Another Olbermoronn spitfest
John's "affair" didn't pass the sniff test
Keith won't apologize
"Breaking News" equals lies
It's pathetic if Keith is their best

In McCain in the Membrane, a Jennifer West attack and Krazy Konspiracy Theory. Right-wing [Ding!] talking point [Ding]! Far-right [Ding!] talking heads! Husband is a GOP media consultant!

Ted Stevens is guilty! Yeah, baby! Oh, and he is a "proud Palin endorser."

In Oddball, a Palin attack via her dropping of the puck Friday night in St. Louis. The Blues lost and their goalie got injured and left the game. That equals a Palin curse!

#5 through #3, lauding Obama-Biden and attacking McCain-Palin. Great Thanks all around.

#2: The Media Matters Minute. Worser was Joe Lieberman. Worst was that guy in West Hollywood with the Palin effigy on a noose. Oralmann dropped the music and condemned the guy. (It was basically an indignation and outrage dress rehearsal for #1.) Worse was the Washington Post, which turned into O'Reilly Attack #523. Blue blog source: Think Propaganda. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/oreilly-correction/
To Keith "Man on Fan" Olbermann, and his TP buddies, WaPo didn't need to make the correction (O'Reilly's indepedent, not right-wing). Billo the Clown! [Ding!] Frank Burns of News! [Ding!] OlbyLie: O'Reilly "raised a stink" to force the correction. "Well, you know, they could've also gone with official loofah [Ding!] inspector, or...he's a Nielsen ratings conspiracy theorist, or Bold Fresh piece of expletive, or..." Time to hit him--and I, a loyal fan--while he's down! "...second place to 'Countdown' (in the 25 to 54 demo) on Friday for the third time in two weeks! (raised thumb and grin): Thanks, viewer!"

#1: The Special Education Kampaign Komment. It was, big shock!, a McCain attack/screed disguised as personal advice.

Well you know McCain is a big time Countdown watcher.

Anyways I just wanted to add how funny it is that KO wants his cake and more cake. Not only does he want Obama to win, but he want McCain to apoligze for everything. From the Blues and Flyers losing, to the crazy B chick, to the "kill him" remark which was never made, to everything.

You know Bathtub Boy, those who ask for too much usually don't get anything.

"but he want McCain to apologize for everything."

It isn't unreasonable at all that McCain apologize for his campaign....who DID very much try to use this despicable act when they thought they could possibly benefit from it.

And yes, I really DO believe that if the shoe had been on the other foot, Obama would have had the honor and decency to apologize for the immorality of his own campaign.

Thats one reason I am for Obama!

Thats one reason I am for Obama!

by mikeh

Duh! He has a (d) after his name!

Olbyonesidedkanoby didn't happen to refer to the "neo-nazi" wannabe's as "morons" did he? Like he did the Fort Dix 6?

Mike H the moron believes the Obamanation would apologize for something? LOL Where has Mike H been for this election? Obama's whole campaign has been devoted to smearing John McCain as an insane racist war monger.

Obamanation is now an admitted communist. Proven by his own words. Like a true communist, when he is outed, he attacks the massager. Even though Fox News did not release the tape, the Stalinist Obama attacks the thought criminals at Fox News. This arrogant Marxist Obama has the nerve the crap on the way the Supreme Court was set up by the founding fathers. Instead of following the rule of law, he wants "social justice".

ANYWAY...BOR was critical of the AP's David Bauder in tonight's Reality Check segment and brought up the ratings again. Along with a dissection and attack of BOR's "Late Show" appearance tonight, the Bauder criticism will likely be brought up on tomorrow night's Hour of Spin.

Factor, our village idiot, weighs in:


1) - "Obama's whole campaing has been devoting to smearing John McCain as an insane racist war monger.".......Prove it!

2) - "Obamanation is now an admitted communist"......Prove it!

3) - "proven by his own words".....What words would those be?

4) - "Like a true communist, when he is outed, he attacks the massager"......What do YOU know about "communists"?

5) - "This arrogant Marxist Obama has the nerve the crap on the way the Supreme Court was set up by the founding fathers".....It's known as partaking in an academic discussion regarding previous court rulings, ......something YOU would never understand.

6) - "Instead of following the rule of law, he wants "social justice."......Tell me, was the iconic Justice Anthony Scalia 'following the rule of law' when he disqualified torture as being "cruel and unusual punishment" simply because it wasn't usually intended as punishment?

