May 7, 2005 10:43 PM
A CNN insider wrote in to TVNewser noting O'Reilly's ratings "hemorrhage" since October.
October: 3,166,000
November: 3,080,000
December: 2,610,000
January: 2,478,000
February: 2,391,000
March: 2,320,000
April: 2,178,000
May-to-date: 2,096,000
I'd expect a big drop after the election for any political oriented media, but not a steady deterioration for months. Cool!
O'Reilly's ratings are in a freefall (05.07.2005)
Next Entry: One paragraph. (05.10.2005)
Previous Entry: Rupert Murdoch... blogging? (05.07.2005)
Anonymous:
"CNN's prime time ratings plummeted 21 percent in February, as MSNBC's fell by 14 percent, but FNC's ratings actually rose 18 percent. That put FNC's average prime time audience at 1.57 million, compared to less than half, 637,000 for CNN, and even fewer for MSNBC, the New York Post reported on Thursday.
An excerpt from "CNN Sinking in Fox Hole," a March 3 article by Tim Arango:
CNN saw its prime-time ratings drop sharply in February, falling further behind Fox News.
CNN's ratings dipped 16 percent overall and 21 percent in prime time during February, according to Nielsen Media Research, as some of the cable news channel's biggest stars lost viewers. "
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050307.asp#4
Wonder why CNN isn't covering its own bowl surfing?
Mon May 9 2005 10:24 AM
Sponge Bob:
From the same website as the "O'Reilly in Free Fall" story:
Responding to this post: "Paula Zahn Now had its 'best-ever numbers in April, and that in turn is helping CNN catch up to longtime primetime leader Fox News Channel.' HUH? How is 760,000 viewers 'catching up' to O'Reilly's 2 million?," an e-mailer asks. In May to date, Zahn is averaging a 0.5/525,000 viewers, and is down 31% in viewers compared to April. She is down 44% in the 25-54 demo compared to April.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_news_brings_lower_ratings_for_paula_zahn_in_may_21268.asp
Mon May 9 2005 10:29 AM
Tom from Madison:
I'd be interested in seeing how closely the Factor's ratings track approval of George W Bush and the Iraq War. My guess is they track pretty closely.
Consider:
1) Tom DeLay's legal problems,
2) Bush's falling poll ratings,
3) Falling support for the Iraq war,
4) Terri Schiavo / war on judges debacle,
5) Social Security reform non-starter,
6) Gas price rise after passing tax breaks for businesses buying vehicles over 3 tons--e.g. Hummers.
7) Fake journalists / journalism [Guckert / Armstrong Williams]O'Reilly has been trying distract viewers from paying attention to the above by focusng on the tabloid story du jour, e.g., the runaway brides,Michael Jackson and attacking the usual liberal suspects.
The problem is conservatives are responsible for the current sad state of affairs. Blaming liberals just doesn't ring true.
And it's not even entertaining!
Mon May 9 2005 11:32 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Tom meet earth. Earth, this is Tom. I strongly suggest you get to know each other.
What network didnt cover Shiavo, Jackson and the runaway bride? Please name 1. How about a newspaper? How about name a radio station, any frequency, that didnt talk about the runaway bride and Schiavo? Air America? Nope. They must be in it for Bush too.
Its all one big conspiracy to hide Toms laundry list from the American public.
Mon May 9 2005 10:34 PM
Tom from Madison:
RWR,
I'm suggesting that Murdoch [bankroller of Fox news] and people with a lot invested in Bush cover stories that distract from his screw-ups. The fact that others do it to a lesser extent doesn't make it right for Fox.
Then there is the rightwing theocrat power grab. If you don't think there is an organized effort to replace the current judiciary with rightwing theocrats, you are the one who needs a reality check. Remember Justice Sunday?
The religious right is looking for political payback. Fox News is helping this effort. Meanwhile, average people are hurting. They are hurting in terms of $ spent on energy, health care, and drugs. The Iraq war budget is out of control.
Debt is being heaped on future generations. Pocket book issues are killing average Americans, yet Republicans are in delinal, choosing to focus on hi-jacking the judiciary and privatizing social security.
We are noticeably worse off than we were 4 years ago. Bush and the Republicans are to blame. It's time to hold THEM accountable. We don't need policy being made by a secret energy task force. We need honest debate about where this country is going. Instead we get spin and avoidance of real issues from Bush and a hearty "AMEN!" from Fox news.
Tue May 10 2005 10:28 AM
Keith:
I dont trust any of the networks to report the truth . Fox has made its reputation by blaming everything on Liberals. CNN has tried to stay above that type or reporting, and its hurt them.
The Brave New World is here. Pick a side and go with it. Fox has ushered in a new low in news. Now the rest must follow or get left in Fox's dust.
Tue May 10 2005 2:29 PM
Anonymous:
Keith:
CNN has tried to stay above that type or reporting, and its hurt them
CNN invented that type of reporting in the US.
Tue May 10 2005 4:57 PM
Anonymous:
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,396,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY/COLMES 1,508,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,473,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,457,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,347,000
CNN LARRY KING 893,000
CNN PAULA ZAHN 577,000
CNNHN NANCY GRACE 566,000
CNN AARON BROWN 508,000
MNSBC OLBERMANN 496,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 331,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 320,000
E! JACKSON TRIAL 149,000
CNBC DENNIS MILLER 103,000Fox News Wins.
Tue May 10 2005 5:03 PM
I want the FCC to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. The demise of that rule opened the door to the crap you see and read today. But it can't happen unless we get someone like Bernie Sanders, Dick Durbin or Howard Dean in the White House.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Tue May 10 2005 5:09 PM
Anonymous:
The fairness doctrine was only needed because there were only a handfull of places to get the news and opinion. Now there are so many different sources of news the doctrine is pointless.
Of course, if your viewpoint isnt one any one cares about, see above ratings, I can see why you would want to force them on people. Its the only way you can get people to hear you.
Tue May 10 2005 7:17 PM
Sponge Bob:
CNN will be screwed if the fairness doctrine comes back - ever look up their position on it?
Wed May 11 2005 8:38 AM
Tom from Madison:
We need factual news more than we need Fox News or CNN. It doesn't matters what CNN's or Fox's position on the Fairness doctrine is.
