Hannity's numbers double Keith's house boy Maddow. Hannity's numbers were higher that the finnal episode of Hannity & Combs.

Well, so far after almost 20 minutes, he's literally hammered Bush. Trying to place his "eliquently" words, like that comment about Bush over the rubble of debris and dead bodies after 9/11. Yes KO we know what he was standing over. And you get onto Bush and friends for bringing up 9/11? YOU do it and it's ok? HORRIBLE KO....HORRIBLE.

And KO, lay off the torture discovery. How in the hell do you think it's possible to get information off of prisioners? Show them nude photos of you and Maddow? Well that might be in violation of the Geneva Convention if that happened. :)

Did anyone catch Fox and Friends this morning when they discussed that Matthews and KO would be hosting the Innaguration of the "Messiah" next week?

"And KO, lay off the tortue discovery. How in the hell do you think it's possible to get information off of prisoners?"

It really amazes me that no matter HOW many times it is explained spelled out for you, you just never seem to get it!

TORTURE:

(1) - Makes US look as bad as them!

(2) - Defies both the Geneva Convention AND our own Constitution!

(3) - Does not necessarily work!

(4) - Increases recruitment for our enemies!

(5) - Increases hatred of the US around the world.

(6) - Tells the world that we believe in double standards!

(7) - Makes subsequent legal prosecution improbable if not impossible!

(8) - Creates potential legal jeapardy for everyone who participated by "just following orders".

(9) - Causes conflicts since we prosecuted former enemies for doing exactly what we are now justifying.

(10)- Potentially puts our own troops in more jeapardy when they are captured.

And finally......it's just plain WRONG!.....Ethically AND morally!

So keep right on talking about it Keith!

I can't wait to see America47000's recap, if one.

I am cutting back on the recaps. Olby is just getting worse, his rate of distortion and smears is rising, and it's just taking too long to get into it all. Plus, it's pretty much predictable and repetitive what Olby is going to say anyway. Plus, there are more enjoyable things I'd like to get to once in a while.

Looks like O'Reilly's ratings gremlins are acting up. I saw two different sets of numbers posted for Monday's shows, and I haven't seen the Tuesday numbers posted yet.

The Tuesday numbers have been out for hours:

http://tinyurl.com/736ndk

You're slipping, A47000! But seriously, please don't cut back on recapping any more than you have to. I'd like to see you as an official recapper and write them as posts here at OW rather than just in the comments!

Oh, Mike H. You silly, naive Liberal.

TORTURE:

(1) - Makes US look as bad as them!
So, giving rough treatment to a man planning to blow up a bus or a building is the same as blowing up that building? To you, maybe.

(2) - Defies both the Geneva Convention AND our own Constitution!
Depends on what counts as torture. And, as Justice Scalia says, torture doesn't count as punishment. OK, Scalia may be stretching the point.

(3) - Does not necessarily work!
What does?

(4) - Increases recruitment for our enemies!
I think there are a lot of other problems they have with us first, such as our insistence on free speech, or letting women vote.

(5) - Increases hatred of the US around the world.
Among those who already hated us.

(6) - Tells the world that we believe in double standards!
That we believe in protecting innocent people.

(7) - Makes subsequent legal prosecution improbable if not impossible!
First, what's more important, having a fair trial for someone conspiring to kill 2000 people, or saving the 2000 people?
Second, if the 2000 people are saved, and a judge or jury free the suspect because of a rough interrogation method based on some technicality, that's a problem with the legal system.

(8) - Creates potential legal jeapardy for everyone who participated by "just following orders".
Again, depends on the definitions applied, which are often politically motivated.

(9) - Causes conflicts since we prosecuted former enemies for doing exactly what we are now justifying.
The ultimate goals were different.

(10)- Potentially puts our own troops in more jeapardy when they are captured.
This is a rich one. What is the idea behind this one? That terrorists will give our soldiers tea and crumpets if we don't interrogate our prisoners. BS. Terrorists will do whatever they want to our troops regardless of how we interrogate them. And what we actually do isn't even torture, and it's 100 times better than the stuff the terrorists think up.

And finally......it's just plain WRONG!.....Ethically AND morally!

Um. OK. So, let's take waterboarding, which isn't torture, but it's pretty much the only rough interrogation method guys like Olbermann are pinning on Bush, so that makes it torture to them. But even if it is torture, it's something we do to our own special forces ops as part of their training. Oh my. That means in order to train our own people, we are torturing them?

That is absurd, and you know it. It isn't torture.

Bush was very clear on this, and I posted about this before. He sought the legal advice. Liberals don't agree with that advice, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Oh, and we were using these techniques during the Clinton years (a special forces trooper called O'Reilly today to say he had first-hand experience of such) and we should not be shocked to learn if Obama's people use them too.

Yes, the slippery slope is a dangerous game to play. But the game of survival is more important. Guess what ... if we spend all our time holding up the constitution as an excuse not to do anything, then our enemies will attack us. They will weaken us. And they will defeat us. And then the constitution won't mean anything anyway.

And don't lecture us about double standards when Obama and the media want to give a pass to the incoming treasury secretary for not paying income taxes, when a less-severe infraction led them to want to disqualify everything Joe the Plumber had to say (among other reasons).

I'm sure this is where you, Mike H, will interject with the "that's not why Joe the Plumber is evil" routine ...

Apparently MSDNC doesn't have market cornered on arrogant left wing hacks.
http://tinyurl.com/7rfuj6
Rick "Dirty" Sanchez gives his best Olbermann impression about Joe the Journalist.

