Comments: 20 Score: [-] 160 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 2 months ago by 2manyusernames:
Transcript:
Score: [-] 114 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by shep182:
« 2manyusernames : Transcript:
Never thought of that... thank you...
Score: [-] 14 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by DerAlt:
Oh oh.
Puts on helmet and waits for the onslaught from........
Score: [-] 82 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by lilyang:
I've been saying for years that right wing talk radio shouldn't get too comfy because there is always a reaction. Now we're living in a world where we can get what "news' already supports our views. With the rise of the right in those markets gave rise to the left in those same markets. I hope you're happy guys. Suck. On. It.
Score: [-] 55 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by dollyllama:
That was brilliant.
Score: [-] 120 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by zw100:
That was pure crap.
What a pompous self righteous a**.
the question was:
next year, what's the worst that could happen, what's the doomsday scenario?"
How does that equal to:
Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States.
Pure Crap.
There is a reason he doesn't take callers like a "right wing" host. Half of what he says doesn't make any sense
Score: [-] 42 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by Killerbean:
« zw100 : Half of what he says doesn't make any sense That's because half the time you have your fingers in your ears, saying "la la la lah!"
Score: [-] 56 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by browntrout:
I'm no Bush apologist but you folks are seriously fooling yourselves if you think it can't get any worse.
...for the record - I don't like ANY of the candidates who are running but I like Keith Olberman even less.
Score: [-] 116 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by JoshSF49:
I can't stand Olbermann.
However, a broken clock IS right twice a day.
The video wasn't working for me, but I can comment that it's funny that Bush and Giuliani have both claimed that a democratic President would lead to another 9/11 when in fact it was the Republicans that were in charge of NYC and the White House when 9/11 Occurred.
That being said, Obama and Hillary's foreign policy aren't much different than McCain or Bush's (other than Iraq), so Bush is right in saying that a Democratic President may lead to another terrorist attack. But, there's the same chance that a Republican President would lead to another terrorist attack.
Score: [-] 153 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by ImNotBlue:
At the moment when you say, "Shut the hell up" to a President (sitting, or past) you've crossed the line.
There is (or at least should be) some form of RESPECT left in this country... but that's clearly eroding. There are too many people who believe in "ME-ME-ME, I-I-I" and if anyone disagrees with them, well they must be "out of their f**king mind."
You are allowed to have your opinions... you are allowed to fight for it vigorously... but at the point when you start thinking that you're better than everyone else, someone needs to give you a reality check.
And let's face it... the only reason he gets away with saying things like this, is because he's arguing AGAINST Bush. Imagine if someone else had said the same thing, but directed towards Jimmy Carter, or Clinton, or (God forbid) Obama... all hell would break loose, and there would be celebrated demands for his/her termination.
Just for once... I wish Olbermann would show a little class.
Score: [-] 38 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by Killerbean:
« ImNotBlue : You are allowed to have your opinions... you are allowed to fight for it vigorously... It disturbs me deeply how you phrase that: "We're allowed"?! as if having an opinion is some sort of privilege.
It's our God-given right to express ourselves, ESPECIALLY when someone hijacks the country and sends it down the s**tter.
I agree that showing respect is a commendable act... but that well has dried up for Mr.Bush. He deserves absolutely none.
Score: [-] 45 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by ImNotBlue:
« Killerbean : It disturbs me deeply how you phrase that: "We're allowed"?! as if having an opinion is some sort of privilege.
It's our God-given right to express ourselves, ESPECIALLY when someone hijacks the country and sends it down the s**tter.
I agree that showing respect is a commendable act... but that well has dried up for Mr.Bush. He deserves absolutely none. Yes, we are "allowed"... it may be our God given right... but at the same time there are a lot of people in the world who DON'T have that God given right. In this country, we have freedom of speech... we are allowed to express ourselves, no matter how disrespectful.
If "freedom of speech" was truly an undeniable right, there would be no need to have a law saying we had it... that would be like making a law that says it's okay to breathe. Fact is, "free speech" can be taken away, but in this country we are "allowed" to exercise that right. Sadly, some people in this country take it for granted.