The sad truth is properly packaged distortions and even outright lies can generate a good ratings. O'Reilly even resorts to porn exposées every now and again to goose his own ratings.
I'd like to see more CSPAN type programming made available. Cable / Dish providers should be required to broadcast more of this programming, regardless of ratings, as a condition of doing business.
Wed May 11 2005 10:06 AM
aaron:
》Now there are so many different sources of news the doctrine is pointless.
Right, thousands of different outlets of shit, most of it owned by the same few companies. Sounds great.
Wed May 11 2005 12:21 PM
NJguardsman:
"FAIRNESS is in the eye of the beholder" or more to the point FAIRNESS is decided by the one who is writing the doctrine, so who is to judge/decide who/what is "FAIR"? This is why the doctrine is dangerous, whos to say if "liberal" programs are to be killed? Whos to say if some legislator doesnt like a certain program because that program is critical of him/her, whos to say that they will invoke the fairness doctrine because the legislator feels it wasnt FAIR for him/her to be criticized?
Thu May 12 2005 1:41 PM
NJguardsman:
"FAIRNESS" should always be decided by the market place, if the consumer chooses to: listen/watch/read/surf the internet for what he thinks/feels/decided for himself, that is fair.
Thu May 12 2005 2:18 PM
Dave E.:
Yeah...market forces will fix everything, just as soon as oligopolies quit making a mockery of them.
Loyalty to the marketplace will fuck you with no disccretion. Just ask the loyal blue collars of UAL who spent the last couple decades working toward a nonexistant pension. Never mind that the suits will still do all they can to justify the income disparity in salary and bonuses before paying some inconsequential greasy lifer any carrot that's been dangeld in their face for 20 years.
See - a market's success depends on FULL DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION to the unwitting consumer. That's straight from Adam Smith. The market system has proven over and over again that human influence (greed, power, vainglory) will find a way to fuck things up. We just don't seem to learn that the market needs to be wrangled and subdued from time to time. Teddy did it to the robber barons. History has a way of repeating itself; observe the modern American media and monolithic conglomerates with powerful lobbies.
I agree that what spawned the drivel of American media of today was Reagan deep six'ing the fairness doctrine and the FCC relaxing media ownership regs. The cycle goes: power will continue to beget more power, until there is an appropriate blowback. I say let the hardline conservatives continue to go berserker on the constitution.
We get the government we deserve. We deserve Fox Conservative Commentary Channel and all of its lying, sold out ilk. All of it. Total media ambivalence toward the carnage in Iraq...hey, the elections are over. Who cares what happens now, right? National ID cards. Wave goodbye to your anonymity. Maybe when a few conservative white folk get mistaken for terrorists we'll see some changes.
Or maybe not:
http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20050222/22feb2005174556.htmlEvidently, nurses are the next islamofascists.
Hey. Keep it up all you Bush apologists. Just don't forget to leave home without your papers, and watch your step next time you order a pizza:
http://georgetoft.com/presentations/information_privacy/pizza_order.swf
Fri May 13 2005 3:09 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Stop pretending like there is some market force restricting the flow of liberal ideas.
Air America had every chance in the world to succeed. The fact is, people made a choice and turned the dial away from Air America. Now, liberals want the fairness doctrine back in an effort to force people to listen to their ideas.
If liberalism is so wonderful, why cant you find an audience or win an election?
Fri May 13 2005 8:10 AM
NJGuardsman:
Dave,
Please continue to use the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy propaganda tool; you people have done sooooo well with it.
Lets see you basically havent had a majority in Congress since 1994, you cant win at the ballot box, and now you people are doing everything you can to save the only thing you have left the Judicial branch.
Not to mention that former members of the previous Democrat Administration is stuffing SECRET documents down their pants and getting off, and the former First Ladys moneyman is under investigation for possible illegal money rising.
Hillary Clinton was ALMOST put in charge of 1/7 of the GNP by her husband (former Pres Clinton) having meetings behind closed doors accountable to no one and elected by no one.
The former Governor of NJ resigns and doesnt let the people of NJ have a say in who takes his place. Senator lousenberg ignores NJ law and with help from powerful NJ friends gets into office.
You tried to get John F(word) Kerry elected to the Presidency of the United States even after he admitted being a war criminal. What did you call soldiers/sailors/airmen coming home from Vietnam at that time oh yeah BABY KILLERS and other cute nicknames!
You despise religion yet you embrace Rev Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton and think nothing is wrong with sticking a knife into the base of a full term babys scull and suck everything out and call it a medical procedure and speaking about medical procedures, CNN last week had a story about a NY Fireman in a vegetative state for 10yrs and doctors called it a miracle, and before that we saw the slow torture, government sanctioned murder, wanten execution of Terry Shiavo who was in very much the same state, thank God his spouse didnt want the death experience for him.
Fri May 13 2005 1:49 PM
Sponge Bob:
Proud card carrying memebr of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
"the former First Ladys moneyman is under investigation for possible illegal money rising."
Investigation Hell, he's being tried for it - and is trying to plead it down.
Fri May 13 2005 3:13 PM
Anonymous:
Air America is growing despite what the right-wing naysayers keep proclaiming. Air America now has 56 Stations nationwide + XM and Sirius. Some of the stations are even owned by CLEAR CHANNEL!
Dennis Miller's recent cancellation on CNBC may indicate a change in public taste. Apparently there is some limit to the public's taste for right-slanted punditry.
NJ:
Declining racial/ethnic minority ownership in stations since the repeal of the fairness doctrine indicates unfairness and barriers to entry. Fox News is dominated by the White, Mega-church going perspective. Certainly this segment deserves its own channel. However, there are many other segments who don't have a channel. Please check the polls in the Terri Schiavo case for a reality check on what Americans think regarding "culture of life issues."
Fri May 13 2005 3:27 PM
Tom from Madison:
Sponge Bob:
Since you care so much about ethics, will you join me in calling for Tom DeLay to step down? I say principle demands it!
...by the way, the last post is mine.
Fri May 13 2005 3:31 PM
Tom from Madison:
...Still, DeLay serves a useful purpose. He makes the likes of Bolton and Bush's judicial nominees look pretty darn attractive!!
