Olbermann Rescinds Charity Offer For Cowardly Hannity,

[ddaydetroit]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/23/oblermann-charity-mancow/

Olbermann Rescinds Charity Offer For Cowardly Hannity, Donates $10K For Mancow’s Waterboarding (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/23/oblermann-charity-mancow/)

Last month on his Fox News show, torture enthusiast Sean Hannity claimed he would agree to be waterboarded “for charity…for the troops’s families (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/hannity-offers-to-be-wate_n_190354.html).” MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann immediately took up Hannity’s pledge, offering $1,000 to charity for every second (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/27/hannity-voluntary-waterboarding/) Hannity withstood waterboarding.
Over the next 30 days, Hannity went completely silent on his pledge, opting not to go anywhere near the subject of waterboarding again. Olbermann repeatedly reminded Hannity of his pledge to donate to charity in his name, but to no avail.
Last night on Countdown, Olbermann announced that he was rescinding the offer to Hannity, and instead giving $10,000 to charity following radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller’s waterboarding attempt (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/22/mancow-waterboarding-torture/). Olbermann promised to donate to the charity Veterans of Valor (http://www.veteransofvalor.org/), founded by Sgt. Klay South (http://www.veteransofvalor.org/main_aboutus.html), who administered the waterboarding to Muller. Olbermann revealed that Mancow’s publicist had contacted Olbermann’s show yesterday to see whether Olbermann would make a similar offer to Mancow as he did for Hannity:

OLBERMANN: Mancow Muller had the guts to put his mouth where his mouth was, and the guts to admit he was dead wrong. As you saw, he not only said it is torture, but that he had nearly drowned as a boy, and it is drowning, and that he would have admitted to anything to make it stop.
So the offer to the coward Hannity — a thousand dollars a second he lasted on the waterboard — is withdrawn.
And to Mr. Muller, whose station’s publicity person contacted us yesterday saying she’d heard I’d offered ten thousand dollars to anybody who would do what he did –
You got it. Ten thousand dollars to the military-families charity of the man who did the waterboarding, Veterans Of Valor. [...]
As to Hannity, you are now unnecessary.
Watch it:
Olbermann also announced that Mancow will appear on his show next week.
Transcript:

This is where I normally remind Sean Hannity that it is so many days since I took him up on his offer to be waterboarded for charity, without any reply from him.
But with today’s development, the point is moot.
“Mancow Muller” had the guts to put his mouth where his mouth was, and the guts to admit he was dead wrong. As you saw, he not only said it is torture, but that he had nearly drowned as a boy, and it is drowning, and that he would have admitted to anything to make it stop.
So the offer to the coward Hannity — a thousand dollars a second he lasted on the waterboard — is withdrawn.
And to Mr. Muller, whose station’s publicity person contacted us yesterday saying she’d heard I’d offered ten thousand dollars to anybody who would do what he did…
You got it. Ten thousand dollars to the military-families charity of the man who did the waterboarding, “Veterans Of Valor.”
Mr. Muller will join us on this news hour next week. As to Hannity… you are now unnecessary.

[Big Dog]

That's because he doesn't want to be tortured.

[ccbatson]

Nobody, accept maybe Navy seals, would choose to do this...that doesn't make it torture.

I would not choose to have surgery (place any type you like in the blank) for no reason, that doesn't make it torture.

[ccbatson]

We are talking about volunteering for these things in this case, not forcing them on anyone...caught up to the conversation now Slim?

[ccbatson]

YOu must have missed the word "choose" in my post (although you quoted the sentence with the word in it strangely?? Maybe you don't know what it means? Couldn't be).

[ccbatson]

Again...makes no sense to you...no surprise to me. Everyone else who reads it will get it. I was just trying to be gracious and include you in the conversation...maybe next time you can play with the big kids.

[Lorax]

Nobody, accept maybe Navy seals, would choose to do this...that doesn't make it torture.

I would not choose to have surgery (place any type you like in the blank) for no reason, that doesn't make it torture.

