but but but FAUX News!

I personally like the idea of a hyper-critical pundit who bashes those in power. Anything that gets them to pause for half a second in their trampling of personal liberties is fine by me.

I'll feel the same way when a Democrat holds the White House.

Wow, just wow... you hit a home run tonight sir.

/ kind thanks

Keith really nailed it tonight. Anyone who is not completely sick of Bush's fear-mongering every time he wants something must be either a republican or brain dead.


Well done sir!

Actually, Olbermann is probably the number one example of a dangerous liberal, and I assure you when McCain wins this election he will not suffer this fool gladly if he tries to pull the same irreverent attitude on him, mark my words.

George Bush really grinds his gears.

Three quarters of the country seems to be feeling that "very special brand of unbridled Bush-hate" at this point, and it's increasing by the day.

/Bush: "The french have no word for 'Entrepreneur'"
//Doofus in Chief

Yeah, Bush sucks. Everyone who has some sense knows that by now. You're never going to get the 26-percenters.

BravadoGT: but but but FAUX News!

It's funny to see you clinging desperately to "your side" of a false dichotomy.

> McCain wins this election he will not suffer this fool gladly

...and WHAT? lock him up in Guantanamo? use new surveillance powers of the state to blackmail him?

More reason to to elect McCain, I suppose.

That's it?

/Disappointed

Cutting and pasting my entire comment and responding with an absurd epithet does not constitute an argument.

This is what liberals do: try to make a joke out of everything. Well, this has gone beyond a joke, and Olbermann had better watch it. He's going to use his hatred against the Republicans for winning this November and he's going to cross the line.

Bush: the Republican Jimmy Carter, only with more dead people

Hero of the people, defender of the Constitution

Why do Republicans hate the Constitution so much? Why do they hate the freedoms it grants America?

If you are anti-Constitution, you are anti-American.

I don't see why Keith has to get so upset! Can't he just say nice things? What has George W. Bush ever done wrong? And if you think of anything, why do we have to care about it? Can't politicians worry about politics instead of us regular folk?

Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger.
Yet you are willing to weaken that ability!
You will subject us, your citizens, to that greater danger!

Maybe I'm just not SMRT enough to understand Mr. Olbermann, but I don't follow his train of thought here. He doesn't give an example or a reason behind his assertion that Bush will weaken our ability to track terrorist threats. He just says it and it becomes magically true. Where does this come from? It is without any attempt to explain why or how. Maybe I'm just too used to people making, you know, COGENT arguments instead of just Bare Assertions - especially in text, when you have the ability to slow down your train of thought. Apologies if I'm just misreading this whole deal, but ole' Keith seems to have taken a romantic moonlight ride on the FAILboat for Valentine's day.

skookum: Cutting and pasting my entire comment and responding with an absurd epithet does not constitute an argument.

This is what liberals do: try to make a joke out of everything. Well, this has gone beyond a joke, and Olbermann had better watch it. He's going to use his hatred against the Republicans for winning this November and he's going to cross the line.

Having voted Bush twice now, I say to Mr. Olbermann "Good on you, take this guy down."

/Worst waste of two votes I've ever made.

+1 Olbermann

Shaggy_C
Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger.
Yet you are willing to weaken that ability!
You will subject us, your citizens, to that greater danger!

Maybe I'm just not SMRT enough to understand Mr. Olbermann, but I don't follow his train of thought here. He doesn't give an example or a reason behind his assertion that Bush will weaken our ability to track terrorist threats. He just says it and it becomes magically true. Where does this come from? It is without any attempt to explain why or how. Maybe I'm just too used to people making, you know, COGENT arguments instead of just Bare Assertions - especially in text, when you have the ability to slow down your train of thought. Apologies if I'm just misreading this whole deal, but ole' Keith seems to have taken a romantic moonlight ride on the FAILboat for Valentine's day.