Fri May 13 2005 3:42 PM
NJGuardsman:
Tom Delay has done nothing that any other legislator hasnt done, Kennedy has done the same thing so if you want us to denounce Delay you need to do the same for Kennedy and everybody else (R & D).
Do you watch the Discovery Channel at all, do you watch those animal police shows, do you see what happens to people who neglect/starve their pets? They at least get arrested.
With the death/murder of Terry Shiavo we have succeeded in devaluing human life to a lower value than animals
Sat May 14 2005 8:47 AM
Anonymous:
I was watching the discovery channel the other day. They had a story about the starvation in African countries. As a sat there looking at the childrens swollen bellies I couldnt help but think how beautiful and peaceful they looked and what a shame it would be to send them food and interupt their right to enjoy the "death process."
Sat May 14 2005 9:29 AM
Tom from Madison:
Terry Schiavo was already brain-dead; had been for over a decade. It was proven repeated in court. We live by the rule of law based on the constitution and interpreted by the judiciary. Neither the fiat of religious zealots nor the decree of a president who would assume dictatorial powers is of legal consequence in America.
Certainly these issues are hard to accept when there is disagreement about whether there is actually life or where the mind is so narrow as to only see one side. Still, we must all live by the rule of law. Evangelical sensibilities do not supercede those of people who believe differently. If you don't accept that, you belong in a Christian Theocracy--not the United States of America!
Sat May 14 2005 3:09 PM
Tom from Madison:
Tom DeLay is subject to the laws of Texas and the United States of America. He is further subject to the ethical rules of the U.S. House of Representatives. What Senator Kennedy may or may not have done is of no consequence.
DeLay must be held accountable for HIS actions. He owes that to his constituents and to the Congress. Guess what? Selling influence is wrong, illegal, and unethical. How dare anyone defend any his or any elected representative's right to do it!
It is SO TELLING to hear those who claim to be the HOLIEST demand that DeLay receive the SAME TREATMENT as his LOWLIEST enemies.
What hypocrites you sanctimonious rightwing preachers are! How bizarre to NOW here you demand to be treated like Ted Kennedy. Remember your own rhetoric about how you were going to business differently. WHAT A CROCK!!!
Sat May 14 2005 3:19 PM
NJGuardsman:
Terry Shiavo was not brain dead, several of the nurses that care for her have signed affidavits to that affect (under penalty of purgery I might add). One doctor actually said he could treat her condition.
Notice how hostile libs get when you show that they are not pure as the wind driven snow. God forbid their failings come out.
For your information Tom Delay WELCOMES an investigation, the Dems dont want to the hearing to through because they no its not going to go anywhere
Sat May 14 2005 4:36 PM
Dave E.:
Holy cow. Learn to spell your ad hoc saviours name before you prop her up as the twisted poster child for the incredibly hypocritical culture of lifer.
While i don't doubt you're a functionally smart person, i'd trust 8 years of court hearings over coached nurses more often than not. Schaivo died 10 years ago. That "1" doctor that said he could treat her is proven to be a hack and charleton. Damn those blasted facts interfering with party politics! Besides, I thought federalism was a cornerstone of Republican politics? Are your ilk that schizo and opportunistic, that you'll forgo basic conservative, small government principles to make a meager attempt to intervene in a totally private family matter to score political points? Do you understand how schizophrenic this all makes you look? If not, you're to be discounted.
Dude. Think objectively.
And if you feel like tying your dingy to Mr. Delay, go ahead. I hope you can hold your breath. Only he could remove/replace members of the ethics committee and stack them with stooges that fundraised for his initial defense.
Yes. Indeed, the new Republicans create their own reality. Forge onward, blind soldier.
Sun May 15 2005 8:26 AM
Dave E.:
In the spirit of accuracy, Shiavo is the correct spelling. Oops. I happen to be concerned with accurate statements, and because of this concern I'll post a simple mea culpa. However, in no way does that change the spirit of what I wrote.
Hey...recruiting is down, I suggest that all who stump for the Iraq war do their patriotic consignment and sign up to go fight the fucker.
Sun May 15 2005 8:40 AM
Dave E.:
Yes. That is twice in mispelling. I am a peevish speller, and merciless in mistaken identity.
Schiavo.
There.
Sun May 15 2005 8:43 AM
NJGuardsman:
So you are telling me these nurses will knowingly lie on an official document, knowing the consequences? for what?? Money?, fame?
Terry SCHIAVO was murdered plain and simple, she was starved to death. What was done to her was done in concentration camps 60 yrs ago only a lot more efficiently now. If you still think differently then when/if you or one of your family members is in a similar circumstance PLEASE BY ALL MEANS have the feeding tube removed and waste away, in fact put it in your will that thats the way you want to go slow starvation."Think objectively" You already have Delay convicted.
Sun May 15 2005 10:05 AM
NJGuardsman:
My last blog should have read "PLEASE BY ALL MEANS have the feeding tube removed and waste away, in fact put it in your will that thats the way you want to go slow starvation/dehydration"
Sun May 15 2005 10:11 AM
Dave E.:
Looks like you must have received a forward copy of the Schiavo memo urging to stump the issue for political points. That the vast majority of the nation understands how huge of a constitutional overstep the federal intervention was is hope that Paine's Common Sense does still exist. With 30,000+ people in this country alone diagnosed as being braindead, you've got an awful lot of prostletyzing to do for thousands of families during their most private and tragic moments. It's called privacy. Why do some conservatives have such a problem respecting it? Always so concerned with what total strangers do. Pity.
"Hannity's Nurses Get Coached
Throughout Hannity's coverage of the Schiavo story, there were three women Hannity called nurses appearing regularly to discredit Michael Schiavo and give their expert medical testimony about Terri Schiavo's condition. As many of you know, only one of these medical experts was actually a nurse, Carla Sauer-Iyer. The other women, Heidi Law and Trudy Capone could not be found on the Florida State list of licensed nurses and nursing assistants.This was posted on Newshounds on 4/1/05 Hannity's Fake Nurses
Now that's bad enough but audio played on Harry Shearer' radio show last Sunday reveals Hannity coaching Carla Sauer-Iyer(nurse) and Trudy Capone (pretend nurse) on how to answer Alan Colmes' questions."