In reference to the post at 10:59 PM, there is an obvious reason Fox did not release the tape. It would not fit their intended "socialist" narative if anyone actually were to listen to it.

So for the benefit of Factor, here is what Obama actually said:

"The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of social and economic justice in this society, and to that extent, as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers and the constitution.".........................Barrack Obama.

In other words, he was saying that the courts are bound by the Constitution, and the founding fathers did not intend for the courts to function as a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth.

To put it another way, he was actually making a fairly conservative argument against judicial activism, and he did it more than once.

Factor, you begin to learn things only when you begin to listen and think for yourself, instead of relying on others to do it for you.

I thought this was comments on Countdown?

Not "let's troll everyone cause I'm a nutjob" section. And yes, let's have McCain apoligize for eveything, because Obama/Biden have been so squeky clean.

And god forbid anyone would apoligize for their relentless 2 month smear campaign of Palin funded by NBC news.

Simply look at Friday recappers thread and see that MikeH is not an honest person. It's only partially his fault though. He has exposed himself to the tactics, illogic and radical ideology of the church of SNOBamessiah.

There will have to be a very dark and destructive reality to shake such fanatics from their devotion and I hope it is something we, as a nation, can avoid.

I simply direct all free thinkers to an excellent analysis of the anointed one's radical, unsupported and dangerous view of The US Constitution at the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/6ju4zg

And to further show how dishonest MikeH and the zealots have become, that period in the quote he selectively used is not truly the end of Obama's view of the court's behavior. The thought had been completed and gives important insight into Obama's radical ideology. A COMPLETE QUOTE from the 2001 radio interview expands on what MikeH tried to excuse above and is as follows:

"[The Court] didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted."

###
Ah, the bonus backdoor...."at least as it has been interpreted." And who interprets the law?.....Well, at the federal level, it is appointees of The Presdient who are passed by The Senate.....so on to Obama's campaign promise about these appointees....

"[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

###
Sounds pretty! Sounds nice! Who can argue with that sentiment?

Placed in the context of what The Constitution actually says and what the judge is supposed to act as, by their oath no less, I would say that SNOBamessiah will be prepared to take our country down a road it has never traveled, and should not for the price to liberty and security will be great.

Read the entire Op-Ed and discover how this lawyer, who associated with and agreed with the world-view of many (including Bill Ayers, Reverand Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Saul Alinsky) who see the main function of the federal government and all of its agencies as a force of a narrow special interest social policy aboive all else.

Obama is willing to "tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most."

So MikeH seems to be trying really hard to convince himself and us that Obama is really more moderate than the evidence shows (as he has also tried and failed to do with regards to Olbermann). MikeH lies when he says, "In other words, he was saying that the courts are bound by the Constitution, and the founding fathers did not intend for the courts to function as a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth."

No, Obama did not say that. He gave the fellow ideologue on the court the very powerful avenue of, "at least as it has been interpreted."

Ideologues are who we are going to get on the federal bench and The Supreme Court under the church of SNOBamnessiah's mission, taking away the guidance and input from millions of citizens in our democracy....Forming policy for special interest groups that place important resources and social direction towards goals that may only benefit those political constituients of certain politicians.

No matter what is thought of and concluded about Republican rule, this swing of the pendulum is actually a foundational and radical change to how we have been governed these last 200 years....

Change?

I prefer liberty.

VERO POSSUMUS!

And again, let me simply show how dishonest MikeH was, once again.....he quoted Obama thusly:

""The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of social and economic justice in this society, and to that extent, as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers and the constitution."

###
Oh the liar....Obama's real quote in completion of the thought (note where MikeH placed the period).....

"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, AT LEAST AS IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED, AND THE WARREN COURT INTERPRETED IT IN THE SAME WAY THAT GENERALLY THE CONSTITUTION IS A CHARTER OF NEGATIVE LIBERTIES. IT SAYS WHAT THE STATES CAN'T DO TO YOU, IT SAYS WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO TO YOU, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE GOVERNMENT MUST DO ON YOUR BEHALF. AND THAT HASN'T SHIFTED AND ONE OF THE I THINK TRAGEDIES OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT WAS BECAUSE THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT BECAME SO COURT FOCUSED, I THINK THAT THERE WAS A TENDENCY TO LOSE TRACK OF THE POLITICAL AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND ACTIVITIES ON THE GROUND THAT ARE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER THE ACTUAL COALITIONS OF POWER THROUGH WHICH YOU BRING ABOUT REDISTRIBUTIVE CHANGE AND IN SOME WAYS WE STILL SUFFER FROM THAT."