The quotes are out of context, but he's talking about the fact that Bush said the FISA bill was necessary for our nation's security, but said he would veto it if there wasn't immunity for the telecoms, if I'm reading it right. Hence, Bush was trading, by his own argument, the security of the American people for the security of the telecom companies.

skookum: Cutting and pasting my entire comment and responding with an absurd epithet does not constitute an argument.

This is what liberals do: try to make a joke out of everything.

Why would anyone want to argue with someone who makes such stupid, sweeping generalizations? It's a waste of words (just like these ones, I'm sure).

Also, re: Olbermann's anger, I don't know how any American could remain calm in the face of the abuses of this administration.

FTA:
We will not fear the international terrorists -- we will thwart ignore them with our thumbs up our asses until they surprise attack us again and we elect Mitt Romney in 2012 out of.........fear?

FIF the hack.

Shaggy_C: Maybe I'm just not SMRT enough to understand Mr. Olbermann, but I don't follow his train of thought here. He doesn't give an example or a reason behind his assertion that Bush will weaken our ability to track terrorist threats. He just says it and it becomes magically true. Where does this come from?

Bush said that if Congress votes to extend temporary immunity for the telcos, he will veto it because he wants it to be permanent and he'll stamp his feet until he gets what he wants.

In other words: he'd let these "vital programs" lapse, thereby weakening (by the administration's reasoning) our ability to track terrorist threats.

Shaggy_C: Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger.
Yet you are willing to weaken that ability!
You will subject us, your citizens, to that greater danger!

Maybe I'm just not SMRT enough to understand Mr. Olbermann, but I don't follow his train of thought here. He doesn't give an example or a reason behind his assertion that Bush will weaken our ability to track terrorist threats. He just says it and it becomes magically true. Where does this come from? It is without any attempt to explain why or how. Maybe I'm just too used to people making, you know, COGENT arguments instead of just Bare Assertions - especially in text, when you have the ability to slow down your train of thought. Apologies if I'm just misreading this whole deal, but ole' Keith seems to have taken a romantic moonlight ride on the FAILboat for Valentine's day.

Bush said in the SOTU that if FISA isn't renewed Americans will die.

Bush then threatened to veto the FISA renewal bill over the telecom immunity issue.

Ergo, Bush prioritizes telecoms over Americans.

Huh, I never realized it until now. Olbermann threads have that very distinctive aroma of Ron Paul craziness to them.

sg2001: The quotes are out of context, but he's talking about the fact that Bush said the FISA bill was necessary for our nation's security, but said he would veto it if there wasn't immunity for the telecoms, if I'm reading it right. Hence, Bush was trading, by his own argument, the security of the American people for the security of the telecom companies.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense then. Thanks!

Oh, yeah - Suck it, Bush.

This is not feudal Europe. It's not illegal to criticize those in power. Vehemently disagreeing with those in power is a VIRTUE in this country not a vice.

helix400: Huh, I never realized it until now. Olbermann threads have that very distinctive aroma of Ron Paul craziness to them.

How so?

Cheesedog: How so?

It was Goodfella's post that clued me in. Replace Kieth's picture with Ron Paul. Change nothing else...and it's a classic Ron Paul post. "If you are anti-Constitution, you are anti-American."

Shaggy_C

That transcript on Daily Kos is only a partial one. Here's a summary of the speech:

1: Congress wants to pass a revised form of the Fisa bill that won't give retroactive immunity to telecom companies.
2: Bush only wants a copy of the bill passed last summer that will provide immunity, and accuses Congress of leaving us defenseless against terrorists.
3: Bush will veto any form of the bill that doesn't include the immunity.
4: Therefore, he will leave us defenseless against the terrorists when the bill expires and we can no longer track terrorists.
5: Therefore, Bush is a hypocrite.
6: And a fascist.

/7: George Orwell
//8: Nineteen Eighty-four

Yeah, those damned Constitution huggers really get my goat. Where do they get off?

/rolls eyes

The truth is that Olbermann could already be held under the Patriot Act. Fundamentally his anti-Bushisms are no different from what we've heard on Bin Laden recordings.

Oh, never mind, three people answered before me.