When you anti-American libdems find evidence that US policy was to behead our prisoners and hang their bodies from bridges, then maybe, just maybe, we'd be "as bad as them". Pouring water on someone and the other examples are little more than fraternity pranks. Now, this is obvious to 99.9% of rational Americans, OlbyKosNbc dont seem to understand this.

Along the same lines, what benefit is it to any American, Lib, Repub, Left, Right, etc to file "war crimes" charges against their own leaders? Will the terrorists suddenly end the Jihad once an indictment is handed down? Will UBL issue a new tape immediately afterward exempting Olbs, Maddow et al from future jihadist movements?

Now that the Iraq war is virtually over, it amazes how the lefties have seized on the "torture" issue. Guess what. Polling shows that most Americans are perfectly fine with the measures taken involving several individuals. Watching Olbermann and his kindred go after the torture issue reminds one of a puppy going to the cat-box for a daily snack. To them, it seems fine. To the rest of us...Good grief, give it a rest.

When you anti-American libdems find evidence that US policy was to behead our prisoners and hang their bodies from bridges, then maybe, just maybe, we'd be "as bad as them". Pouring water on someone and the other examples are little more than fraternity pranks. Now, this is obvious to 99.9% of rational Americans, OlbyKosNbc dont seem to understand this.

Along the same lines, what benefit is it to any American, Lib, Repub, Left, Right, etc to file "war crimes" charges against their own leaders? Will the terrorists suddenly end the Jihad once an indictment is handed down? Will UBL issue a new tape immediately afterward exempting Olbs, Maddow et al from future jihadist movements?

Only Mike H would worry about credibility with the rotting corpse that is Europe and any other 3rd world shit hole he thinks is better than the United States. Europe will not exist in 50 years and I won't shed a tear. Mike is only a fan of real torture carried out by liberals. Like his favorite President Bill Clinton's Waco BBQ or his messiah Che the T-Shirt seller. I wonder how many fits of rage Mike H went into when his future messiah Obamanation signed up Bush's defense department? LOL

I always love reading Factor's ridiculous hate filled rantings.....He sounds just like a street preacher holding a megaphone and yelling at the world......but in his case, you can actually understand the words.

The only thing that's hard to believe is that he actually said them. But taking them seriously is another matter entirely!

irushbaby: "Now that the Iraq war is virtually over, it amazes me how the lefties have seized on the "torture" issue."

Well, you obviously haven't been paying attention since I've been 'seizing' on this issue ever since I started posting on this blog nearly three years ago....and I'm far from alone.

America47000: "Oh MikeH. You silly, naive liberal."

Your "rebuttal" isn't even worth a follow up rebuttal because you either made my point in some cases and really didn't even dispute it in others.

The closest you came was in your recognition of the "slippery slope".......I'm afraid you're on that slope right now buddy.

It's funny how conservatives used to preach to liberals about the dangers of embracing moral relativism....but that is precisely what they have been doing for the last eight years in virtually all of their arguments.

And there is no better example of this than the current rationalization on the use torture.

"Along the same lines, what benefit is it to any American, Lib, Repub, Left, Right, to file "war crimes" charges against their own leaders."

Duh....I dunno, but I'll take a few stabs at it:

(1) - To restrain other roque future leaders from trying the same damned thing?

(2) - To show the world that we really do stand by our established principles in the long run?

(3) - To show Americans that no one is above the law?

In other words, for the same reason that we would enforce ANY law!

KO can lay off that dumb quote of his lately reguarding the bailout: "Today we call it a bailout, tomorrow it will why daddy went to jail." Damn...send that remark to jail KO, and yourself for that matter.

I'm sure MikeH will be like those other Obama drones who will be asking themselves after Tuesday, "where were you when Obama was sworn in?"

Lets start the official Olbermann Watch top list...

where were YOU on that day?

"I will be sleeping and dreaming of 2010 when the Republicans take some control back in the house and senate, and then for 2012 when MILF Palin becomes President and watch Obama and his liberal troop cry their way out of D.C."

Oh, Mike H. You silly, naive Liberal.

I had to add a few more examples to 47000's great rebuttle of MikeH's sad list...

TORTURE:

(1) - Makes US look as bad as them!.... (Not in a million years, because with the methods we use the enemy could only be surmising that we are a weak country. To them, and their kind the only thing they respect is doing anything they want to any prisoners. The irony of MikeH's sorry ass explanation on this one, is that if we did more excessive torture then we'd get more respect. Remember, we are talking about maniacs who don't live by our rules, and who NEVER will. Trying to set any kind of example with these animals, and expecting them to understand is like trying to potty train a Rhino)...
So, giving rough treatment to a man planning to blow up a bus or a building is the same as blowing up that building? To you, maybe.

(2) - Defies both the Geneva Convention AND our own Constitution!... (Again, because we may have violated the Convention a few times, as opposed to the thousand of times it was done in previous wars to save American lives, this somehow means that the terrorists decided to attack us and hate us? Maybe the bigger question is to why OUR OWN MEDIA is so intent on attacking our own men and women in the armed forces with this BS, while in the past when it WAS done much much more, nothing was ever said about it? Is it because OUR OWN MEDIA has an agenda against its own country. We all know olberamann does, but to defend him on this makes you just as guilty)...
Depends on what counts as torture. And, as Justice Scalia says, torture doesn't count as punishment. OK, Scalia may be stretching the point.

(3) - Does not necessarily work!...(Well it's a lot better than doing nothing, and if it only works 1 time better than calling them bad names out of a 100, then it means that it worked)...
What does?