FURTHERMORE, you may disagree with Bush... you may hate the policies, the people, and the actions that have taken place because of him... you may even blame him for things he had or has no control over... BUT, you MUST respect him, because he is the President of this country.
Sometimes, you do not get to pick and choose who to respect... you respect the office and the position. I don't much care for Jimmy Carter, and think that he's done a lot (especially recently) to hurt the United States... but as a former President, he still has earned a certain level of respect.
Remember in High School... there were teachers you didn't like. Teachers who couldn't teach, were nasty, and did everything wrong. But because they were teachers, you still had to respect them... they were still addressed as "Mr." or "Mrs."... you couldn't swear at them or tell them to "shut up" because you didn't like them... you were required, even if you hated them, to show them at least a little bit of respect. Same goes in the workforce… even if your boss is a jackass, you must show them some respect.
Today, people are so self absorbed that unless someone does exactly what they feel they should, they don't need to show respect. It's the "What have you done for me lately?" mentality... and it's wrong.
So in short, you can hate Bush all you want... but you should respect the office of the Presidency, and while he holds it, you should respect him too. Without it, we as a society are in danger, and anarchy is just around the corner.
Score: [-] 41 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by dollyllama:
Respect has to be earned. Once lost it's hard to get back.
Bush deserves far more than he gets. He deserves to be charged with war crimes, whether he gets them remains to be seen.
Score: [-] 32 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by JoshSF49:
« dollyllama : Respect has to be earned. Once lost it's hard to get back.
Bush deserves far more than he gets. He deserves to be charged with war crimes, whether he gets them remains to be seen. Bush deserves to be charged with war crimes no more than Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.
The only difference is that the majority of the US is unhappy with Iraq as opposed to the other two.
Score: [-] 22 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by paulw:
I thought Olbermann was very charitable. He let Bush continue to get away with the lie that Bush was misled by bad intelligence.
In reality, Bush wasn't misled by bad intelligence. He knew full well that Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq (or at least, his handlers knew it; Bush is so profoundly stupid that going into the war he didn't know there were such things as Sunni and Shia Muslims). Everyone with an IQ over room temperature knew Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq. Any secularist despot in the Middle East has more to fear from fundamentalist Islam than from the U.S. or anything else; the Shah was a good example of why (do any of you Bushies even know who the Shah was, and how American created the current mess in Iran?). Al Qaida was the last entity in the world Saddam would tolerate in Iraq. There's no chance Saddam's Iraq was a terrorist training ground for Al Qaida. Of course, Bush's Iraq definitely is.
Also, Bush knew Saddam hadn't deployed any weapons of mass destruction. Bush had no intelligence on that at all, just the fabrications he showed while accusing anyone who contradicted him of being--literally--traitors. If he had such evidence, he'd have told the U.N. W.M.D. inspection teams and they'd have found the weapons. Instead, just weeks before the U.N. inspection teams were about to announce there were no W.M.D.s, Bush desperately demanded they leave so he could begin an attack on an innocent people without being inconvenienced by the fact that his illegal, unprovoked war of aggression had no basis. Wag the dog, baby!
Good thing he accomplished the mission so quickly! Otherwise we'd have to remember that Iraq was a smokescreen to divert attention from Bush's utter failure to do anything about 9/11. And from Bush's success in driving America into a recession of such destructiveness that real terrorists must have been truly admiring him. And from his success at taking an illegitimate presidency--remember, he lost the election but was installed by a bare majority of the Supreme Court--and trying to create a "unitary" presidency (in other words, a presidency that need not be checked by separation of powers, which could ignore the law simply by declaring that it didn't apply to him--hmmm, what to we call the leaders of other countries who behave that way?).
Yes, Olbermann was very charitable in not taking Bush to task for being not just one of the most incompetent presidents in American history, but one of the most vile.
Score: [-] 69 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by JoshSF49:
« paulw : I thought Olbermann was very charitable. He let Bush continue to get away with the lie that Bush was misled by bad intelligence.