Would a brain transplant qualify?

Talk about filling in the blank!! :eek:

[d.mcc]

CCBatson, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[barnesfoto]

I think that you are all missing an important point:
There has been NO FURTHER hypocrisy from Hannity regarding the issue of waterboarding since his last act of hypocrisy. Is anyone surprised that the liberal media chooses to ignore this?

[East Detroit]

Yet another serious issue turned into a partisan argument.

[d.mcc]

Yet another serious issue turned into a partisan argument.

Did anyone else watch the Mancow vid? Or was I the only one??? This was done in controlled circumstances and Mancow had his safety toy to throw. The true experience would be to be grabbed and hooded on the street, driven to several places before settling down to cold rooms, extreme sleep deprivation, stress positions, and physical and psychological brutality, and then waterboarded for 30 seconds at a time - not seven. For 183 times, over the period of a month. After that "Mancow" would confess to being the pilot of Flight 93.

How many days has it been since Sean Hannity said he'd be waterboarded for charity? And he'd get a safety toy too.

[Blarf]

I'm not a fan of Olberman, but I applaud him for donating a generous amount of money for a good cause.

On the flip side, Hannity should stop being a pussy a get waterboarded already. Even Christopher Hitchens has gotten in on the action.

[ejames01]

Don't get high on your own supply.


Nobody, accept maybe Navy seals, would choose to do this...that doesn't make it torture.

I would not choose to have surgery (place any type you like in the blank) for no reason, that doesn't make it torture.

[East Detroit]

Did anyone else watch the Mancow vid? Or was I the only one??? This was done in controlled circumstances and Mancow had his safety toy to throw. The true experience would be to be grabbed and hooded on the street, driven to several places before settling down to cold rooms, extreme sleep deprivation, stress positions, and physical and psychological brutality, and then waterboarded for 30 seconds at a time - not seven. For 183 times, over the period of a month. After that "Mancow" would confess to being the pilot of Flight 93.

How many days has it been since Sean Hannity said he'd be waterboarded for charity? And he'd get a safety toy too.

Are you somehow refuting that waterboarding (like global warming, etc etc etc) being torture or not is roughly "decided" along partisan lines as I stated?

Democrats automatically say its torture. Republicans automatically say it isnt (until they experience it).

Democrats automatically say global warming is in part due to man. Republicans say it isnt.

Partisans are destroying America. They care more about party than the nation. They refuse to think.

[d.mcc]

Are you somehow refuting that waterboarding (like global warming, etc etc etc) being torture or not is roughly "decided" along partisan lines as I stated?

Democrats automatically say its torture. Republicans automatically say it isnt (until they experience it).

Democrats automatically say global warming is in part due to man. Republicans say it isnt.

Partisans are destroying America. They care more about party than the nation. They refuse to think.

I wasn't refuting you. To me, torture is what the law says it is. If inflicting severe emotional and psychological trauma while refraining from causing great bodily harm is considered torture, then by all means it's torture. It's also unethical, and immoral. A country that claims to be a beacon of freedom for the tired and oppressed around the world should by no means engage in these types of activities.

To me it isn't a partisan thing, it is a humane and compassionate thing. It just goes to show you that most conservatives compassion only extends as far as a certain tax bracket of white Americans.

[Linda from Detroit]

Are you somehow refuting that waterboarding (like global warming, etc etc etc) being torture or not is roughly "decided" along partisan lines as I stated?

Democrats automatically say its torture. Republicans automatically say it isnt (until they experience it).

Democrats automatically say global warming is in part due to man. Republicans say it isnt.

Partisans are destroying America. They care more about party than the nation. They refuse to think.


I couldn't agree with you more. Too many people have only voted based on party for far too long. I've lived in 4 states over the last 20 years and while I find that to happen all over to some extent, amazingly it is much worse in the Detroit area than any of the other places I've lived.

[Detroit Stylin]

Simply put.....a divided populace is easier to control....