(4) - Increases recruitment for our enemies!...(This is the most lame answer I have ever heard! So, we got attacked on 9/11, and the two previous attacks on the World Trade Center, Cole, etc. because we used torture methods?! To add to 47000's response below there's also the fact that it probably was because they HATE our liberalism. You know like killing babies, hating religion, gay living, interfaith marriages, etc. As a matter of fact, outside of capitalism they wouldn't give a shit about how we lived our lives if there was no liberalism in our country)...
I think there are a lot of other problems they have with us first, such as our insistence on free speech, or letting women vote.

(5) - Increases hatred of the US around the world....(It's called Jealousy. Plain and simple)...
Among those who already hated us.

(6) - Tells the world that we believe in double standards!...(The Geneva Convention was set up with ALL warring countries to abide by. It has as much power as the Queen of England has in ruling her country. If the world is naive enough to believe that we will be the ONLY country NOT to use torture to save American lives, while our enemies are using it for the shear pleasure they get out of using it, and that they deem it to be a double standard on our part then I don't think it's something that should be reported on. It's a non story if I have ever heard one)...
That we believe in protecting innocent people.

(7) - Makes subsequent legal prosecution improbable if not impossible!...(Let's worry about that later. MUCH later, AFTER the possibility that 1000's of lives were saved)...
First, what's more important, having a fair trial for someone conspiring to kill 2000 people, or saving the 2000 people?
Second, if the 2000 people are saved, and a judge or jury free the suspect because of a rough interrogation method based on some technicality, that's a problem with the legal system.

(8) - Creates potential legal jeapardy for everyone who participated by "just following orders"...(You're right there MikeH, because the only ones we REALLY have to be are afraid of with this whole issue, is our OWN people turning against our brave soldiers)...
Again, depends on the definitions applied, which are often politically motivated.

(9) - Causes conflicts since we prosecuted former enemies for doing exactly what we are now justifying....(nothing to add to 47000's)...
The ultimate goals were different.

(10)- Potentially puts our own troops in more jeapardy when they are captured...(What?! Did you already forget what they did to our soldiers in Somalia?! How about the beheading of reporters and soldiers BEFORE the anti-American press came out with the story of Abu Ghraib?! Oh Please! this is the WORST excuse I have ever heard about why we shouldn't use torture. Give me a f..king break. They could care less if we NEVER used torture. They still will behead. They still will use the worse kind of torture imaginable. Good God that is so lame!)... This is a rich one. What is the idea behind this one? That terrorists will give our soldiers tea and crumpets if we don't interrogate our prisoners. BS. Terrorists will do whatever they want to our troops regardless of how we interrogate them. And what we actually do isn't even torture, and it's 100 times better than the stuff the terrorists think up.

Bottom line MikeH, is that when you come back to reality you will find that the enemies of the US could give 2 shits about how or if we use torture. They are NOT rational human beings. They care about only 1 thing, and that is to wipe us off the face of this planet. Like I said in the beginning, I truly believe that if we were harder on thse animals they would respect us more, because to them that is all they understand. Israel knows this very well. Ask THEM what they feel about this whole issue?...

Mike and the Libs would rather sell out this country under some loonytoon idea that we'd get more KOS blog street cred which thereby translates into moral superiority dust being sprinkled on us and Suddenly we have moral high ground abroad. Do you libs have a problem with sendng Clinton to the ICC? Maybe we'd get ubber blog cred if we offered up a twofer.

"Mike and the Libs would rather sell out this country under some loonytoon idea that we'd get more KOS blog street cred which translates into moral superiority dust being sprinkled on us and Suddenly we have moral high ground abroad."

Actually rusgbaby, people who think like you do have ALREADY 'sold out' this country.

Why?.......Because when you abandon the principles that made us who we are in the heat of the moment, you've sold us out baby!

Sorry Wolverine, but your entire 'rebuttal' amounts to justification based on moral relativism. There is just no point in hitting every point again because if you don't understand the importance of standing tall on PRINCIPLE, then there isn't much more to say about it.

You keep talking like I somehow give a "2 shits" about what our enemies think of us, when NOTHING could be further from the truth!

However, I DO care about creating even more enemies with incredibly stupid policies that violate our own stated principles and treaties.

One of the DUMBEST arguments that I keep hearing from your side is that 'they already hate us', so who cares?.....Yes, the ones that already hate us will continue to hate us no matter what we do, but we DO have it within our power to keep those who do not already hate us from joining the ranks of those who already do.

Until you come to understand that whether or not we torture is not about THEM at all, but it is about who WE are.

One of the hardest things I have had to accept is that my own Country's leaders abandoned America's principles and resorted to torture.......But one of the more unbelievable aspects of this issue is that millions of Americans have also accepted such a slippery slope as being acceptable (but HARDLY the 99.5% you implied).

The early Christians understood that there are things worse than death....and abandoning your most important PRINCIPLES in pursuit of short term goals is one of those things.

Merkatpooh: "I will be dreaming of 2010 when the Republicans take back some control of the house and senate, and then when MILF Palin becomes President and watch Obama and his Liberal troops cry their way out of DC."

Wow! Anyone who is STILL rooting for a clueless moron to become President, who among many other things, could not name a single Supreme Court decision except Roe VS Wade, and could not define the Bush Doctrine when asked says a lot about themself.

That said.....bring her on once again! I can't think of a better way for the Republicans to sink even futher into irrelevance.

America47000: "And don't lecture us about double standards when Obama and the media want to give a pass to the incoming Treasury secretary for not paying taxes when a less-severe infraction led them to disqualify everything Joe The Plumber had to say (among other reasons)."

Hoo boy!.....You CAN'T be serious, can you? I had to pause after reading that one from laughing so hard!

John McCain introduced two jokes into the campaign....one of them was Sarah Palin, ..... and the other on was "Joe the Plumber".....The combined effect of these two jokes may well have cost him any chance of pulling out the election.