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/04/16/hannitys_nurses_get_coached.php
Sun May 15 2005 5:31 PM
Right WIng Robby:
Dave E,
Why not just take Terry Schiavo out back and shoot her in the head? Wouldnt that be more humain then starving someone to death? Why torture them for 2 weeks since the outcome is assured anyway.
If Terry's "husband" wanted to shoot her in the head, that would have been ok with you right? Afterall, privacy must be respected right?
I look forward to your answer.
Sun May 15 2005 6:30 PM
Dave E.:
Wrong wing: why not just keep her animated corpse around to pet when you get lonely? I look forward to your answer...I mean, apparenty you guys have the Direct Line To God, so I can't wait to hear what's on the guys mind.
The only thing unnatural about the entire episode were the artificial machines artificially keeping a brain dead corpse alive. If anything, THAT'S what goes against natural or divine law. It was a meticulous diagnoses and the only "expert" saying otherwise was a spiral eyed zealot from the lunatic fringe. She died 12 years ago. I can't believe this story is still driving some conservatives crazy. Most people get it: be sure you have a living will, or else your body will be hijacked by the American Taliban to further their radical agenda and the image of your drooling, mindless carcass of flesh will be plastered throughout the "liberal media" and every uber-religious wingnut will pretend to know all about what's best for your body, superceding the objections of your spouse.
Remember when her "husband" asked if any of those so convinced they knew what was best knew what color her eyes were? I'll respectfully defer to her husband to make such private decisions and keep my irrelevant opinion to myself (except when dealing with your ilk, of course). I suggest you do the same. It's over. Time for you to get down to your local recruiters office and start pulling your weight!
Mon May 16 2005 1:22 AM
Right Wing Robby:
So you wont answer the question because you know its more humain to shoot her in the head then starve her to death. You are just a coward to face the reality of what you think should happen.
Come on Dave, she died 12 years ago. Shes just a living "corpse." Say its ok to shoot her in the head. Its more humain.
If thats what Terry's "family"(husband living with another women) wanted, would that be ok with you?
Answer Coward.
Mon May 16 2005 7:49 AM
NJGuardsman:
"Machines" - What machines?! It was a FEEDING TUBE not a respirator or a heart/lung machine. You dump a can of ensure in an I/V type bag and connect it to the feeding tube!
I have no problems w/ DNRs, I have no problems w/living wills, I DO have a problem with slow torturous cruel and inhumane treatment of those who are in those particular circumstances AND if my wife were to have a living will allowing her to die in that manner I would fight it.
By the same notion whats (besides my own morals) to stop me from putting my mother down because shes suffering from dementia or altzimers or terminal cancer for that matter hell, shes going to die anyway.
Evan the Kevorkian method was (relatively) more humane then the method in which Terry died.
Also what were the reasons why her husband wanted to kill her? If he truly loved her why did he start a family with another woman while still married to Terry?I am all for less intrusive government, but in certain cases (Schiavo being one of them) the government should have stepped in.
As Ive stated we have lowered the value of human life to that of something less then that of animals.
Mon May 16 2005 9:29 AM
Dave E.:
Everyone's a professional armchair bioethicist now.
The state government had been stepping in for the last few years in court. Jeb Bush has his name on court motions all over that case. Your wish had been granted long ago. You guys have been hooked up to the misinformation machine for way too long now.
How quickly everyone forgets about Iraq..and you want to talk about trivializing life? HYPOCRITES.
RWR = flippant troll. I served my country. Before you go ad hominem with that word, I suggest you go find a mirror or a recruiter. I'm not kidding.
Mon May 16 2005 10:40 AM
Anonymous:
When the democrats kick out convicted FELON Jim McDermott, (you know the guy the democrats put on the HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTE), you might concern yourself with DeLay, who hasn't even been charged with a crime.
Mon May 16 2005 11:01 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
Glad to see NJ still foaming at the mouth. Ahh the memories.
See any good WMD in Iraq lately? Need a bigger comb?
Lowered the value of human life to something less than that of animals... yeah, it started with 500,000 dead kids in Iraq and it's just been a rollercoaster ride ever since.
Man this is fun... it's been awhile since. Glad Jim took that censoring function off the page. It stifled debate. Felt very republican in nature! HA
Mon May 16 2005 1:38 PM
Anonymous:
Lowered the value of human life to something less than that of animals... yeah, it started with 500,000 dead kids in Iraq and it's just been a rollercoaster ride ever since
Got anything to referance those 500,000 dead kids to? The UN sanctions are reported to have caused over a millions deaths in the Iraq, the US invasion lowered the death rate. Coffee Annan must have hoped to get in league with Mao, Stalin and Hitler but the US spoiled that ambition.
Mon May 16 2005 4:42 PM
Right Wing Robby:
Dave E,
Who says I didnt serve my country? You have no idea what Ive done.
Regardless, you didnt answer the question. You know why? Because libs like you are afraid to call a spade a spade, using phrases like "death process" doesnt make it any different then putting a bullet through her head.
Even though putting a bullet through her head would mean less suffering, you cant even discuss that wording because it exposes the action for what its is. Killing a human life.
I enjoyed watching you dodge and avoid answering the question. Go back to living in your dream world where letting someone enjoy the "death process" is different then killing them.
Mon May 16 2005 8:27 PM
Dave E.:
Troll,
Your question got the dignified answer it deserved: none. Your juvenile petulance was met with appropriate indignation. Surprise. Act like a troll, expect to get treated like one.
Mon May 16 2005 9:00 PM
NJGuardsman:
Well MGWN
How have you been, enjoyed anyones death process lately???
About your WMD, everyone said there were WMDs in Iraq: Clinton said it, Gore said it, Pelosi said it, Hillary said it, John F(word) Kerry said it, Sandy Berger (the thief) said it.
If you think he mysteriously didnt have any when we went in I chalk it up to the fact we announced to the world we were going in and he got rid of them BUT we did find 6 cannon shells made to carry Chem weapons so I ask you this why would he only manufacture 6? And dont forget we lost several servicemen investigating a building in Iraq that was rigged to explode and after that happened we found out there were Chem weapons in that building.
The 500,000 deaths are the responsibility of one person and we found him in a hole in Iraq, he and the UN to some extent (Oil for Food), their deaths and those of countless other Iraqis is his fault.
