MSNBC is a joke.

Joe becomes orgasmic every time he introduces the weather girl or the hot Erin at CNBC. He also seems too close to Mika for his own good. Keith is just an incompetent jerk who should have stayed a jock sniffer because he can't do much else.

O'lielly, They are all white 'cause the Dems got all the blacks on their plantations...When blacks one day figure out how used they are by the Dems, you'll see some change....Check the mirror, your lips are Orange with some brown on your nose, been around Olbergoebbels again with his pants down,huh???

MSNBC is treating Joe like a step-child if it's okay for his cohost to embarrass him like that on the air.

They run a promo of Scarborough saying that the reason he has a future on MSNBC is because tell it like it is about either party.

No, Joe. You're may...perhaps...keep your fingers crossed.... have a future with MSNBC because you' seem to be aware that you'd best not be in the can for Repubs like Olbermann is for Dems.

There is no way a Republican or a conservative could get away with Olbermann's level of partisanship and have any credibility in your field.

Once Abrams took over at MSLSD, Scratch realized his future wouldn't be worth a nickel uiless he had an "epiphany" and moved towrads the left wing fringe, thus his recent intatuation with Hillary and his bootlicking apology for having ever had the temerity to criticize her. I'm sure that Abrams blew him after that performance.

Berkely mayor apologises over insulting the Marines. Left wing trash. They should have given him a "nice cool drink of water."

I wonder if that functional retard Abrams will put this little tiff on his segment of "media misteps"? Doubt it!!!

MSDNC is like the schoolyard bully that thinks if it keeps beating people up that everyone will like them more. PATHETIC!!

Ooo...and let me reprint one section of McCain's speech today....I loved it!.....

"I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

"[Billary and Obama] won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region."

###
"There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is."

LET ME REPEAT.....

"There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is."

Got it, wannawipe?.......The American people will finally choose the path of defeat OR victory themselves.....FINALLY! The democrats could not accomplish their promise to withdraw the troops by Spring '08 no matter the needs of freedom loving people in Iraq.....(Thank you great W!) so McCain will be the choice to either not give into defeat, retreat and fear or allow the left their wish.....and then let's see the consequences......

A POW hero, the only true patriot on the tickets, that has any credibility when it comes to war and its personal costs....compared to.....

A paint-suited lawyer (married to an adulterous sodomite) who has never sacrficed for her country......

A misguided bright eyed, born-again Christian idealist pursuing the best in America in becoming the first black President.......

WOW! I love these choices!.....Win win for me because it will, once and for all, potentially incise two boils on Amerca's butt.....

Either getting rid of the Clintons once and for all.....

and/or

Making the American people put their rhetoric where it means something....either withdrawl and lose in Iraq or stay and help an ally....

I LOVE CLARITY!

That was a good speech!

BOR is going to do a segment on Guacamole Gate tonight. I wonder what Jane has to say about it.

Cee @ 7:35 PM on the Super Tuesday thread:

"John McCain will piss off the extreme left as well because he is all they are not....patriotic, pro-American, and he stands for freedom."

Janet....Cecelia.....THIS is the very type of comment I was fighting against last night. My comment that you objected to was simply a backlash on my part.

Cee has just proclaimed for the umteenth time that only HE, and those who think like him have a lock on patriotism.

I could easily turn his comment around and claim that HE is the anti-American non-patriot, but doing so would probably once again upset both of you.

History on this blog tells me that Cee believes that I am also a member of the "extreme left", and therefore, he has once again just called ME 'unpatriotic and anti-American', as well as a 'hater of freedom'.

This should work two ways, but somehow it doesn't. Cee remains free to impune the patriotism of others whom he disagrees with, but any backlash against him for doing it risks insulting someone else.

Therefore I disagree with your assessment from this morning Janet, I didn't lose that battle at all. The battle continues because some on YOUR side continue to insult the patriotism of other Americans for the sin of disagreeing with them.

The irony of it all is that dissent and disagreement is as American as one can get....but 'freedom lover' Cee apparently will never get it himself.

In regards to cee's comments on the 'extreme left,' he is right. I await evidence to the contrary, whiney mike.

And the village troll responds by asking for "evidence" from me while producing none himself in he process of endorsing Cee's impunement of my patriotism....and then adding a little name calling on top of that.