###
So we can do as MikeH tried to do and give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he was only looking at the Warren court in an historical analysis with no opinion on the avenues a different INTERPRETAION
of The US Constitution could advance the policy of wealth redistribution OR BE HONEST and see that this is a clear indication of the liberal philosophy that judges may use more than the traditional interpretation standards of seeing the Constitution largely as a restrictive document on the power of the federal and state governments. The annointed one's claim that "that hasn't shifted," can clearly be interpreted that he believed it could shift....and history since the Warren Court has shown us that it has shifted with the appointment of like-minded liberal jurists who go outside The confines of the Constitution to rule on the expansion of federal government power.

The full interviews are at the following site. They are very enlightening, and I recommend them hightly if you have time to listen to them fully:

http://apps.wbez.org/blog/?p=639

I did listen to them in total, that is how I knew MikeH was lying. I came away with believeing that, at best, Obama was ambiguous on his real thinking regarding the ultimate activism possible (read: acceptable) by judges. Put into context with his statement of qualities of jurists he would appoint, the only honest conclusion is to place Obama to the far left on the political spectrum regarding the role of the federal judiciary.

And I end with how Obama ended this discussion, as a Chicago State Senator and not as President of the United States who can appoint jurists prepared to make the "theoretical" as he put it, but actually rule and force social change through a new interpretation paradigm that we have seen leftists use previously....

"Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

"You just look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. SO I MEAN I THINK THAT ALTHOUGH YOU CAN CRAFT THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR IT LEGALLY. ANY THREE OF US SITTING HERE COULD COME UP WITH A RATIONALE FOR BRINGING ABOUT ECONOMIC CHANGE THROUGH THE COURTS. I THINK THAT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER OUR INSTITUTIONS JUST ARE POORLY EQUIPPED TO DO IT.

"WELL ALTHOUGH TYPICALLY I MEAN THE COURT CAN CERTAINLY BE MORE OR LESS GENEROUS IN INTERPRETING ACTIONS AND INITIATIVES THAT ARE TAKEN BY THE LEGISLATURE BUT IN THE EXAMPLE OF FUNDING OF ABORTIONS OR IN MEDICARE/MEDICAID THE COURT IS NOT INITIATING THOSE FUNDING. I MEAN ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE COURT IS SAYING IS AT SOME POINT THIS IS A LEGITIMITE PROHIBITION OR IT IS NOT. AND I THINK THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT BATTLES TO BE FOUGHT AND THEY DO HAVE A REDISTRIBUTIVE ASPECT TO THEM."

###
As President with a willing Senate judiciary committee, the theoretical is practical and the placing of hundreds of leftist ideologues on the federal benches, including SCOTUS, is an alarming possibility.

So by placing that period there where there was not a period, and essentially lying about what Obama actually said, MikeH adds to his long history of distortion and dishonesty here at OW! Good job MikeH. You actually were able to decrease the amount of respect thoughtful people could have for you!

VERO POSSUMUS!

Cee: "So by placing that period where there was not a period, and essentially lying about what Obama actually said, MikeH adds to his long history of distortion and dishonesty here at OW!"

I would place my own honesty, honor, and respect against your's ANY day of ANY week. You keep forgetting that YOU are the one who decisively lost the battle of honesty when you posted numerically disprovable lies regarding taxation rates......and then tried changing the subject when I called you on them. When you prove that are willing to lie about numbers that preclude any possibility of nuance, context, or interpretation, as you did, it proves you are willing to lie about anything.

It's rather hillarious that you can be bothered post very detailed additional text of a law professor's tape that only YOU believe adds the proper ideological context to bolster your own argument......when you complained at the time of the taxation argument that you didn't even know how to find 7 year old federal income tax tables that conclusively proved you were lying about who actually pays marginal tax rates, were they were readily available with a simple google search.

Meanwhile, I stand by my assessment that this tape does nothing to illuminate the ideological leanings of a law professor who was doing nothing more than doing what law professors do, ......which was being engaging in a thoughtful debate about the history and theoretical limitations of the nation's highest court within an academic setting.

And yes Cee, this is the same kind of thoughtful give and take analysis of complex realities that I look forward to seeing in an increasingly likely Obama administration......which will be a refreshing advancement over the ideological 'shoot from the hip' cowboy style that has gotten us in so much trouble.