Let me guess, the civilians killed by terrorist bombs all over Iraq are our fault, those 15 deaths during the receint riots are our fault too, so you just keep perpetuating the America is the Great Satan thing because the more you do the more you help the terrorists the more people die.
Tue May 17 2005 8:23 AM
NJGuardsman:
Sorry, spelling error, dont want the spelling nazis after me "recent" happy now.
Tue May 17 2005 8:29 AM
Tom from Madison:
NJ:
I haven't met anyone who indicated in any way that he or she enjoyed Terri Schiavo's "death process". Do you have any substantive basis for this inference?
Too often rightwing pundits engage in this kind of pejorative name calling.
Your last post is both silly and illogical. Apparently only right-wingers are allowed to convey the status of "great satan" on their enemies be they nations or judges. On the other hand, Liberals who don't use the term "great satan" and who don't profess to "hate America" are accused of both.
How about if you start practicing the commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor. Then quit trying to justify the killing of your innocent Iraqi neighbors in the name of their liberation. There is a lot more preaching than practicing coming from the right these days!
Tue May 17 2005 12:17 PM
Anonymous:
"Got anything to referance those 500,000 dead kids to? The UN sanctions are reported to have caused over a millions deaths in the Iraq, the US invasion lowered the death rate."
Anything to reference? You stupid ignorant sack of protoplasm, hows this?
"Being aware of the situation, two chief UN humanitarian relief coordinators for Iraq as well as the head of the World Food Program for Iraq submitted their letters of resignation. The latter one told that even she could no longer tolerate what was being done to the Iraqi people. The result of the sanctions is following: about 500,000 dead children, whereas 250,000 of them were under 5 years of age. If we add the grown ups, "the figure is now almost certainly well over a million״ (in the words of Denis Halliday, one of the two former coordinators who had resigned). When in 1996 the US ambassador to the UN, Madame Madelaine Albright, was asked a question on the 60 Minutes show, whether the toll of 500,000 dead children was justified, she answered: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it".
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/500The US and UK vetoed any possibility of lifting sanctions so don't even dare try to pin it on the UN.
Dumbass.
Tue May 17 2005 12:17 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
NJ,
I highly doubt i enjoyed Teri's death. I'm just glad its over and believe it recieved WAY too much media time compared to the real injustice being carried out accross the globe.
You can regurgitate every person who ever said there were WMD. i dont see how it helps your cause. Every name i've ever listed, whom you and your neocon attack dogs villified, were proven right. Everyone you mention has been proven wrong. This goes to 2 points. 1. It goes to show however well intentioned, there are stupid and gullible people willing to bite at anything that suits the predetermined goals. 2. That as long as there was a voice of disent and no proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, war should not have been the final exhausted option. W was gung ho to go in come hell or high water, and he wasn't going to wait for weapons inspectors to give Iraq the all clear it was going to get.
Wow, you found six shells. The much vaunted weapons of armageddon. Made to carry Chem? Are you saying they were empty? Ohhh, scarier still? Were the already test fired? How old were they? Maybe they were spent shells during testing during the Iran-Iraq war? Qualify you assumptions and insinuations with facts before i carry this one any further.
Your country was invading theirs. I dont think they would put out a welcome mat for you to rummage through their buildings. Sorry for the loss of your comrades but thats the price thats paid and you know that. Also, this Chem weapon building. Why haven't i heard about that little ditty from the media? It's left wing? What about a white house or pentagon press report? Still nothing? Are you sure it was a Chem weapon building or are you pulling my chain?
I see. Blame Saddam because the US/UK blockaded Iraq for 10 years and prevented food and medicine from reaching kids. Blame him for constant US overflights and bombings of power/water/sanitation infrastructure for 10 years despite a 95% certified reduction in WMD by UN inspectors since the end of GulfWar 1. By the end of this, i might just agree with Ward Churchill.
Tue May 17 2005 12:44 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
the post 2nd back from this one was mine
Tue May 17 2005 12:46 PM
Anonymous:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050517/D8A51JAO0.html
Im waiting for the liberal outrage but I hear nothing. Imagine Rush limbaugh said that?
As long as it is against the USA, the liberals have no problem with it. Why? Because they are against the USA too.
Tue May 17 2005 3:33 PM
Tom from Madison:
Liberal or Conservative, if you love America, you want to be sure to get all the facts before being outraged at anyone. It's way to early to say what exactly happened with the Newsweek story.
It seems possible to me that Karl Rove could have put this story in play for the sole purpose of attacking yet another liberal media source.
This gets the heat off of the Bolton nomination, the failed social security campaign, the messed up war, the oil for food scandal that is now turning against US oil companies who made very big bucks, ....
It is obvious that Bush doesn't believe he can do well with an oppositional press. So, he's out to undermine and question the press wherever possible. To be more precise, his handlers are using his power to do this. He simply hides behind his Texas simpleton schtick. Nice trick for a New Englander preppie!
Rather than make his best case and let the people decide based on objective facts., the neocons kees trying to make the press the issue. Where are the conservatives of conscience?
I have tremendous respect for the like of McCain, Snowe, and Voinovich. Guys like Frist, DeLay, and the rest of the crooked conservative cabal are about power over principle every time. The real outrage is how THEY are flushing the U.S. Constitution down the toilet in the name of patriotism.
Tue May 17 2005 10:21 PM
Right Wing Robby:
You think Rove got an entire religion pissed off at the US so he could attack a magazine? Whats the planet you live on called?
Tue May 17 2005 10:30 PM
Tom from Madison:
RWR:
It's not such a stretch that Whitaker [Newsweek Editor] might take one for the team by knowingly publishing a false story about the Koran.
Remember this was the same guy who published the Lewinsky Newsweek piece in 1998.
I'm not saying this definitely happened, I'm saying the scenario I described would fit with Rove's modus operandi and it would benefit Bush. For now, it's a theory. I'm looking for evidence to refute or support it.
...now how about that search for WMDs? Do you still believe? What planet are you on? Even O'Reilly backed off of this one!
It seems many on the conservative side believe a lot stranger things with a lot less REAL EVIDENCE!
Tue May 17 2005 11:34 PM
I use to watch Fox News like crazy, I loved it till Fox News tried to sue Fox Television over a Simpson's episode that poked fun at Fox news.