Yeah, subby, there's totally no rational reason to hate Bush, except for the useless war he demanded, the recession that his disastrous fiscal policies have plunged us into, and the astronomical debt that he has saddled our grandchildren with.

But you know what? There really aren't that many problems in the world, because most people have the same problems.

skookum: The truth is that Olbermann could already be held under the Patriot Act. Fundamentally his anti-Bushisms are no different from what we've heard on Bin Laden recordings.

Oh, shut up. Nobody buys the lame-ass act anymore.

helix400,

Ha, ya, well I challenge you to find a single fark thread that doesn't give off the pungent odor of crazy.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

The Republican Party, in its current incarnation, is the largest terrorist organization in the world today.

Prospero424: In other words: he'd let these "vital programs" lapse, thereby weakening (by the administration's reasoning) our ability to track terrorist threats.

d'art: Ergo, Bush prioritizes telecoms over Americans.

Fhydra: 3: Bush will veto any form of the bill that doesn't include the immunity.
4: Therefore, he will leave us defenseless against the terrorists when the bill expires and we can no longer track terrorists.

Eek...apparently it is I who took the moonlight ride on the FAILboat.

/slinks off in shame

At least someone has come out and actually used the "L" word.

It seems like the last 7 years has been one case after another of having to say "Either Bush is lying, or he doesn't know what he's talking about", and we are supposed to take comfort in the fact that the President must just be "misinformed".

Fark that. He's a liar. He's been lying to us all along. He's going to continue to lie to us, too, because a minority of the population would rather live in the world he lies into existence than the real world, which is full of difficult problems and foreigners.

Prospero424: Oh, shut up. Nobody buys the lame-ass act anymore.

Yes, sure, tell yourself it's an "act." The truth is that you are precisely the kind that will end up in the camps, sentenced to hard labor until the liberalism is driven from you.

McCain is already in possession of lists of people like you, and the smart thing would have been to take my warnings seriously. Well, sir, I shake the dust off my shoes to you, and may God have mercy on your soul!

So basically what king dipshiat is saying is that he's willing to get us all killed if his buddies can't get away with spying on us illegally. he'll veto the WHOLE bill if his rich buddies who run telecom might lose one of their yachts.

which is bullshiat anyway. from what i hear all the bill does is make it so instead of needing to get a warrant three days after you spy on someone, you don't need a warrant at all.

skookum, you actually had me for a few minutes there until I read your last post. I guess im just gullible though. i give your original trollings 7/10. pretty average. but the last troll only gets a 2/10. way too silly, destroyed the whole illusion.

Shaggy_C 2008-02-15 01:46:21 AM
Eek...apparently it is I who took the moonlight ride on the FAILboat.

/slinks off in shame

No shame in being able to process information and recognize that you were wrong. We need a whole lot more of that these days.

I for one welcome our new phone bill overlords with a charge labeled government mandated surveillance charge (taxable), that doubles the bill.

Two threads full of Bush Derangement Syndrome and it's barely Friday? Could be an interesting weekend.

skookum: The truth is that Olbermann could already be held under the Patriot Act. Fundamentally his anti-Bushisms are no different from what we've heard on Bin Laden recordings.

Someones been stealing grandma's goof pills.

Shaggy_C wasn't wrong. Daily kos just sucks at explaining Olbermann's argument.

If we don't give immunity to the East India Trading Company telecom companies (who, incidentally, didn't do anything illegal or unconstitutional), the ter'ists win.

Fhydra: Shaggy_C wasn't wrong. Daily kos just sucks at explaining Olbermann's argument.

It was Olbermann himself previewing his comment on Daily Kos. Why this even got greenlighted is beyond me.

randomjsa 2008-02-15 02:20:22 AM
Two threads full of Bush Derangement Syndrome and it's barely Friday? Could be an interesting weekend.

Yeah. total shocker. Seventy percent of the nation has Bush Derangement Syndrome, as you define it, and there are two threads devoted to it in a single day on a popular Web site.

Go suck your thumb in private.