a mole hill hysteria is merely an example of an obsessive personality seeing evil in absolutely everything the object of his hate does.

>You really should pay more attention to what goes on here. It wasn't that long ago that we posted a video showing one Olbermann Nazi/Third Reich comparison after another. I wouldn't have made the analogies if he hadn't done so previously, over, and over, and over.

Despite you listing my old blog EyesOnFox as a "Keith Lovers" site - talk about dishonesty - I apply the same standard to Keith. If he starts ranting about Nazis time to change channels because he's spewing stupidity. Of course, you parroting what you pretend to hate is pure hypocrisy. IMHO, Keith's behavior is just a mere excuse for what you gleefully enjoy doing anyway.

BTW, February has been a heavy month of Countdown watching for this "Keith Lover." I think I've watched him twice. ;^)

But, of course, you're aware I've criticized Keith on my blog when when he bothers me and defend him - like I did here - when you unfairly obsess over him.

Cutting through all your BS - and it's quite deep - Keith's sin is he's a liberal, one of the rare ones in talk TV/radio with an audience to speak of. His behavior is no more outlandish than, say, Gibby - but then you're a big fanboy of his shrill right-wing vomit - whose misbehavior you typically defend to the death. Ditto all the other right-wing regulars on your beloved Fox News (note your Fox News fanboy site).

The amusing thing is Olbermann is a mere pale imitation of the demagoguery of, say, Rush Limbaugh but he has the dittohead crowd in fits. Delicious irony, IMHO.

By the way, this has been a heavy year of listening to Rush for this "dittohead". Not once.

You seek to attack me, my other site, and use any irrelevancy or ad hominem distraction to divert attention from Ketih Olbermann's misrepresenting an email, and selectively editing its contents to further that misrepresentation--with the added benefit of spiking any reference to his colleague Scarborough. And we know what that will do to Keith's Manhood Quotient.

this has been a heavy year of listening to Rush

For Rush too. He's really porked up again.

I miss Red Skelton, Danny Kaye, Carol Burnett, Flip Wilson etc.

Don't forget tuna noodle casserole with cream of mushroom soup and a big bowl of vanilla mellorine.

vanilla mellorine

Never heard of that before. Just googled it and I'm still not sure what it is.

Cecelia, it is ersatz ice cream made by substituting animal or vegetable fat for the milk/cream.

Sounds yummy, blah.

I would swear that is Bobo b/c there can't be two people in this world who would take the time and trouble to criticize someone for expressing affection of and pleasure from some well loved commedians from a generation ago.

Grammie

It was definately new gal/bob.

A generation? Try several. It's 2008 now, not 1958.

I hope you don't teach math.....

On another note:

Clinton Fans Form 527 To Tackle Gender AND Race!

Let the left wing on left wing smearing begin!

I don't know about the smearing, but if there is any, we can thank McCain for the 527's, Royal King.

What, it's not Bush's fault? Are you off your meds? I thought everything was Bush's fault? I know, lets blame the swifties!

No, Royal King, Bush couldn't even count to 527, much less form one.

Ok, new gal.

This thread is now closed!