Saying that fox news watchers might just think they are watching a real fox news broadcast because "THE CARTOON HAD A NEWS TICKER!!!"
So that is when i realized that they think their veiwers are idiots that will fall for anything. I mean if you think your veiwer are so fucking stupid they might think THAT A CARTOON IS A REAL NEWS STORY! i changed the channel & have never watched FOX news again.
Wed May 18 2005 1:10 AM
Right Wing Robby:
Spooky,
The daily show is the liberals number one watched news show. Its a fake news show as per John Stewart.
Tom,
I believed Clinton when he told me their were WMD's. Did you?
Wed May 18 2005 8:14 AM
Anonymous:
"The US and UK vetoed any possibility of lifting sanctions so don't even dare try to pin it on the UN"
Really, I thought the US and the UK wanted to end the sanctions and begin military operations - isn't that what the liberals were crying about in the "rush to war"? The French, Germans and Russians wanted to "give sanctions a chance" so they could continue to profit from the Oil for Food, Palaces, Weapons, and Bribes program. A couple more years of this program and the profiteers would have skimmed a few more BILLION while the Iraqis continued to bury their dead at a rate of 150,000 per year. Immediately AFTER the invasion the death rate went down. Iraq suffered FEWER casualties during the war then had died under the UN imposed sanctions and the deat rate continued to drop since. Get your shit togather before posting such BS.Got any dates on those "vetoes' by the US and UK?
Wed May 18 2005 9:27 AM
Anonymous:
By the way, those sanctions came into effect after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Why did Herr Klinton enforce them as US policy for 8 years? It took Bush a year and a half to end the senseless slaughter of innocents.
Wed May 18 2005 9:36 AM
Tom from Madison:
No Name:
Innocents are being slaughtered every single day in Iraq. They're being killed by foreigners, eachother, and sometimes US troops. There's no end in sight.
Wed May 18 2005 10:57 AM
Dave E.:
1. Hussein consulted Daddy Bush pre-Kuwait invasion and was met with a shoulder shrug. Remember, Hussein was an AMERICAN ALLY for over a decade. We supplied him and supported him. This is historical fact, and no measure of your strangely misplaced altruism will change this. Your heart is in entirely the wrong place. Innocents continue to die every day because of the chaos that we've brought down on them. We can barely secure our own green zone. Where's your outrage for the innocents that die today? Again, it's understandable why you're posting anonymously.2. If you believe that the US/UK had nothing to do with the UN sanctions of Iraq, or that Oil for Food $ only lined the pockets of the UN, and not any US corps, you're woefully underequipped to be making responsibly informed statements about world politics. Doesn't mean you can't, of course; just means you're gonna look silly. Which is fine.
Lots of the unabashed Bush apologists on this site are good for some hearty chuckles. Bush can do no wrong, and his legion of loyal keyboardists will defend his disaster until their fingers bleed.
On the topic of Gulf war, observe an informed and intelligent statement on Iraq:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." - Golf clap to anyone who can guess who this is.
Wed May 18 2005 11:05 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
Nameless one, you never cease to amaze me. Let me address these in no particular order.
1.Im Canadian. I find your 2 party political system anti-democratic at this point. If you read any of my past posts you see i demonize Clinton as much as Bush. It's the policy stupid. If you didn't catch the fact that Madaliane Albright was under Clintons term when she made that hellish comment about 500,000 dead kids being worth it, that why i consider her Satan. So dont ask me to qualify Clintons enforcement for 8 years. It took Bush a year and a half to bull$#!t his way into a war of aggression to slaughter innocents and increase terror and make the world a less safe place.
2. Keep talking about the UN oil for food scandal. I know you use it as a smokescreen. It's all you ever have left to argue. When you compare that scandal to something like Enron, or Halliburtons overcharging the military... it's on par. When you compare it to lying about everything under the sun to get you country to war and hundreds of thousands die, that not a scandal.. its a war crime. And when the head of MI6 is saying the case for war was fixed from the start...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1533385,00.html3. Get a brain nameless fool. Follow the link:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040701faessay83409-p20/george-a-lopez-david-cortright/containing-iraq-sanctions-worked.htmlI'd ask you to get your shit together, but your obviously a liquid turd.
Some highlights...
-"Washington viewed sanctions as a punitive instrument and refused to consider even a partial lifting of sanctions in exchange for partial Iraqi compliance. "
-"..sanctions forced Baghdad to make significant concessions on disarmament."
-"Saddam resisted initially, but he yielded in November 1993, resulting in the installation of monitoring equipment in 1994."
-"When Iraq accepted Resolution 715 in 1991, Russia and France proposed a statement from the Security Council taking note of Iraqi compliance. The United States and the United Kingdom blocked the statement..." - Gee looks like they wanted them ended?Now i will grant that back in the day Saddam was playing games with inspectors but it should have ended once the monitoring equipment went up. And when Saddam caved and gave inspectors all-intrusive go-anywhere access in the months before the war, and Blix said they couldn't find anything... that should have been the end of the story. I guess that would just get in the way of building an Empire though.
-Notes in the margin- Kudoes to George Lucas for making the parallel of Palpatines ascension in power and conquest to destroy the republic and create Empire alongside W's quest to have unending war, create a police state, centralize power, destroy the constitution and obliterate the American republic. Ep 3 opens everywhere tonight at midnight. GO SEE IT!
Wed May 18 2005 11:05 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
Dave E: I believe that would be Stormin Normin? Am i right? Or was it Bush 41? one or the other, i can't remember off the top.
Wed May 18 2005 11:10 AM
Tom from Madison:
RWR:
sorry I didn't get back to you on WMDs.
I wasn't sure if Clinton was right or wrong about WMDs. To his credit, he didn't start a war based on suspicion and bad intelligence alone.
Remember, there were inspectors that were in the process of proving that there were no WMDs.
The right thing to do would be to continue to let them do their job. Bush didn't want that. He wanted a war.
It is specious and wrong to argue that we should have invaded simply because Clinton and Bush were both wrong. Not acting on bad intelligence is to Clinton's credit. Insisting on acting upon it will be Bush's sad legacy.