And yet you girls wonder why poor little RK has attracted such a backlash on this blog?

Mike, WDYT routinely blows through here accusing Republicans of wanting puppies and children dead. However, let's just say WDYT limited his scope on a given day, and just made the statement that Karl Rove wants puppies and children dead.

If I countered Why by saying... no, Bobo, it's Democrats who want puppies and children dead. And then, within, ten minutes I again upbraided WDYT for the 'nazi-like' comments he made about Karl Rove.... I willl tell you what I wouldn't reply if you then jumped in and said, "But Cecelia, you just contradicted yourself":

1. I wouldn't assume that your pointing out MY contradiction, meant that you had "identified" with (agreed with) Why's statement about Karl Rove because you hadn't done the same with him.

2. I'd understand that there's a difference between pointing the finger at one person from pointing it at an entire party(a party that includes YOU)

3. I wouldn't assume that it's YOUR responsibility to somehow know that I was merely reflecting Why's rhetoric back to him in order for him to see how foolish it sounds.

3. I wouldn't argue that it was also YOUR responsibility for how I had interpreted YOUR silence!

Now Cee, Grammy, Sharon, RK, and I, have gone all day being insulted by Patsy and his alternate personalities and probably by a few previously banned people sneaking back here under new ISPs.

I haven't seen your objections to them. If they are out there, fine, thanks.

However, they are not required or expected. Defending me, or taking up any sort of hateful rhetoric on this board is something you decide to do youself. You do it because it's a battle you think is worth fighting in a particular instance (maybe it came from someone you know should know better and can know better), or you do it because you've had it up to here with it, or you do it because you were personally insulted, or you do it because you feel like defending a particular party, or you do it because you think it's the right thing to do.

No matter why you do it, it's your decision. I leave that up to you.

I don't hold you responsible for every idiot on the left on this board. I figure you take responsibility for what you say and let other individuals do the same.

I sure as hell wish you'd do the same with me.

I just don't see anything racially/ethnically wrong or improper with Olbermann's guacamole reference.

Perhaps not in the best taste, so to speak; but I don't see how it was meant in a derogatory or hateful manner.

To be sure, if O'Reilly had said it, all hell would have broken lose at Media Matters. And, in turn, Olbermann would have named O'Reilly as the worst human in the history of mankind or whatever juvenilia he uses.

But we all know how they operate.

Olbermann gets a pass from me on this one.

And the village troll responds by asking for "evidence" from me while producing none himself

posted by whiney mike

"The war is lost." Dinjee Harry

Does that ring a bell?

"The war is lost." Dinjee Harry

I've never understood the opposition's thinking on this.

We allowed al-Qaeda to essentially operate freely in Afghanistan, a failed state, in the nineties. They setup camps, trained thousands of terrorists, received funding, and planned attacks from there.

That led to the Cole bombing and the Embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks, et cetera, et cetera.

So, fast forward to Iraq and we have people promoting a policy to abandon that country to al-Qaeda.

How does that make sense? How many countries do we let them use to plan their attacks on us?

I say one is enough.

Steve, the liberal think groups think if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone.

"So, fast forward to Iraq and we have people promoting a policy to abandon that country to al-Qaeda."

Al Qaeda had no control in Iraq before we invaded and there is plenty of evidence that they would have little or none if we left.

"Steve, the liberal think groups think if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone."

Wrong!

The "liberal think groups think" that we should go after the enemies that actually attack or threaten us...instead of ones that just looked at us the wrong way.

"Al Qaeda had no control in Iraq before we invaded and there is plenty of evidence that they would have little or none if we left. "

Sorry, we'll just have to disagree once again.

See, I think al-Qaeda is responsible for their actions in Iraq. They have free will. They make their own decisions. You can blame Bush because it's easier to displace the problem to something you think you have influence over.

As for me, I'll assign responsibility to the actual perpetrators of the violence. After all, they do this type of stuff wherever they can. Bali, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Spain, Britain, Jordan, Egypt.

I know, it's easier to deal with all this by blaming Bush.

They declared war on us in 1997. They attacked us in Yemen, blew up two of our embassies in Africa, and conducted operations against us elsewhere (and tried to do more but failed or were stopped).