The fact that you don't even get that speaks volumns about you!

"Anyone who is STILL rooting for a clueless moron to become President, who among many other things, could not name a single Supreme Court decision except Roe VS Wade, and could not define the Bush Doctrine when asked says a lot about themself."

Sure, what an unbiased and on point assessment of the popular and very successful Governor of Alaska!....allow me....

Anyone who is STILL buying the hype about a clueless moron, who among many other things, publically passed judgement on his fellow Americans as being bitter and intolerant because of their economic hardship, says a lot about them.

You see MikeH, point for point, The One had as many gaffes and mistakes as Palin yet you chose to overlook such mistakes. Ah, the intellectual dishonesty continues.

The hype surrounding Obama caused such differences in people's assessments of the person's polticial agility, depth of knowledge and other factors. Fine, that's reality. But to call someone a MORON seems pretty bold when you support someone who consistantly showed his hubris amd elitism....flaws that have always brought down leaders.

The same with Joe the plumber.....your vindictive towards him based on his "lies" like calling himself a plumber and not paying his taxes now seem quant as you defend the next Treasury Secretary who seems to have committed much more dire mistakes. Your hypocrisy can only be explained by your infantile conclusion that those two people cost McCain the election.

McCain lost the election because Obama spent millions of dollars more in a political environment of economic fear. He was able to buy success, an ever growing American phenomenon in politics and culture. The problem now is he and the political ruling class believe our REAL problems can also be solved by spending money, and this will be the downfall of our country.

Obama is an inexperienced, untested, ill-prepared and superficial POLITICIAN. The construction of websites, use of technology to garner donations and use of elitist and godly themes to cover deficiencies will not suffice in managing the federal government in our domestic and foreign challenges. His personal failure as a leader will be a catastrophe at this critical time but our nation has faced MUCH more dire problems.

Well, Mike H, of course we shouldn't be using torture. The slippery slope to which I was referring, Mike H, was the Democrat argument against torture. If waterboarding isn't torture, and I don't think it is, then we aren't on the slope.

Your all or nothing approach makes no sense. You think I make your point for your WHOLE argument because I disagree with only some of your points, and agree with others. Does this open-minded approach surprise you?

Some of your points about torture don't apply at all, and I pointed those out. And the points I did agree with don't apply for the most part here because I don't believe the methods used are torture.

This is where Liberals lose any credibility in this argument. Bush has stated that he wondered about the legality of certain methods , but legal experts told him they were justified. But the point in this is that Bush had reasons for doing the things he did. Arguments to be made. A debate to be had.

But close-minded Liberals aren't willing to engage in the debate. It must fit into the definitions of their limited worldview, which they filter through ideology. They are less interested in hearing Bush's reasons than they are trying to force him to admit that he was wrong and they are right. Because the issue is settled in their feeble minds. To them, Bush is guilty of torture simply because it's torture if the Bush administration carried it out. You're so quick to condemn him for torture that you overlook the fact that he expressed concern about America committing it. You just can't accept that he disagrees with you. But then, that has always been the problem, hasn't it? You all think Al Gore should have been president.

And this isn't anywhere near moral relativism. Moral relativism is about defining your own morality and acting on it, but the arguments are usually applied to individuals who live freestyle lives without concern for how their actions affect others. Applied to the national level, I don't think we are doing anything that we believe wouldn't be justified by anyone else doing it under similar circumstances. I don't think we are acting without concern for others. It's just in some cases a disagreement boils down to us or them.

You have to abandon this loopy notion that coexistence is possible in every situation.

You've got a real selective memory there, Mike H.

1. McCain lost because the economy tanked and he seemed clueless about presenting a coherent message while failing to offer a reasonable counter to Obama.

2. Numbers show that McCain himself could not engage his conservative base, and without Palin he probably would have lost by more. Among those who saw Palin as a campaign issue, McCain won.

3. McCain did not introduce Joe the Plumber to the campaign. Obama did just by showing up in his town. Joe just had the gall to ask about the tax plan, which prompted the "share the wealth" comment that really revealed a lot about Obama. At this point the rumors of socialism kicked up, and McCain used Joe as the example because the clip of him asking the question was widely known. It was at this point the media decided to make Joe an issue in order to smear and discredit him, thus protecting their boy Obama.

Try looking at things with some objectivity, Mike H, and not your googles of ideology.

All this talk about torture... What torture? Who was tortured? Names please. Examples please? Evidence please?

Bush Derangement Syndrome is a pesky problem among the libs. They only want GWB & Cheney in the docket...ignoring Clinton, Gore, GHWB. Perhaps they could dig up Reagan and put him on trial too. Carter only tortured the United States by being President.

While we're digging up ex-Presidents how about HST and FDR and Wilson and Lincoln.

The left in the United States....useful idiots.

When I made the comment about ratings I meant they weren't where I usually look when I have a casual moment, and I didn't have time to start searching for it. And I was exhausted from doing actual work and didn't want to even think about the kind of commitment to recapping just WPITW, let alone more. And recent WPITW segments have just been too asinine to bother with.

But as much as I saw tonight, I've got to ask, where the hell did they dig up this Jonathan Turley guy? "Constitutional Law Professor"? This guy teaches people how to read the constitution? No wonder our country is getting dumber. I can't tell you how many times I rolled my eyes during his segment. "We're still trying to convince Obama to prosecute war crimes." Are you kidding me?

Of course, the discussion started with Keith asking about whether a guy at the justice department should be prosecuted for giving lifetime posts in non-partisan positions to Republicans.

Gee, I guess in Keith's mind "non-partisan" means "must go to a liberal," even if the Republicans are hiring!