Wed May 18 2005 12:40 PM
Spooky sez: I use to watch Fox News like crazy, I loved it till Fox News tried to sue Fox Television over a Simpson's episode that poked fun at Fox news....So that is when i realized that they think their veiwers are idiots that will fall for anything.
The non-existent lawsuit threat was nothing more than a joke by Matt Groening. So sez the Washington Post, and The Simpsons [the show, not the characters]:
http://tinyurl.com/bndje
Sorry, Spooky, but repeating such nonsense is going to make people believe you will fall for anything.
Wed May 18 2005 1:17 PM
NJGuardsman:
Dave E,
It's a pretty good bet it was Bush 41 and I thought he was wrong then I know he's wrong now because if he had gone in THEN it would have been over NOW
Wed May 18 2005 1:28 PM
Dave E.:
"I know he's wrong now because if he had gone in THEN it would have been over NOW."
Sorry, I thought somebody said "major military operations have been completed" and the "mission is accomplished" two years ago? Your statement, while extraordinarily hubristic, is based in nothing but opinion - while there is nothing substanative to go on, it at least provides a good measure of a person. With today's debacle as a case study, any sensible person (who's worth listening to) would have to equivocate that statement in some way.
But not you, NJ.
By the way NJ...you are posting from in-theater, yeah? Assuming you're still under enlistment, seems like they need everyone in a uniform to help fight this thing, no? The way Bush is bending the military, and with recruitment so low, I'm sure you've undoubtedly been deployed somewhere on the front lines or in support. Now I know you can't disclose that, so no big deal. It's just that, seeing as how you're such a stumper and supporter of this funny little Iraq thing, I'm sure you're matching that support with appropriate action. Good luck and be safe. You have millions of worn-out magnets on the back of huge SUV's back home supporting you and wishing you well.
Listen. H.W. was an internationalist. And diplomatic. Too bad the apple not only fell, but rolled all the way down the hill and settled in a goopy tar pit. I'm not going to pretend that one ideology is right and one is wrong - there are facets of everything that are right and wrong depending on the situation or the person. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of feeble minds (Emerson).
Consider principles of: no military action w/o viable exit strategy, even and fair diplomacy, and handling the war crime of aggression (not being the aggressor is a good start). For all his shortcomings, at least H.W. respected international relations and had the foresight necessary to make reasoned, intelligent decisions when it counted.
His son just treats the world like it's an F-ing Texas rodeo...and somehow the clown is in charge.
Having worked for a Dallas-based company for a few years, I can testify to the fact that a Texas mindset is DISTINCTLY different than most other places. It's reasonable to consider business practices as parallel to politics, and the way Bush handles politics is, hands down, exactly the way Texas business operates. Ethics? What is this "ethics" word you speak of?
That being said, it's no surprise that many of the Enrons of the world are based in Texas. Remember who was going to be tapped for Sec of the Treasury? The one and only Kenneth Lay. Bush and Lay were practically frat buddies (or holding hands, perhaps?) until Lay got too close to the stinky odor of corruption - he didn't learn from Bush by supplying himself with enough plausible deniability when 'it' hits the fan.
Alas, the fake drawl and scripted cowboy talk sells to those that are easily manipulated or just scared of their own shadow. The extent of this dixiecrat reign can not be overstated, nor can the harm this approach to governance sows. Rioting in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the fault of playing fast and loose with the power and authority of the once-reasonably respected name of the United States, not a few lines in a Newsweek article that wasn't even a breaking story.
See...H.W. at least got it. At a minimum, most seasoned politicians - from the right or left - do. He understood how disparate actors engage each other on the world stage. Junior thinks it's just a Texas rodeo. He'd be nothing without the fear and uncertainty created by 9/11.
There's not a day that goes by I wish Bush/Rove's ratfucking of McCain in the 2000 S.Carolina primaries didn't backfire on them. Had McCain got the nomination, that would've been my vote in 2000 (apologies to the devout liberals, but in that case I would vote person over party).
Diatribe complete. For now.
Wed May 18 2005 3:18 PM
Homer S.:
So Mike, if I understand you correctly, the US and the UK never vetoed any resolutions to lift sanctions in Iraq.
Thu May 19 2005 9:38 AM
Sponge Bob:
Didn't Lay rent the Lincoln Bedroom out from the Clinton a few times? Wasn't Enron getting a free pass from the SEC under the Clinton Administration but had a PUBLIC announcement of investigation barely 9 months into the Bush Adm? Didn't the democrats get huge contributions from the Enron?
By the way Dave, glad to hear you had a job, at least one point of your life.
Thu May 19 2005 9:47 AM
Tom from Madison:
Republicans, like Rush Limbaugh, used to say "Character matters" when denigrating Clinton. Neo-cons don't seem to care about that now.
Bush has proven to be dishonest and disingenuous on many levels. He prefers to outsource the defamation of his political opponents. Rove has used push polling to orchestrate a backlash against all opponents and relies on hate-mongers like the swiftboat liars to slander and "define" opponents.
Somehow Bush's dopey supporters end up feeling good about their guy simply because they believe so much animosity about his opponents. In absolute objective terms, Bush's record is miserable.
Perhaps the worst part of Bush's character is his abject cowardice. He avoids real debate and potentially hostile questions as part of the way he does business. A person of character wouldn't run from the chance to defend his policies. He would relish it. And, WHAT'S UP WITH THE ORCHESTRATED TOWNHALL MEETINGS WHERE YOU HAVE TO AGREE TO GET IN?
Question: are neo-con families raising the kids to be like 'W'? If so, we're in for a bumper crop of arrogant, lazy SOBs.
Thu May 19 2005 9:55 AM
Tom from Madison:
Apparently Sponge Bob is doing pro bono legal work for Ken Lay.
IN FACT, Bush lied about Lay backing Ann Richards for Governor.
(see reference from Houston Chronicle)
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/business/1208785Later, in 1999, Lay contributed $550,000 of his $40M Enron Salary to the Bush campaign. The Enron investigation was launched after avoiding it was impossible. Like the 9/11 Commission, it is moving at a deliberately SLOW pace.
Do people really trust George Bush to come up with a fair energy policy? ditto for Social Security.