It's called war. They are fighting us whether we fight them back or not.

Second, I don't know of a single expert on the Middle East who believes that if we left Iraq that al-Qaeda would just pickup and leave. Or that they would have "little or no control" there if we did. Who would stop them?

As they did with Afghanistan, they would use Iraq as a new base for operations against us, our allies and their enemies elsewhere. They may be primitive; but they're not stupid.

It's called war, Mike. I wish it would go away; but it won't.

You and Olbermann apparently think that once Bush goes, all this will disappear.

It won't.

A quick note on cleaning up the comments section.

As our dopey troll has continued to show themselves, I've ID'd a host of troll comments and cross-referenced them by IP address which gave me quite a few "names" and comments to delete. That has meant deleting comments from sock puppets like Phony Soldier, Average American Patriot, Laura Bush, Redneck Proud, and so on. In many cases entire conversations with 3-10 different "names" are being carried on from one IP address.

At this point I'm close to done with the clean up project. I've ID's about 5,000 comments and deleted them. If or as more opportunities present themselves to flag and cross-reference troll comments I will deal with them but at this point we are about ready to switch over to new software that will divide up commenters into two categories: "trusted" and "guest". Trusted commenters will be able to post to OW without moderation; comments from guest commenters will go into a queue and will be released after they've been screened. From time to time we may then designate guest commenters as "trusted".

We'll have fewer comments initially but by getting rid of the trolls and slowly adding "trusted" commenters we will build back up and ultimately have a bigger group of people who are more comfortable commenting without having to deal with the foul-language, insults and all the usual trolls drivel.

In the meantime, I've turned off commenting for all but the most recent post. And we will keep doing that until the new software is in place, tested and working.

Thanks for your patience.

Mike:
"The "liberal think groups think" that we should go after the enemies that actually attack or threaten us...instead of ones that just looked at us the wron"

What if that enemy is in Iraq?

Apparently, we're supposed to leave Iraq because we're to blame for the enemy going there.

If the enemy counter-attacks our actions, we're supposed to let them win.

That makes no sense.

I especially like that "because they looked at us the wrong way."

Poor Saddam. He couldn't help looking at us in a mean manner.

That's all he did. Just look wrong at us.

His support for terrorism, his attempts on Bush, Sr's life, his violation of dozens of resolutions, his violation of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, his failure to reveal his WMDs programs, his slaughter of his people, his war making actions....

Nah. All of that was meaningless.

He just looked at us the wrong way.

Wow, I had to field a phone call from out of state and mike beat me to it. I was going to warn Steve to look out for the usual "invading a country that didn't attack us" post. Oh well.

Mike,

Saddam Hussein was the pre-eminent Islamic terrorist in human history. He killed and terrorized more Muslims than anyone who ever lived. After Desert Storm he never stopped shooting at us. That's good enough for me. I didn't need WMD's, didn't need the War On Terror, didn't need 911 to think we should take him out. Please get with the program, will you?

What a wonderful speech today by Romney. It was much better than any faux MLK speech that fraud Obamanation has given. You can tell it was one of the better conservative speeches because John Leibowitz through a liberal fit on his unwatchable show. I am sure Olbermann gave Romney a WPITW award today. Cowards in the liberal media sunk Romney's campaign because they wanted to make sure the only conservative in the race would not face the two useful idiots hand picked by George Soros.

mike like to get amnesia in regards to saddam violating un treaties countless times. Killing hundreds of thousands of his own people,the wmd's, the rape chambers and on and on. mike, before you start screaming 'there wasn't any wmd's' read the article below.

http://www.nysun.com/article/70799

Thank you, Robert Cox, for all the work you do. I appreciate your taking action on the profanity here.

Those who use it have a small vocabulary.

"Steve to look out for the usual "invading a country that didn't attack us" post. Oh well."

It's the thing that wouldn't die. We can shoot it, strangle it, blow it up, but it lives forever.

The argument says that we need to go after the enemy that attacked us on 9/11.

But when you say the people that attacked us on 9/11 are in Iraq, they say we need to leave the country because al-Qaeda only went there after we invaded.

As if it matters why they went into Iraq. Who cares? They are there NOW.

Oy.

"Steve, the liberal think groups think if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone."

