Hanoi Jane is Olby's hero for yet another reason now. Isn't that one of Olby's favorite words? He seemed to use it in emails to his viewers, or so I recall.

Jane Fonda remains an American hero. She said a word that the vast majority of America calls Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter on a daily basis.

Don't forget Hillary Clinton...she "assiduously" epitomizes the word...

SIIIIRRRRR!!!!

Yes Hillary Clinton would qualify as a Cee U Next Tuesday.. however she will make for a good VP.

No O'Lielly, most people do not feel the need to lower themselves to the level of you, Olby, and good old Jane.

Maybe in your little delusional moonbat little world, O'Lielly. Loons have a limited vocabulary and even more limited intelligence, so I would expect this kind of vulgarity from them.

Vulgarity has been the policy of this country since Dumbya took over. What could be more vulgar than killing 4k young people for the monetary advancement of MNC's.

As official network apologist, will Keith be offering an apology for the c word being used on the Today Show? He's well-versed in its use with his emails to viewers about “you couldn’t be stupider, wronger, or dumber if you were Ann Coulter’s c bomb.”

Bob, I took your advice and took a stroll in your time capsule. It was a trip.

I especially loved the story at Whizbang about the tanks going after War Protesters. The level of paranoia is beyond belief. Add that to the delusions some of them have that they are courageus Freedom Fighters putting their life on the line to speak truth to the Dictater Bush and you do definitely have a descent into madness

Several of them were trading recipees for Molotov Cocktails that could take a tank out next time tanks chase them.

KO is a reflection of his audience and his audience is a reflection of KO!

Grammie

Keith has criticized McCain all week long without even saying a criticizing word against Obama and Hilary. Bi-partisan journalism has no room in MSNBC.
Are Hilary and Obama perfect, is that why Keith is only going after McCain every night.

Dan Abrams said McCain flip-flopped but he did have a guest on his show that did not agree with his point of view. That's good and fair reporting.

Larry King also suggested McCain is changing positions but Larry did it to McCain face to face. Where at least McCain had a chance to respond.

How cowardly is it for Rachel Maddow to say that John McCain has no principles.
And where does Keith Olbermann come off saying John McCain is buying votes without not proof.

What kind of journalism is this? Where a reporter can attack a U.S. Senator, a war hero and a man running for president of the U.S. with out any rebuttal?

Is Keith trying to influence the vote of his viewers to vote against McCain?
Is that the job of MSNBC? To Change event and not report on them?
What right do Rachel and Keith have attacking Senator McCain, what have they done for this country.

Pointing out McCain faults as a candidate is fine by me but to question his principles, accusing him of buying votes and having an ugly picture of him on Keith's page is insulting to us vets, to McCain and to all journalist.

Do you have any citations for your claims, whatever it is that you are claiming, "putting hoods on prisoners, forcing them to perform sex acts, subjecting them to mock executions, or depriving them of food, water, and medical treatment?"

Are you saying this is in the legislation, that it is practiced regularly and routinely or that there are some who claim there are isolated incidences of all of it.

Grammie

John McCain has abandoned his principles to try to appease the republican party.
Rachel is absolutely correct, as she usually is.
Case in point: The old John McCain on why torture should never be an option: "It's not about who they are, it's about who we are."
No John, you've now buried your soul in storage to appeal to the far right.

Posted by:

John McCain answered the torture question tonight on Larry king, you need watch a bit more news.

If Rachel Maddow questions the principles of a person like John McCain at least have the integrity to do it face to face, like true reporters do.

What is she afraid of, a honest answer?

"John McCain has abandoned his principles to try to appease the republican party."

This wins for the most uninformed poster of the day. He obviously has no idea what he is talking about. Of course he is too cowardly to use a name. Congrats!

Joe, what did he generally say, if you don't mind, after he endorsed sexual depravity, starvation, dehydration and no medical care? Did he draw yhe line at hoods? I hope so.

Grammie

OS, that is Bobo.

He is as effective in hiding his identity most of the time as The Big Bad Wolf in Grandma drag was.

Grammie

joe, keep in mind you are responding to a kos kiddie/olbyloon. A deadly combonation. Braindead, that is.

"COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Bands of "youths" * (Muslims) set fire to cars and trash bins overnight in a fourth consecutive night of vandalism mostly in immigrant neighborhoods of the Danish capital, police said.
Seventeen people were arrested, Copenhagen Police spokesman Flemming Steen Munch said, adding police were not sure what sparked the violence.

Some observers said "immigrant youths"* (Muslims) were protesting against perceived police harassment and suggested the reprinting of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad in Danish newspapers Wednesday, may have aggravated the situation."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-14-denmark-unrest_N.htm

This is what Obamanation and his minister of misinformation Keith Olbermann would like to turn this country into.

why's dreamboat:

A mind-reader could have attributed “motive” to either Clinton or Obama. You could say that Obama was kissing up to Hispanic voters, for example, or that Clinton was courting African-Americans. But in the world of people like Maddow, “motive” is typically dumped on the head on the candidate who is disfavored. In saying that Clinton was driving a “wedge,” Maddow engaged in some ugly race-baiting—and she said that Clinton had a motive for her remarks. Obama’s “motives” were never considered, as was completely appropriate.

By the way: It’s widely held that Clinton needs major support from Hispanic voters next Tuesday. Why would she want to “drive a wedge” in a way which might offend these voters? To us, Maddow’s “analysis” didn’t even make sense. But so what? Typically, pundits like Maddow will mind-read and trash the “motives” of those they disfavor.

Sometimes a disagreement is just a disagreement. In assessing a disagreement like this, decent people will typically start with the thought that candidates may simply believe what they’ve said. But Rachel Maddow adores Chris Matthews—and she repeatedly, nastily said that Clinton was driving a wedge.

Good girl!

It would be hard to convey the contempt we hold for this brilliant young mind-reading pundit, who lied in your faces a few weeks ago to get the media spot she wanted. And yes, we’re mind-reading motive here. Sometimes (not often), conduct is so baldly transparent that motive becomes quite hard to miss.

Janet, bobo prefers to be referred to as 'crazy marry.'

"CNN has fired producer Chez Pazienza after the network brass realized he had been blogging at his own left-wing site and several others over a period of years"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2008/02/14/cnn-fires-ranting-liberal-producer-blogging

Hint Hint Hint MSDNC!!!!!!! If MSDNC was a real news organization, this is what they would do to Keith Olbermann.

Factor, I saw that. He had the gall to claim "In a blog post and an interview with the New York Times, Pazienza insisted that his blogging was a personal affair."

Part of one of his blogs:

"Do whatever the f--- [uncensored in original] you want.

Rob. Cheat. Steal. Murder. Swindle. Pillage. Rape. Conceal. Destroy.

The law no longer exists -- such as this is a land supposedly of laws and not of men. There is no justice. None.

.........

Our lunatic criminal of a president has seen to it by commuting Scooter Libby's prison sentence. He'll now essentially go free for committing the same crime for which Clinton was impeached a decade ago......So pour into the streets America -- it's all yours for the taking.

The rules don't apply anymore.

If anyone asks, tell 'em George sent you."

Of course he could not be biased against GWB, who he affectionately calls "Our lunatic criminal of a president".

But he is no worse than KO.

He can probably get a job at MSNBC.

Grammie

I just read "Surnow Quits '24', Helps Bush Block Torture Bill" at scrappleface.

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2895

There was a glowing tribute to KO in the article:

"The House measure would prevent the Agency from trying to extract information from terrorists using simulated drowning or a kind of sensory deprivation during which detainees are subjected to the droning of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann for up to 15 minutes at a session."

Grammie

detainees are subjected to the droning of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann for up to 15 minutes at a session."

Now, that's bonified torture! I would much rather be waterboarded, anyday.

Here is the Larry King John McCain interview, aired 2/14/08

KING: Senator, despite a veto threat, the Senate voted 51-45 yesterday to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods.

MCCAIN: Yes.

KING: You voted to oppose that.

MCCAIN: I voted...

KING: Why?

MCCAIN: Because you...

KING: I thought you were against all that.