The entire point of the radical anti-America left's demogoguery of interogation techniques was to reduce the power of one person.....George Bush. Just like the opposition to the war, the poltiical calculus was the only motivation and there was no noble or just reasoning behind the anger. MikeH is just another disingenuous member of a dishonest and crass political minority.

We will see this play out as Obama accepts responsibility to keep our nation safe. "Flexability" in questioning suspects will be all the rage and the left will remain silent as the line between torture and aggressive interogation is debated in the new administration. Just like the left silenced their demagoguery when Obama pulled back on closing GITMO, withdrawing from Iraq in 16 months, capturing OBL and many, many other issues, the hypocrisy on how they demonized Bush for their own selfish political agenda will be obvious.

This country is damaged because of their partisanship.

America47000: "1. McCain lost because the economy tanked and seemed clueless about presenting a coherent message while failing to offer a reasonable counter to Obama."

The second part of your statement indicates that you understand that McCain lost the election and the economy did not lose it for him. You could have just ended your description of McCain with the word "clueless" and left it at that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America470000: "2. numbers show that McCain himself could not engage his conservative base, and without Palin he probably would have lost by more. Among those who saw Palin as a campaign issue, McCain won."

You must have been looking at different polls that I was looking at. I saw evidence that Palin scared far more independents away than votes she saved from the Republican base.

Regarding those who supported and continue to support Palin, it absolutely baffles me why they think that someone who believes living near Siberia somehow gives her foreign policy gravitas is qualified for the presidency? They only risk further alienation in "Real America" by continuing to push that kind of nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America47000: "McCain did not introduce Joe the Plumber to the campaign, Obama did just by showing up in his town."

Sorry, but No.....McCain introduced him by using a clip from a chance encounter had Obama with a citizen. But he never bothered to vet the guy to see if he was who he said he was before virtually elevating him to a spokeman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America47000: "Joe just had the gall to ask about his tax plan."

You're right about one thing; "Joe" had "gall"!

"Joe" had the gall to ask a question while misrepresenting who he was and what his intentions were.....and yet you have the "gall" blame the media for checking into the credentials and story of someone who would lie to a presidential candidate by telling the truth?......You need to get your priorities straight here!

Yes, he certainly could have asked that question without lying about himself, but he never could have become the poster boy for a Republican tax policy that actually have penalized HIM if he told the truth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America47000: "which prompted a "share the wealth" comment that really revealed a lot about Obama. At this point the rumors of socialism kicked up"

But a simple examination of the facts revealed that he supported a simple tweeking of a progressive tax policy that we have had in place for almost a century....a tax policy that was firmly in place when America became the greatest nation in the world. Using a word like "Socialism" was yet ANOTHER example of Republican dishonesty and sensationalism that defined their campaign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America47000: "and McCain used Joe as the example because the clip of him asking the question was widely known."

But "Joe" was NOT an example of someone who might have benefited from McCains favor the rich tax policies, and he had no reasonable chance of getting there anytime in the near future.

Using "Joe" as a poster boy for a tax policy that would actually hurt "Joe" seemed the ultimate in irony.

And Olbermann, along with the anti-America left, was wrong.....again.....

"Breaking: FISA court will rule warrantless surveillance legal"

"the new ruling is expected to have broad implications for federal wiretapping law, because it is the first time that any appeals court has ruled on the constitutional question of the president’s wiretapping power."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

###
That ruling on whether Bush was acting under his constituional powers seems to be in the affirmative.

Remember when Olbermann asked Bush to "RESIGN?"

Oh well......it seems the radical left just won't get what they asked for all through 2006, 2007, 2008....Bush and Cheney in orange jump suits. What a shame!

The church of SNOBamessiah needs its pound of flesh!

VERO POSSUMUS!

>You must have been looking at different polls that I was looking at. I saw evidence that Palin >scared far more independents away than votes she saved from the Republican base.

citing a liberal commentators biased interpretation of a bogus poll that probably doesn't even exist is not evidence.

I was referring to the CNN.com exit polling data.

The real question is whether McCain would have scared away his base more than the independents he could have brought in.

Remember during the campaign, Obama was completely lost once Palin came in. McCain was leading in the polls and Obama was stumbling looking for his message. Whether McCain could have maintained this momentum can't be known, since the collapse of the economy and McCain's erratic response soured his candidacy.

Now, Mike H says I could have just stopped after saying he's "Clueless." But Mike H thinks he's clueless simply for being a Republican. I don't think Obama is clueless for being a Democrat. I just think he's wrong. It's the majority of Democrat voters who are clueless.

My main problem with McCain is that he spouted Republican ideals but didn't seem to understand them. His response to Whoopi Goldberg's slavery in the constitution question was a prime example. Instead of exposing her extreme ignorance of the subject, he let it go without comment.

This is a problem in America that extends to both liberals and conservatives. We have an electorate that is simply not knowledgeable. People say they are Democrats or Republicans but when asked to discuss the issues they simply spout platitudes. They don't understand the reasoning behind them, or the history. They simply have grown accustomed to supporting their church, or politicians promising handouts, or listening to their teachers.

Since Liberals have managed to destroy the public school system, and reared a whole generation of minority voters sucking at the government teat, the Democrats should have a clear advantage. Elections at this point are little more than stimulating your base while getting the other side to not show up.

So Sarah Palin comes along, who is clearly in the platitude mode. But she is still a better choice than a knowing intellectual such as Barack Obama if only for the fact that doing absolutely nothing is better than some of the things Obama is proposing.

>"Joe" had the gall to ask a question while misrepresenting who he was and what his >intentions were.....and yet you have the "gall" blame the media for checking into the >credentials and story of someone who would lie to a presidential candidate by telling the >truth?......You need to get your priorities straight here!