Wrong!

posted by mike with no proof

"Al Qaeda had no control in Iraq before we invaded and there is plenty of evidence that they would have little or none if we left. "

posted by mike contradicting himself

O'Liar, head on over to the 'newshole' and see if one of your hate posts get through.

Mr Cox, didn't you announce a rule that anybody who complains about banning will be banned?

Let alone the continuous death wishes and threats....

Mr. Cox I do hope that I am one that can still rely on this site to get my message out.

Unfortunately, in the world I live in I am surrounded my the most unAmerican people ever assembled (mostly teachers and that is a good thing for my cause) and it does me good to actually see an opposite point of view. To understand the enemy so to speak.

You see it was this site that was the one reason why I decided not to attack your country again. With the likes of yourself, Johnny $, royal king, Sharon, Cecelia, Janet, Steve, Factor, cee, Brandon, phony soldier (I wished he had shed his cursing as he proved to be one of my most strongest foe's, as his loyalty towards your country was what caused the most fear in all my anti-American friends) and the other loyal Americans showing their loyalties towards their country it gave me pause.

After all, seeing how my most faithful subject Olbermann had done so well in galvanizing your country, and the likes of ANONYMOUS, slob, why, and all the other traiters following suit, I thought it would be as easy as cleaning up my camel's dung to invade your country again.

But now I have many second thoughts? Obviously the traitors I have mentioned made my decision easy, but reading all these loyal Americans comments have me asking myself will my plan work? Would I be walking into a death trap?

No, I feel I will wait a while longer, and hopefully it will be how you say "a walk in the baseball park" if one of my cells Obama (Allah how I love that name!) or Mrs. Clinton wins your democratic election for the presidency. (An odd thing this presidential election process you have by the way. I mean one would think that with me just a camel's breath away from launching another attack on your country that the American's would just keep the man who has been so fervent in preventing me from accomplishing this feat in power, instead of allowing me to fulfill my dreams).

So Mr. Cox I do hope that you allow me to keep on how you say?... "trucking"... to this site, as I need to keep up with my unAmerican cells, and to also see what I am up against with the likes of you and your people.

Akuba!!! Ayeee!!!!

Osama, you are more full of it than a thousand camels who had glutted themselves on the sweet fescue of ten thousand oasises. :D

Akuba!!! Ayeee!!!!

Here's a lefty blog that's having difficulty with some of the comments appearing on the blog too.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/not-having-it-by-digby-from-comment.html

RK @ 11:55 PM: "Posted by mike contradicting himself."

OK smart guy......explain to us how I 'contradicted myself' with my statement?

You seem to live under this illusion that just because you say something is so...that makes it so.

Steve: "As if if matters why they went into Iraq. Who cares? They are there now."

As a former corporate manager, and a current self employed businessman, it amazes me whenever I see someone say that 'it just doesn't matter' WHY something undersirable happened.

Dealing with the 'why' is ALWAYS the first step in dealing with the problem.

Rico @ 11;44 PM: "I didn't need WMD, didn't need the war on terror, didn't need 911 to think we should take him out. Please get with the program, will you?"

Well, thank you for being honest about why you supported this action instead of pretending that there actually was WMD....or that Saddam had something to do with 911....or that this hasn't diverted us away from the REAL "War on Terror"....or that this action hasn't mortgaged our future....or that it hasn't had the counterproductive result of weakening and depleting our all volunteer military

Rico, IF the run up and justification for the occupation had been based on the parameters that you laid out, then the dissention that you see today would not be happening.

But unfortunately for you, the invasion would never have been happened either.

Rico, IF the run up and justification for the occupation had been based on the parameters that you laid out, then the dissention that you see today would not be happening.

But unfortunately for you, the invasion would never have been happened either.

Posted by: Mike at February 8, 2008 4:24 AM

This statement is hard to make heads or tails of.

If the invasion hadn't happened, then of course there'd be no dissent regarding it.

Sorry to see you couldn't sleep either Cecelia.

I tried to make it pretty clear that IF the war had been authorized and prosecuted based on factual information, then public support would be much higher than it is today, ..... and a presidential election probably would not be riding on the issue.

I can't say I blame Morning Joe
That Mika Brzezinski must go
Interrupt and but in
Slip her a Mickey Finn
Because Scratch and Mika will row

This thread is closed