And it appears increasingly likely that this 'shoot from the hip' leadership style will continue if we make the mistake of electing John McCain.....who is clearly an intellectual midget next to 'Barack the intellectual'....(pun intended, ... heh heh heh!)

"I would place my own honesty, honor, and respect against your's ANY day of ANY week."

###
And you'd lose....

Your own words: "he was saying that the courts are bound by the Constitution, and the founding fathers did not intend for the courts to function as a vehicle for the redistribution of wealth."

It is clear from a thoughtful analysis of Professor SNOBamessiah's answers, he is prepared to support the application of redistributive policies through all branches of the federal government, including, if possible, through judicial decision.

You lied, MikeH....I did not.

You claimed Olbermann did not blame Bush for the bridge collapse in 2007 when it is clear he did.

Just two simple examples of a church of SNOBamessiah zealot's rhetoric. And dishonor.

So in your attempt to defend your messiah and favorite two-bit cable TV pundit, you once again showed your ignorance and deceipt. Are you sure you are not even becoming Keith Olbermann yourself?

VERO POSSUMUS!

Oh and it seems now that SNOBamessiah and Grandpa Biden are starting to have trouble communicating to us all who they have determined deserves to pay more taxes, who gets cuts and who just stays right where they are when it comes to the redistribution policies....

"In July 2008, Barack Obama Said: 'If You Make $250,000 A Year Or Less, We Will Not Raise Your Taxes. We Will Cut Your Taxes.' (Barack Obama, Remarks, Powder Springs, GA, 7/8/08)

"In August 2008, Obama Economic Policy Adviser Jason Furman Said That Barack Obama 'Would Cut Taxes For Almost All Of The Families Making Less Than [$250,000].' FURMAN: 'Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the op-ed today makes a very important point that, while Barack Obama would not raise taxes for any family making below $250,000 — in fact, it would cut taxes for almost all of the families making less than that — Senator McCain cannot make a similar promise for his tax plan because, for the first time in history, he would make families pay taxes on the health insurance that they get from their employers.' (Obama For American, Press Conference Call, 8/14/08)

"In October 2008, Governor Ted Strickland (D-OH) Delivered The Democrat Radio Response Saying That Those Making Less Than $250,000 Would See Lower Taxes. 'He’ll restore the middle class by cutting taxes for small businesses, and for 95 percent of workers and their families, including 5.7 million in Ohio. If you make less than $250,000, you won’t see your taxes go up one single dime. In fact, your tax rates will be lower than they were under Ronald Reagan.' (Governor Ted Strickland, Democratic Radio Response, 10/4/08)

###
But now, alas, we now know that they all may have been fibbing.....

"Obama's position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. But in his new ad, 'Defining Moment,' he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. 'Here's what I'll do as president,' Obama says in the ad. 'To deal with our current emergency I'll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut.' That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: 'Famlies making less than $200,000 get tax cut.'

http://tinyurl.com/5q2knh

###
Even Grandpa Biden lowered the number in an interview yesterday....He stated that families making less than $150,000/year will get the tax cuts.....

Ah yes...."REDISTRIBUTIVE CHANGE" seems to be in the future with a President Obama....and the promises of lower taxes for "95%" of us seems to be something negotiable.....

Perhaps it will fall to 100K.....perhaps 75K.....

The definition of "honor," and "promise" are very different in the church of SNOBamessiah. Look out America!

VERO POSSUMUS

Cee: "you lied MikeH, I did not".....No, I simply offered an interpretation different from yours, and you are lying when you claim it is anything other than that.

Cee: "Grandpa Biden":....You're nothing if you're not name calling, are you child? Now if you were to call McCain 'great grandpa McCain', we might actually have some context here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cee on taxes: "Perhaps it will fall to 100K.....perhaps 75K......":......Your continuation of a fundamentally dishonest argument doesn't become you Cee. Since 1913, America has had a graduated income tax scale that has continually been tweaked. At times, the high income rates were FAR higher than anything Obama has suggested......but only NOW is anyone suggesting that this amounts to "socialism".

Yes Cee. You and those you support are dishonest to their very core.

How UN-Christian!

Cee: "You claimed he did not blame Bush for the bridge collapse in 2007 when it is clear he did."

Well, if it is so "clear" that he did, then you have yet to make a satisfactory case to prove your assertion.

In the church of Ceeism, it appears that it is acceptable to stretch and spin anything to fit your own ideological advantage, while simultaineously denying your opposition the lattitude to do the same.