MCCAIN: I am. Let me make it very clear. Waterboarding,, in my view, is torture, and it's illegal. We passed a Military Commissions Act which allowed the CIA to use some additional techniques not in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the Anti-Torture Convention, the Detainee Treatment Act or any of the other rules and laws and conventions that prohibit cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment.

But to say that they can't use any additional techniques, in my view, is not appropriate.

KING: That's what this said...

MCCAIN: But they cannot torture and they cannot do anything that's cruel and inhumane and degrading.

KING: Because you said torture is self-defeating.

MCCAIN: Oh, oh, yes, sure it is.

KING: People when tortured lie.

MCCAIN: Sure. They'd tell you the truth and tell you things that are not true

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/14/lkl.02.html

it seems of is the bill was against torture but also prohibited "additional techniques"
So McCain agrees with the bill when it came to prohibiting torture but disagrees with the bill when it came to the "prohibiting of additional techniques" part.

This bills main focus was prohibiting torture like waterboading but it also had other provisions in it that we don't know about and apparently John McCain didn't agree with.

I think if they would have made the bill just against waterboarding and torture, then McCain would have signed it.

Well that's the sense I get anyway I could be wrong.
It's funny the bill passed just barely 51-45, I would like to ask the 45 their views.

Bottom line is if you are going to call yourself a journalist, you don't throw accusations.
And if you do throw accusations at least have the journalistic courage to ask these questions to McCain himself, like Larry King did.

Bill O'lielly spewed: "Vulgarity has been the policy of this country since Dumbya took over"

You're joking, right? Unless, of course, you've conveniently forgotten BJ Clinton and his cigars, interns, blue dresses, impeachment, etc.

Don't forget, the adulterous sodomite President Clinton allowed 6th graders to believe that oral sex was not really "sex."

Thanks, BJ....Our children are at least becoming better educated in areas of sodomy versus intercourse.....

Bush is 100% right, banned loser.

Olbermahn....Jane fonda.....peas in a pod.

Run along, dark power.

"FISA is about letting the FASCISTS having approval from 'the people' to spy on the 'the people'"

###
Sure it is.....Look out for that bogeyman wannawipe....he's coming to get you tonight!

Boo!

Sorry....The trial lawyers and pathological anti-American paranoids who worry about Uncle Sam knowing about their child porn are the only ones holding up this piece of good legislation that does not violate any portion of the US Constitution.....Good patritotic Americans trying to keep us secure should be protected from the greedy trial lawyers and I agree that it should simply come to a vote in The House.....

It will....and once again the radical left will lose another silly fight they promised to win.

He is as effective in hiding his identity most of the time as The Big Bad Wolf in Grandma drag was.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 15, 2008 12:15 AM

Why do you have to bring yourself into every argument?

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020108.shtml

Posted by: olby sucks at February 15, 2008 12:25 AM

Since RK doesn't want to attribute his thoughts to their rightful author, I thought I'd do it for him.

Great job J$ in catching it and striking it down like you do so often for dissenting opinions.

What is the rule?
No lengthy pieces, just a quote or two and a link?

I guess the rules don't apply to idiots who agree with you.

Just label it, OW hypocrisy moment #25,342,355

"What is the rule?
No lengthy pieces, just a quote or two and a link?"

posted by crazy marry

Then why do you still do it, why?

Bobo made a comment some time back justifying his plagiarism and multiple name use.

In a nutshell he considers himself so superior to us that he is under no obligation to follow the rules of society if it hampers his productivity rate b/c he is a busy man and we are so desparately in need of instruction.

Grammie

Bobo made a comment some time back justifying his plagiarism and multiple name use.

In a nutshell he considers himself so superior to us that he is under no obligation to follow the rules of society if it hampers his productivity rate b/c he is a busy man and we are so desparately in need of instruction.

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 15, 2008 2:38 PM

Don't forget his excuse that this is just a blog site and that anyone who is an academic would certainly be aware that the rules of attribution don't apply on blog sites....

After this excuse, he added that he meets all sorts of fascinating and important people in his daily life and that he pities the people who obviously don't have such a wonderful life, because they're the people who are making big deals about attributing cut-n-pasted material on blog sites... :D

Bobo made a comment some time back justifying his plagiarism and multiple name use.