>Yes, he certainly could have asked that question without lying about himself, but he never >could have become the poster boy for a Republican tax policy that actually have penalized >HIM if he >told the truth.

So if someone who was so squeaky clean the media could find nothing about him had asked the question, Obama's answer of "spread the wealth" would have meant something different?

Seriously, what is up with the kill the messenger mentality? And in this case, he wasn't even the messenger.

The point about Joe is not about who he is, but about what he got Obama to admit.

McCain only started inviting him to rallies because the press started hammering him, and people like you started nitpicking minor details.

I haven't seen anything that actually indicates Joe is anything more than he says he is, but the minor quibbles about him hardly rise to the level of deception of someone such as Obama's treasury secretary selection, Tim Geithner, who knowingly neglected to pay taxes until the day before they announced his appointment.

And even if Geithner made an honest mistake about paying his taxes, he's supposed to now be in charge of the IRS! Shouldn't he be familiar with the tax codes?

>But a simple examination of the facts revealed that he supported a simple tweeking of a >progressive tax policy that we have had in place for almost a century....a tax policy that was >firmly in place when America became the greatest nation in the world. Using a word like >"Socialism" was yet ANOTHER example of Republican dishonesty and sensationalism that >defined their campaign.

This statement is such a misinformed generalization I don't even know where to begin.

The progresive income tax is already socialism-lite. There's that slippery slope again.

Have you even charted out American history? The income tax wasn't even legal until 1913, with the passage of the 16th amendment. And within 20 years of passing that amendment, we had a Great Depression, helped in no small part by a 90% tax on the top-income bracket. Kennedy lowered it to 35%, and Reagan to 28%, and the aftermath saw periods of great prosperity. Such prosperity is endangered by rampant government spending (Johnson's Guns & Butter, social security, etc.), and then re-raising taxes on the wrong people when the spending causes deficits.

The philosophy that liberals can't seem to grasp is that when the top 5% does really well, they pull everyone along with them. Even if the gap between rich and poor grows, the poor are still better off than they otherwise could have been. A majority of wealth is created through innovation, and the economy suffers when such innovation is hampered by a government that thinks it knows how to spend the money better than the people who earn it.

And let's not even get started on how the dishonest the Democrats were during the campaign, linking McCain to Bush at every turn, dispite the obvious gap between them in policy.

You say torture is immoral? Well, so is a tax system that penalizes success.

America47000 on McCain: "But MikeH thinks he's clueless simply because he's a republican."

Now why in the world do people like you insist on putting word's in people's mouths that they never said or even implied? I did NOT say McCain is "clueless simply because he is a republican".....I SAID simply said McCain is clueless period. It was not a comment on conservatism ot liberalism....it was a comment on how one of these men ran a masterful campaign, while the other one let his campaign run him.

I THOUGHT we were in agreement on one simple point - that McCain lost because he ran a poor Campaign, and Obama won because he ran a masterful campaign. Poor choices such as picking Palin and 'Joe the Plumber' had far more of an impact on the final results than either conservatism OR liberalism did.

America470000: "We have an electorate that is simply not knowledgable"

I have no disagreement with you regarding that statement. The only thing that gets my hackles up is the rather frequest infurence that it is only the liberal side of the electorate that isn't knowledgable. That is NOT true.....the ignorance cuts equally BOTH ways equally.

America47000: "So if someone who was so sqeaky clean the media could find nothing about him had asked the question, Obama's answer of "spread the wealth" would have mean't something different."

Your question makes the INCORRECT assumption that the media did not ALSO report on and explore the relative merits of that infamous "spread the wealth" comment. I heard the comment repeated, along with the charges of "socalism" that sprang from it repeated ad nauseum by that very same media. Why do you assume the media cannot or should not do two things at once regarding the same issue?

What you seem unable or unwilling to accept is that the comment WAS explored in depth, and the general public simply doesn't agree with you!

America47000: "McCain only swtarted inviting him to rallies because the press started hammering him, and people like you started nitpicking minor details."

That isn't true! McCain chose to make "Joe the Plumber" as the cornerstone of the third debate....and it was only then did the media, and 'people like me' started hammering him.

America47000: "I haven't seen anything that actually indicates he is anything more than what he says he is, but minor quibbles about him hardly rise to the level of deception of Obama's Treasury Secretary selection,"

Well then you haven't been lookking very hard have you?

- The most important piece of deception was that he was on the verge of buying his boss's company....when nothing was further from the truth.

- The second most important piece of deception was that his boss was himself netting more than 250K, which wasn't even close to being true either.

- The third most important piece of deception was that he was a plumber, which requires a license to be anything more than an assistant.

Since you insist on comparing "Joe's" (actually it's 'SAM') tax problem with Geithner's, I will simply only offer that Geithner's problem has long been settled and "Joe's" had not been settled (at the time). Beyond that, I have no defense to offer for Tim Geithner, nor am I required to offer one.

The only reason that "Joe's" tax issue wwas important is because it further discredited the false notion that he has about to buy a million dollar business, when he could not or would not even take care of a $1.000 lien.

McCain used "Joe" to put a face on the issue.....and that is precisely why verifying authenticity of that face was of paramount importance. What McCain wanted to do was offer up the face of a 'working man' as a poster boy for his 'favor the rich' tax policies. His real problem is that very few such poster boys actually exist.

And no....it was never really about "Joe" at all!
-

America47000 regarding the progressive tax code: "Have you ever charted out American history?"

Yes, and your extreme example citing the 90% marginal rate was incomplete and extreme. Do you know of ANYONE today who is suggesting that we return to 90% marginal tax rates?