When you can produce a direct quote by Olbermann that says something like 'Mr' Bush is the cause of the Minnesota Bridge collapse', then you and yours will continue to have NOTHING in which to support your utterly ridiculous claim!

Ugh MikeH, you are not only totally clueless regarding the far leftwing Obama economic and social world-view as well as the anointed one's out of mainstream judicial philospophy, your religious devotion has dulled any intellect you have left.

The point of the post at 1:39 PM was not about "socialism." It is about the integrity and honesty of SNOBamessiah and Grandpa Biden.....

Answer me this simple question.....Under a President Obama, if I make 210K in 2009, will I receive a tax cut?

According to Obama just this summer, I will. 'If You Make $250,000 A Year Or Less, We Will Not Raise Your Taxes. We Will Cut Your Taxes.' (Barack Obama, Remarks, Powder Springs, GA, 7/8/08)

According to Obama in his last new ad, "'Defining Moment," I won't.

According to Biden yesterday, I won't and now I am included in the group that is patriotic but receiving an undeserved tax break currently! Would my taxes even go up?

So what is it MikeH?....My post at 1:39 was about HONESTY, CONSISTENCY, TRANSPARENCY.....It seems the numbers are being lowered even before the oath in January.....

Will Obama pull a Bill Clinton and revoke his promise for a middle class tax cut?

The progressively increasing percentages of taxation do NOT concern me, it is my civic duty.....Class warfare and an effete elitist leftist telling us commoners from on high what "wealthy" is and who gets tax cuts and who doesn't...that concerns me....especially in an economy needing investment capital, not higher taxes.....I am more than happy to put my savings into areas in need for investment....but if I am going to pay higher taxes....forget about it.

I guess I'll just wait and see, but tax shelters are looking very attractive to me, even at my modest middle-class income that barely gets me and my family by (with important rainy day savings) in the NYC metropolitan area with a very expensive cost of living and very high property taxes.....

Before I know it, 100K/year for a family will be wealthy and undeserving of a tax cut....

Should I be confident I will be able to hold a President SNOBamessiah to his PROMISE of "95% of the working American will get a tax cut?"

It's looking mighty unlikely.

Why do you guys do this every time in every thread? Some less confrontational registered users probably get scared away by this. Who'd want to comment to a thread that is a nothing but a partisan back-and-forth challenge-response duel? This isn't my site, but I'm just looking out for me and the other registered users. I love what J$P has become: on-topic, neat, no off-topic challenge-response duels, and I have a place to vent if said duels occur.

I hear you, Mike C.

The following is my last word and summation of my thought process regarding this election and I will leave it at that....MikeH seems to not realize that there are two theories regarding his candidate and that since there has not been a clear, unambiguous confirmation of the less worrisome conclusion on this very untested and mysterious candidate, I have come to a similar conclusion.....

"As Barack Obama's election has seemed to become more likely in the past six weeks, a quiet but public debate has arisen among both Republicans and Democrats that wonders which Obama we might get. Will it be the prudent, moderate, pragmatic, sensible president who will apply non-ideological, centrist policies? Or will it be the Obama who sought out the company of radicals, black racists, faculty-lounge Marxists and studied the methods of Saul Alinsky?

"Many hope that it is the sensible centrist who will emerge even though it has been his style and cautiously evasive comments, rather than his substance, that have sounded so reasonable and calm. It is that moderate tone that has led some recent Republican Obama supporters to hope that he is just lying about his views and is secretly 'sensible.'

[...]

"Now, just as the left often baselessly throws around the word 'racist,' the right is often extravagant with its charge of Marxism. But those accurate, in context words of Mr. Obama must raise in the mind of any reasonable person the suspicion that Mr. Obama's heart and soul is dangerously close if not fully seized of a Marxist (or perhaps Marxist Christian liberation theology) view of human and economic relations.

"Consider that these words came from a man who has urged his followers to 'get in the face' of his opponents and has exalted recently in an uncharacteristic moment with a lack of restraint that he has 'a righteous wind' at his back. That is a revealing word, righteous. It suggests that a person's actions have been 'judged' or 'reckoned' as leading a life that is pleasing to God. A verse in the Bible's book of Psalms speaks of one being shielded by God and receiving favor because of righteousness.