In a nutshell he considers himself so superior to us that he is under no obligation to follow the rules of society if it hampers his productivity rate b/c he is a busy man and we are so desparately in need of instruction.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 15, 2008 2:38 PM

And if "Bobo" made the 12:37 comment you and 12:40 would have a point.
If he didn't you would be assuming know-it-alls who are wrong.

Do I need to tell you which one you are?

Again, I notice that neither 12:40, Grammie, or Cecelia make no mention of RK not attributing the post.

Did you REALLY think he was intelligent enough to put together something like that? If you did, HAHAHA!!!

Cecelia, how could I forget anything that the amazing Bobo ever said when the poor boy works so hard to save me from myself and you. :)

Grammie

Cecelia, how could I forget anything that the amazing Bobo ever said when the poor boy works so hard to save me from myself and you. :)

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at February 15, 2008 3:11 PM

Yeah, Grammy...this site has certainly had its share of the hardest working trolls in show business... :D

Cecelia Grannie, I'm confused maybe you can help me out. It seems as thugh it doesn't register with you that Rk commited the same plagery ou are accusing Bob of.

My question is since it is so obvious that Rk does the exact same technique do you not comment on it because you are vile scumbags with no integrity? or is it because you are too stupid to recognize it when you see it?

genuinely curious

My question is since it is so obvious that Rk does the exact same technique do you not comment on it because you are vile scumbags with no integrity? or is it because you are too stupid to recognize it when you see it?

genuinely curious

Posted by: curious at February 15, 2008 9:32 PM

The simple answer is YES.

Curious, I haven't seen RK do any such thing much less time and time again. I also don't recall seeing that J$/Bob deleted any RK posts b/c they were long copy/paste of copy righted material with no attribution. When called on it Bobo declared he was perfectly justified to do so b/c he is such a busy important man and can not be expected to waste his time with us creating his own work or giving proper attribution.

I have also never seen RK being outed as posting under dozens of name as Bobo was.

Perhaps my old eyes missed it so would you mind pointing out RK's equivalent repetitive behavior?

"vile scumbags with no integrity? or is it because you are too stupid " does nail Bobo perfectly. You two must be very close.

Grammie

My question is since it is so obvious that Rk does the exact same technique do you not comment on it because you are vile scumbags with no integrity? or is it because you are too stupid to recognize it when you see it?

genuinely curious
Posted by: curious at February 15, 2008 9:32 PM

There's no "genuinely" anything about you. You're not genuine enough to consistently post under the same name, let alone hold yourself to the same standard that you hold me and CAN specifically address to me because I do post under one name.

Not that I would demand (or even could demand since you're conveniently nom du jour) that you jump on Bobo because you've jumped on some RK post (that I haven't even seen). And so far, since I haven't read any liberal taking Bobo to task, it seems that you likely haven't.

However, if you want to me to start demanding that you address such-and-such matter to such-and-such person and to hold you accountable for everyone who holds your political veiws, can I count on you to be there, Curious? Can I count on you to remain "Curious" and only "Curious"?

Just curious....

My question is since it is so obvious that bobo does the exact same technique do you not comment on it because you are vile scumbags with no integrity? or is it because you are too stupid to recognize it when you see it?

The simple answer is YES.

Posted by: at February 15, 2008 9:55 PM

The simple answer is --- RK if you cut-n-pasted something without attribution, then you are wrong. You shouldn't have and you know it. No one should.

Now don't bother replying in kind to Bobo, Anons.... I couldn't care less and neither could he... Especially, since it's likely that he is who you are...

Also genuinely curious, you condensed to your signature the essential truth of the matter.

I wish I could be that pithy and concise.

Grammie

Cecelia only dislikes it when people she argues with do it. This is because she does not have enough integrit to appl her principles across the board. Oh well.

Posted by: No longer curious at February 15, 2008 10:54 PM

Obviously, you can't read, but you did manage to be truthful (if inadvertently) about something.

You will be... No longer "Curious" and utterly unaccountable fer sure....

this thread is now closed!