Thu May 19 2005 10:57 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
Homer,
The sanctions went up for review before the security counsil up to 13 times, and each time voted to keep sanctions in place. Ill give you a guess which two countries voted in favour of 13 times. Hell they even blocked an application by Japan to supply hospital/ambulance communication links equipment. Guess they'd be using that on the front lines instead eh'
Ill concede the fact that i used the word 'veto' where it didn't apply. There's my retraction, thank you for pointing it out. Nonwithstanding though is the fact that even when Iraq was found to be in compliance with resolutions to disarm and allow intrusive inspections, the US either used UNSCOM to spy on the Iraq regime (beyond their mandate) or lied and said 'Saddams playing games with inspectors'. In the end, no matter what Iraq or Saddam did, the US would not agree to lift sanctions.
Thu May 19 2005 1:05 PM
Homer S.:
So Tom, what you are saying is that Ken Lay DID rent the Lincoln Bedroom from Bill Clinton and the FTC investigation began only after Clinton left office. Glad we all agree on that.
"The Enron investigation was launched after avoiding it was impossible."
I surprised that you also admit that the investigation began after the Clinton administration delayed its launch.
Since Enron gave over $350,000 to the DNC in 1999 and 2000 I guess one may understand how and why that investigation was DELAYed. Bush committed the unpardonable sin of not staying bought will Clinton was honor bound to his payoff.
Fri May 20 2005 9:22 AM
Tom from Madison:
Homer,
you seem much more interested in nailing Clinton than finding out about Lay's misdeeds. That's a fine topic for another thread, but please don't argue it here as IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!
Bush needs blind loyalists like you. What are you getting out of the deal?
Getting back to the matter at hand, your logic is very LEAKY.
You aren't looking at enough of the facts. Lay and Bush have been in bed together since Harken Energy. Lay's contribution to the DNC amounts to nothing more than hedging his bets in case Bush lost the 2000 (s)election.
Perhaps the largest questions now are:
1) What is Bush doing to get justice for the investors and employees of Enron who were ruined by Lay?
2) What is Bush now doing to keep future Enron's from happening?From where I'm sitting, Bush is performing analingus on the likes of Haliburton and other large corporate oil concerns with whom he is well connected. Meanwhile, thousands of investores and employess have no chance of getting their STOLEN investments and life savings back.
I put it to you: WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THIS?
Sun May 22 2005 12:35 AM
Homer S:
I hope Ken Lay goes to prison and shares a cell with Bubba the pig rapist. As for all the delays in bringing him to justice - I'm sure it has more to do with his attorneys then action in the excutive branch.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/enron/3118549
Mon May 23 2005 8:52 AM
Tom from Madison:
Ken Lay and the likes of Enron are symptomatic of larger problems. Investment fraud has not been dealt with adequately. Moreover, Bush is not making it a priority.
That shouldn't surprise anybody. Lay is a LONG TIME friend of his. Bush owes him in many ways. He also owes a lot to many other friends in low places.
Buying the Bush line has a very dark side. We have secret government to a degree we've never had it. In the abstract that doesnt' seem so bad to a lot of folks. ...However, think about what it means to be an innocent detainee who is wrongly held for years at a time without being charge.
...Or think about what the parents of Pat Tillman are going through. He was killed by friendly fire. Yet the Tillman's and America were deliberately lied to by our own government. That's not supposed to happen in America.
If the President's operatives are lieing about this, what else are they lieing about?
Mon May 23 2005 11:55 AM
O'Reilly's hurting? That leftist deserves it.
Fri May 27 2005 6:28 PM
Right Wing Robby:
Tom,
Think about what it means to be an iraqi Citizen who is standing in line to become a police officer and getting blown up.
Think about Nick Berg screaming as a dull blade rips through your neck scraping against your spine.
Think about the 20 people who just got blown up by a terrorist at a funeral because the deceased spoke out against the taliban.
Tom, why dont you think about them? The left doesnt think about them. They worry about terrorists rights while blaming America for everything. That doesnt make you a patriot.
However, the American people have caught on to the liberal ideals and are beginning to vote them out. The trend will continue here, just as it is over seas.
Wed Jun 1 2005 9:10 AM
Mike of the Great White North:
RWR-"However, the American people have caught on to the liberal ideals and are beginning to vote them out. The trend will continue here, just as it is over seas. "
Ummm, what crack are you smoking? Ill just leave it at that.
Wed Jun 1 2005 4:00 PM
Right Wing Robby:
It must be some good crack Im smoking. It has me believing the conservatives control the White House, Congress and Senate in an ever increasing majority. In the meantime im hallucinating that the liberals are losing election after election.
Wed Jun 1 2005 9:08 PM
Mike of the Great White North:
Oh sorry, RWR. Shoulda clarified. Although im glad you enjoy your crack fix, the comment you made that i replied was the one about you thinking that trend of voting in braindead, chickenhawk, bloated corporate fatcats and dual loyalists is happening overseas.
Speed? Acid? E? no wait... 'W' right?
Enjoy it R, but remember.. unless you actually believe that the Republicans will maintain this supreme Galactic Empirelike control over your body politic, one day in the near future, there will be democratic rule, and the shoe will flip. And we'll have to deal with you and your kind bitching about the same sorry s#1t you bitched about before. Making crap up like the Clintons destroying the white house as they left and leaving porn in the fax machine. We'll go back to hearing repubs screaming bloody murder against the next dem. prez all the while your talking heads have been saying the denounce the prez is tantamount to treason. And you'll go right back to bitching about how getting a bj in the oral office is somehow worse than getting 1600+ and counting troops dead based on fabricated intel made to fit a forgone conclusion!
It'll happen sooner or later... it's innevitable. And i can't wait to see your neocon ass throw a fit and the likes of O'Liely and Shammity say all sorts of vile crap against a dem. prz. Hey if the war on terror is still going on then, maybe they could just ship them off to Guantonimo and publicly execute Ann 'im the biggest *(&%ing dumb ass whore on the planet' Coulter for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. All thanks to the Patriot ACT 2.5 :)
Wed Jun 1 2005 10:29 PM
kspacey:
i hope that mother fucker goes off the air (and takes that jack-off Hannity with him)...
Tue Jun 14 2005 1:52 PM
kspacey:
note to all wankers:
this is a blog! my comment above was my opinion, not propaganda or veiled "news"... an opinion... look it up...
Tue Jun 14 2005 1:53 PM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