"We live in dangerous days. The world economy teeters on the edge of the abyss. The exiting American president is a failed thing. An envious world smells a momentarily vulnerable America. The political beneficiary of Republican failure believes our Constitution is fatally flawed. He may be a committed Marxist. And if he held the presidency for four years, it would be the longest stretch that he ever held a full-time job. God save the republic."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/29/is-obama-secretly-sensible/

###
This time next week, one (currently more likely) result will have me, "hope for the best but prepare for the worst."

Either result will require two very divergent reactions from me in both my financial activity and political behavior.

And those international and large events, that are out of my control and that will occur in response to the final decision of the majority of the American people, I place in God's hands.

VERO POSSUMUS.....FINAL.......

Mike C: "This isn't my site, but I'm just looking out for me and the other registered users."

No Mike, you're looking out for yourself as usual, but you're doing a very bad job of it.

For reasons, that probably baffles most everyone on this site, you chose to make a very public pronouncement on this very public discussion board heralding a very personal problem that you have. Then you chose to show everyone in no uncertain terms that you weren't joking about it either.

It's as if you exist in some alternate reality! On one hand, You claim I am running potential posters away, but you have also complained about the fact that my comments often draw many other comments. More than once, my posts have caused a thread to ballon to over 100 comments,......and you complained about THAT as well.

But what you don't seem to understand the most is that YOU are the one who is probably driving potential posters from this site. Your "recaps" are nonsensical and boring, except for the times you break into one of those all caps screaming rants about something KO said about poor Billo......

It's those times, I have to admit, you become quite entertaining!

Hey Mike C, just want you to know that I enjoy everything that you post here. Don't worry about what one little person says negative about you, I don't. I'm starting to believe that the only words mikeh knows are PROVE IT. And NO, it is not you who may be driving potential posters from this site, it is people like mikeh that spew their dribble and lies and contorted twists that reflect their ideologies that the left has against the RIGHT. One can only sit so long in the front pews of Reverand Wrights church.

Thank you, SoCalRightist. It's comforting to know that you and the majority of OlbyWatch users are on my side. And last I checked, someone admitting they have an Autism Spectrum Disorder--in my case, Asperger Syndrome--was considered a courageous move.

Mike C: "And last I checked, someone admitting they have an Autism Spectrum Disorder--in my case, Asperger Syndrome--was considered a courageous move."

And that would probably be true if you had not attempted to USE your problem to shame others into doing your selfishly motivated bidding.

All I have asked you to do is stop trying to control what myself and other posters write on this blog, but you seem stubbornly unwilling to do that. Even Robert has asked you to cease and desist doing that, ......but you keep right on doing it as if no one had said anything.

MikeC, has your handicap caused you to fail to notice that I always leave you alone until you start trying to tell ME what to do?

And if the answer to that question is "no", why do you think you have any business posting on a public discussion board?

SoCal: "I'm starting to believe the only words MikeH knows are PROVE IT."

I see your point SoCal......God forbid that you might consider using FACTS to back up your beliefs and accusations. Sometimes FACTS just won't fit that neatly into what you want to believe!

As they say...."ignorance is bliss"!

By MikeH on October 30, 2008 11:57 PM

Wow. A massive dos O' Hypocrisy!

Olby Sucks: "Wow. A massive dos O' Hypocrisy!"

Jeff, it's obvious why you are a man of so few words.....You obviously have nothing to say.

Mike C: "And last I checked, someone admitting they have an Autism Spectrum Disorder--in my case, Asperger Syndrome--was considered a courageous move."

MikeH-And that would probably be true if you had not attempted to USE your problem to shame others into doing your selfishly motivated bidding.

Sort of how the liberals jumped all over Rush for saying that M. Fox was using his disease to gain sympathy for the democrats cause.

Now I was a republican/conservative who said it loud and clear that what Rush said was pitiful and disgusting, and yet we now see the bleeding heart MikeH saying the exact same thing that Rush talked about.

Now why would that be? Which is it MikeH? Was Rush an asshole when he said it, or are you both assholes? Was only Rush an asshole because he was referring to a democrat while you were referring to a republican. Did you have second thoughts about what Rush said and now you think he was right? Which is it? Please the waiting is killing me!

Don't worry, I got your back. The answer is very easy. It's called H Y P O C R I S Y...

Wait don't answer MikeH, I got your back....H Y P O C R I S Y

Call it 'hypocrisy' all you want Wolverine, but your analogy is pretty damned stupid considering the fact that MJ Fox never used his condition to personally criticize Limbaugh.....they way MikeC keeps using his condition to criticize me personally.

Republican/Democrat doesn't have a damned thing to do with it!