However, that doesn't mean that a 39% rate isn't a better compromise than a 35% rate. We had prosperity during the 1990s, and we also achieved a balanced. One of my greatest sources of anger at the Bush Administration is the way they squandered the balanced budget, and increased the national debt from 6 to 11 trillion for no good reason in times of relative prosperity.

America47000: "The philosophy that liberals can't seem to grasp is that when the top 5% does really well, they pull the rest along with them."

Thats because it isn't true!......As anyone who has studied the sum total result from the last eight years understands. The bottom 50% hasn't been doing well at all during that period. For them, the recession is nothing new.

Such philophly, like all philosophy, is simply theory, and is this case the theory is simply wrong. There is a fine line between investing in a way that helps to pull others up, and looting the economy, and we crossed that line years ago. When you can tell me with a straight face how a multi-million dollar Wall looter who spends his money on million dollar art and private islands "pulls everyone else up"? then I might just sit up and listen to what you have to say. I say these people were looters, and they did nothing but pull everyone else down by taking many times more than they are worth (or what they actually contributed).

......And THAT is why criticism of that "share the wealth" comment rang so hollow.

America47000: : "Linking McCain to Bush at every turn"

Ah yes.....And just imagine how much more effective such a strategy would have been if they had shown Bush celebrating McCain's birthday with McCain the day after Katrina......You can thank the very HONORABLE Barrack Obama for sticking with the obvious - that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the policies of the two.

America47000: "You say torture is immoral. What about a tax system that penalizes success?"

But we have no such tax system!

The problem here is your incorrect notion thet those who have benefited the most from America's bounties are somehow being "penalized". That is a matter of perception only, and to me, it sounds somewhat selfish, which makes your position anything but 'moral'.

Alright, who left the gate open? I just spent the past 5 minutes reading the biggest bunch of lefty hooey ever. MikeH, you have got to be one of the most incompetent persons of this Country. You don't know when to stop. Your harping on and on about what Joe the Plumber did and wanted to do is a typical example of Olby and his tirades. For the last time, i'm going to explain it to you. I am a Master Contractor working in the Tri-States of Northern Kentucky, Southern Ohio and Eastern Indiana. In Ohio, you may call yourself a plumber EVEN if you are not a licensed plumber but work under a licensed plumber, got it. You may be an apprentice, an intern and a few more topic names and still be able to call yourself a plumber working under someone elses license. Second, your facts are wrong again sport. Joes employer did make over $250,000.00 last year for the business as a whole even after expenses for materials and such. Joes notion that he wanted to buy his bosses business was his dream, so let it go would you. Thirdly, unlike Olby knowing that he owed on taxes, Joe did not know until it was brought to his attention through digging into his personal life brought on by the media police and some dumb ass clerk who was later caught with her hands in the cookie jar. Paybacks a bitch, if ya know what I mean there mikeH. But your biggest mistake or LIE waswhen you state that he was going to buy the business for a million bucks? Where did you come up with that figure? All in all mikeH, you can say what you want but your facts are incorrect. Have a nice day

SoCal, you and yours will forever continue to miss the point entirely on the "Joe the plumber" controversy.

This conversation was about whether invoking "Joe The Plumber" was a really DUMB thing for McCain to do to by trying to make a poster boy of "Joe" regarding an issue in which "Joe" himself would have benefitted far less from McCain's own tax plan that that of his rival......Most Americans got that and voted accordingly.....you apparently are still struggling with it.

Where did I come up with a million bucks, you say?......Well, you show me where I can buy a fully equipped turnkey business that routinely NETS it's owner an income in excess of $250,000 a year?....And I'll show you a long waiting list of potential buyers.

I have to keep Reminding you SoCal that calling people stupid doesn't make them stupid......but your own rantings DO make you look like a really dumb right wing zealot every time!

Thanks for the help!

MikeH, most of us could care less about making Joe the poster boy as you put it.
Your statement of "Where did I come up with a million bucks, you say?......Well, you show me where I can buy a fully equipped turnkey business that routinely NETS it's owner an income in excess of $250,000 a year?....And I'll show you a long waiting list of potential buyers. " This is one of your most dazling comments. I just went to the local throw away paper from this week for the Cincinnati area and found 3 plumbing businesses for sale each for under $ 500,000.00. They all include buildings, service trucks and equipment along with parts from stock.
I will continue to call people like you STUPID untill you come to grips with your ignorance.

SoCal: "I just went to the local paper from this week for the Cincinnati area and found 3 plumbing businesses for sale each for under $ 500,000.00. They all include buildings, service trucks and parts from stock."

And I gaurantee you that NONE of those three businesses would NET their new owner a personal income of over $250,000!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SoCal: "I will continue to call people like you STUPID until you come to grips with your ignorance."

It doesn't matter what YOU call people like me!.....The dumbest people in the world call people far smarter than themselves "STUPID" all the time......What matters are FACTS.....And while you are very adept at providing more than your share of slogans, platitudes, and insults......FACTS are something you are an expert at NOT providing!

Excuse me mikeH, but I just provided you with the facts and YOU are the ONE that has come up short every time. YOU mikeH, are the ONE who is NOT the expert at providing facts. And furthermore, who made YOU the king that tells people what they're going to make from monetarily from their jobs? You are what you put into your business. How in the world could you ever gaurantee anything when you don't know anything mikeH. Wise up dude, you're starting to sound like some crack head that can't get off his fix. Oh that's right, you voted for That One. I guess from one dope to another dope.
Again, wise up fool.

Sorry SoCal, but you did NOT 'just provide me with the facts'.

You say you found three plumbing bisinesses for sale for $500.000 in a newspaper, but you did NOT provide any information about the income those businesses will generate for their new owners.