In reality, Bush wasn't misled by bad intelligence. He knew full well that Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq (or at least, his handlers knew it; Bush is so profoundly stupid that going into the war he didn't know there were such things as Sunni and Shia Muslims). Everyone with an IQ over room temperature knew Al Qaida wasn't in Iraq. Any secularist despot in the Middle East has more to fear from fundamentalist Islam than from the U.S. or anything else; the Shah was a good example of why (do any of you Bushies even know who the Shah was, and how American created the current mess in Iran?). Al Qaida was the last entity in the world Saddam would tolerate in Iraq. There's no chance Saddam's Iraq was a terrorist training ground for Al Qaida. Of course, Bush's Iraq definitely is.
Also, Bush knew Saddam hadn't deployed any weapons of mass destruction. Bush had no intelligence on that at all, just the fabrications he showed while accusing anyone who contradicted him of being--literally--traitors. If he had such evidence, he'd have told the U.N. W.M.D. inspection teams and they'd have found the weapons. Instead, just weeks before the U.N. inspection teams were about to announce there were no W.M.D.s, Bush desperately demanded they leave so he could begin an attack on an innocent people without being inconvenienced by the fact that his illegal, unprovoked war of aggression had no basis. Wag the dog, baby!
Good thing he accomplished the mission so quickly! Otherwise we'd have to remember that Iraq was a smokescreen to divert attention from Bush's utter failure to do anything about 9/11. And from Bush's success in driving America into a recession of such destructiveness that real terrorists must have been truly admiring him. And from his success at taking an illegitimate presidency--remember, he lost the election but was installed by a bare majority of the Supreme Court--and trying to create a "unitary" presidency (in other words, a presidency that need not be checked by separation of powers, which could ignore the law simply by declaring that it didn't apply to him--hmmm, what to we call the leaders of other countries who behave that way?).
Yes, Olbermann was very charitable in not taking Bush to task for being not just one of the most incompetent presidents in American history, but one of the most vile. So, you mean the entire Senate wasn't misled by the intelligence? Oh wait, it was.
You mean the entire country wasn't misled by the intelligence? Oh wait, it was.
You mean, Iraq never had WMDs? Oh wait, they did, we gave them to Iraq.
Go back and check your facts buddy.
Iraq was a bad decision, and I never supported it. However, your spilling of lies bothers me.
Score: [-] 10 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by paulw:
« JoshSF49 : So, you mean the entire Senate wasn't misled by the intelligence? Oh wait, it was.
You mean the entire country wasn't misled by the intelligence? Oh wait, it was.
You mean, Iraq never had WMDs? Oh wait, they did, we gave them to Iraq.
Go back and check your facts buddy.
Iraq was a bad decision, and I never supported it. However, your spilling of lies bothers me.
You may have forgotten the atmosphere a few years back. Or, given that your lack of reading comprehension may belie other problems, what was going on then may have slipped right by you. After 9/11, Bush and his flunkies made a point of accusing anyone who disagreed with him of being traitors, of helping terrorists. With Americans hurting over 9/11, and politicians not wanting to lose the next election, yeah, most of the politicians were too craven to do anything but say whatever they had to say to not get labeled as friends of terrorists. Many of them believed the President because it's important to be able to do that at times of crisis, and some who knew better were too scared to speak up, and are now no doubt regretting their lack of courage for not calling Bush on the smoke he was blowing. I didn't say the Senate wasn't misled, you just can't read. Which is why you failed to even address the points I actually made.
And yeah, most Americans were misled by Bush. Are you really so clueless, so abysmally ignorant of history, that you have missed the fact that each and every time a nation anywhere gets whipped up into war fever, hardly anyone in that nation gives a thought to anything but jumping on the bandwagon? That's why so many leaders throughout history, including Bush, wag the dog.