As a businessman and former corporate manager who understands business, revenue, business expenses, taxes, debt, and overhead far better than you've demonstrated any understanding of, I stand by what I have already posted.

Now it's up to YOU to prove me wrong.....Try it for once!

No mikeH, it stops here. I HAVE proven to you that I dug up the info that you insisted did not exist. Now you want me to be the HR director and lay out all the info for each of these businesses. Give me a break mister, admit you were wrong and deal with it.
MikeH "As a businessman and former corporate manager who understands business, revenue, business expenses, taxes, debt, and overhead far better than you've demonstrated any understanding of, I stand by what I have already posted." Obviously those positions that you say that you had held must not of agreed with you and that employer. As for me, I own my own construction company, contract jobs that I and my crew can handle on a timed basis, take on only what I want to do, and vary my yearly revenue according to how much I want to make that year. MikeH, you do not have the correct credentials to go up against me,so I suggest you back off your high horse and come down from that Obama high that you are on and deal with the reality that YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.

Now it's up to YOU to prove me wrong.....Try it for once! MikeH

SoCal, no matter HOW many times you are right, to MikeH it never means that you *proved* him wrong. Try proving him right and you'll never have a problem of proving him wrong.

SOCal: "I HAVE proven to you that I dug up the info that you insisted did not exist."

You are unbelievable.....I'm not sure I've ever argued with anyone as dense as you are!

The ARGUMENT was whether a turnkey company that routinely made it's owner a NET income in excess of $250,000 a year could be purchased for less than 1 million?

You find some companies for sale in the newspaper for less than a mil and claim you've somehow proven something even though you have NO idea what income a potential buyer could derive from those particular companies.....and all the while, it NEVER even occurs to you that you've left out half of the necessary information!

It certainly helps to explain why right wing hacks such as Sean Hannity make so much sense to your feeble mind!

Argueing with MikeH is like talking to an ice cube.

MikeH reminds me of the type of American mentioned in a piece Cecelia recommended yesterday.....

"Some of this patriotism may be of the sunshine variety — in for a day or a season, when the costs are not great. Or more cynically: in to show that their hatred for America is really just another form of political 'dissent.' Yet whatever the nature of these changes they cannot for now be discounted. Consider: When President Obama commits this nation to war against the Islamic terrorists, as he already has in Afghanistan, he will take millions of previously alienated and disaffected Americans with him, and they will support our troops in a way that most of his party has refused to support them until now. When another liberal, Bill Clinton went to war from the air, there was no anti-war movement in the streets or in his party's ranks to oppose him. That is an encouraging fact for us in the dangerous world we confront."

http://tinyurl.com/9fvbac

###
I suppose it is fine, live and let live, and allow the hypocrisy that people like MikeH and Keith Olbermann illustrate just exist. But when it comes to the hatred and stupidity of their rhetoric against a great public servant like George W. Bush, I tend to hold grudges.....

"DON’T question the motives - question the policy. When you disagree with Obama’s policies, say so, and make it clear why. But remember that President Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country, as President Bush did. Both men love America and want what's best for her. End of story."

http://tinyurl.com/9bhom5

###
It is funny how the haters want this reality now when before, any silly feeling or speculation about Bush's motives could play. That is why MikeH has no credibility here. He has questioned the patriotism and motives of people, along with Keith Olbermann, and then dares to blame them for exactly what they did.

I laugh as MikeH claims innocence in questioning the moral fiber of people and excuses his anger because of the same reasons Keith Olbermann tried to peddle back in 2005 (It's Rummy's fault!). Impugning people's partiotism knows NO ideology or party. Even now, the democrats are questioning people's patritoism if they are not backing the huge stimulus package, or if they supported prop 8 in California, or if they chose not to participate in the cult of personality silliness....yet our man, pure as the driven snow, MikeH remains silent.

Again, just look back in the archives and see MikeH basically dehumanizing and calling into question the intellect, patriotism and sophistication of others....he plays rough as the rep from the church of SNOBamessiah.

VERO POSSUMUS!

"The problem here is your incorrect notion thet those who have benefited the most from America's bounties are somehow being "penalized". That is a matter of perception only, and to me, it sounds somewhat selfish, which makes your position anything but 'moral'."

You make it sound as if prosperity is simply a matter of what the government lets you have, rather than the hard work it takes to earn it.

When someone takes something from someone else they didn't earn, it is called stealing. Taxes aren't stealing because there is an implied consent when one doesn't leave the country. But it is a forced investment in the country, and when those charged with handling that money show they don't know how to do it, as our government has time and again, I don't see why they should continue to be allowed to take it.

But Democrats just want to redirect it to poor people with no accountability, which just creates mindless voting blocks for Democrats. This is very bad.

If I know I can make so much more money by working hard, but taxes will make my net income not much more than I'm making now, why would I exert the extra effort? And if I know the government will provide for me anyway, why work at all?

Imagine if a basketball team was forced to bench its star player and give his minutes to an inferior, lazier player for "equal time." The team wouldn't be as good.

Same with America. Constraining those who work by burdening them with the responsibilities of those who do not is wrong. Especially when welfare encourages corruption, as it does in our system. Poor women will just have more babies to collect more government money, which not only continues the cycle but deepens it, as it creates more potential poor people to strain our resources and vote Democrat.

And if we start handing out free health care, then watch out. What's the incentive to be a doctor anymore, if costs are going to be controlled? And if no one chooses to be a doctor, who will dispense the health care? Imagine that scenario. Would the government actually force people to become doctors if they didn't want to?

An extreme situation, of course. But you have to imagine the extreme sometimes in order to get at the absurdities of an ideology.