"Check your facts?" OK, show some to me. Bush went into Iraq claiming that Saddam had W.M.D.'s and was about to use them on us. Remind me, where did the troops find those weapons? And exactly what weapons did they find? Oops, you have nothing. Because although Saddam was a U.S. ally during the Iran-Iraq war/the first Persian Gulf conflict, and because although the U.S. did supply and support him including when he was slaughtering his own people, to my knowledge we never gave him any W.M.D. No such thing has been reported in the mainstream press. Where's your evidence?
And I still note that you don't have a single example of a "lie" that I told.
Score: [-] 64 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by JoshSF49:
« paulw : You may have forgotten the atmosphere a few years back. Or, given that your lack of reading comprehension may belie other problems, what was going on then may have slipped right by you. After 9/11, Bush and his flunkies made a point of accusing anyone who disagreed with him of being traitors, of helping terrorists. With Americans hurting over 9/11, and politicians not wanting to lose the next election, yeah, most of the politicians were too craven to do anything but say whatever they had to say to not get labeled as friends of terrorists. Many of them believed the President because it's important to be able to do that at times of crisis, and some who knew better were too scared to speak up, and are now no doubt regretting their lack of courage for not calling Bush on the smoke he was blowing. I didn't say the Senate wasn't misled, you just can't read. Which is why you failed to even address the points I actually made. No, the point was that you said that Bush lied. But is it not particularly interesting how we give the senate a break for voting for it when the had the same intelligence he did. But HE lied. The Senate didn't. My point was that everyone was misled off false intelligence, not necessarily that Bush lied.
And yeah, most Americans were misled by Bush. Are you really so clueless, so abysmally ignorant of history, that you have missed the fact that each and every time a nation anywhere gets whipped up into war fever, hardly anyone in that nation gives a thought to anything but jumping on the bandwagon? That's why so many leaders throughout history, including Bush, wag the dog.
No, it doesn't matter. You can't blame Bush for lying if you don't blame the senate. You can't be upset at Bush if you aren't upset with the rest of the country.
I, on the other hand, never supported the war, but for different reasons than most people. Thus, I have the moral authority to condemn those who voted for it.
"Check your facts?" OK, show some to me. Bush went into Iraq claiming that Saddam had W.M.D.'s and was about to use them on us. Remind me, where did the troops find those weapons? And exactly what weapons did they find? Oops, you have nothing. Because although Saddam was a U.S. ally during the Iran-Iraq war/the first Persian Gulf conflict, and because although the U.S. did supply and support him including when he was slaughtering his own people, to my knowledge we never gave him any W.M.D. No such thing has been reported in the mainstream press. Where's your evidence?
Well WMD is a very abstract term. Bombs are WMDs, guns can be WMDs. The fact is that we supplied Saddam with weapons that could harm us, and Bush was well aware of that.
And I still note that you don't have a single example of a "lie" that I told.
You lied that Bush lied. There's no indication that Bush lied, just that he was given false information.
That is, there is just as much proof that Bush lied as there is that you did.
p.s. Plime rules specifically tell you not to downvote because you disagree with someone
Score: [-] 3 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by siennablue:
« dollyllama : Respect has to be earned. Once lost it's hard to get back.
Bush deserves far more than he gets. He deserves to be charged with war crimes, whether he gets them remains to be seen. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington, and "Torture-Master" Yoo all need to be tried for war crimes against the US population.
You're right on, Olbermann was brilliant .. he usually is when he's doing a Bush or Cheney rant.
Score: [-] 50 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by paulw:
« JoshSF49
p.s. Plime rules specifically tell you not to downvote because you disagree with someone Who downvoted for disagreeing? I didn't downvote a number of people who I disagreed with. I downvoted one of your posts because it quoted me, and then proceeded to construct and demolish a number of straw men that were never in what you quoted. I upvoted your more recent post because it was well reasoned. Wrongheaded, but it was still a reasoned response to what I actually said.
Go visit hell when you die. You'll find Bush there, for lying about Iraq. Then go find me (probably nearby), and apologize for saying I was lying when I said he was lying.
Score: [-] 50 [+].
< 1 >