[ccbatson]

I disagree..a single minded populace (an oppressed one) is historically the easiest to control.

[Detroit Stylin]

EXACTLY....that's why the republicrites were in power for so long....

[ccbatson]

The key descriptor is an OPPRESSED single minded populace...Conservatives rabidly fighting for individual liberty are anti oppression.

Did you notice that you just contradicted yourself 180 degrees Stylin (#22 versus #24)?

[rb336]

Conservatives rabidly fighting for individual liberty are anti oppression.

And which conservatives are those? the ones fighting for a woman's right to control her own body? The ones fighting for all people to have the right to love and marry the person with whom they fall in love? The right of people to have equal access to jobs, justice, etc?

ah. I see. the conservatives fighting for the rights of the rich and powerful to control the lives of everyone else through access to jobs, etc

[Big Dog]

RB, You hit a home run with that post.

[smogboy]

It sure doesn't look like fun by ANY means. How anyone can call it anything less than torture is beyond me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0

[oladub]

And which conservatives are those? the ones fighting for a woman's right to control her own body? The ones fighting for all people to have the right to love and marry the person with whom they fall in love? The right of people to have equal access to jobs, justice, etc?

ah. I see. the conservatives fighting for the rights of the rich and powerful to control the lives of everyone else through access to jobs, etc

If there was a telling moment, a crossroad, in our recent history, it was the passage of President Bush's Wall Street bailout. Democrats did not significantly differenciate themselves from Republicans in that vote. If there ever was a vote to fight " for the rights of the rich and powerful to control the lives of everyone", that was it. The rich won that one.

People can already love whomever they choose but marriage has restrictions. If government, as much as possible, eliminated its involvement with marriage, then people could choose not only between marrying a man or woman but cousins, incestuous relationships, and multiple partner options could also be options. Marriage could be whatever individuals wanted it to be. Liberals are actually pretty conservative in this arena too as they only support gay marriage while discriminating against other loving options.

Regarding a woman's right to control her own body, I presume you also mean women's right to control the body of her embryo. I didn't think that you were referring to women's right to pick and choose which drugs and vitamins women may ingest. The DIA, FDA, and pharmaceutical companies still determines that for women ( and men). In most states, there are also laws prohibiting assisted suicide. Some, in government even want to force men and women into involuntary servitude programs. So much for choices about how we are allowed to use our bodies. Overall, I would consider the restrictions on the uses of our bodies, including women's right to eliminate their embryos, a tie between liberals and conservatives although each group is partial different restrictions.

[Detroitej72]

I'm glad someone finally called out Hannity's cowardice. Knuckle heads like him do this country a disservice because, as stated above, a large number pf Americans are simple minded people. They cannot think for themselves, preferring to latch onto the ditto head nation wagon, and Olberman has exposed one of their Messiah's as the fraud that he is.
I'm pretty sure National Guard no-show Bush and draft dodger Cheney wouldn't undergo water boarding either, as both are known cowards as well.

[Flanders]

If there was a telling moment, a crossroad, in our recent history, it was the passage of President Bush's Wall Street bailout. Democrats did not significantly differenciate themselves from Republicans in that vote. If there ever was a vote to fight " for the rights of the rich and powerful to control the lives of everyone", that was it. The rich won that one.

So I take it to mean that you are confident that voting down the Bush Wall Street bailout would have produced largely benign consequences, and that there would not have been any severe repercussions in the US economically? That the middle and lower classes of society in the US would not have disproportionally taken the biggest "hit" as a result? Or is it because you have some "skin" in the game in the form of your children, and you would rather see a large amount of the more vulnerable portion of the population suffer immediate casualties now, in the hope that the young will survive it and more greatly benefit, if not flourish from a recovery a decade or so later?

It is easy to be watching from the sidelines, claiming to lean neither Republican nor Democrat, taking potshots (supposedly) at both, yet from my observations, you tend to appear to lean to the right, rarely if ever quoting an obviously brazen, unsupported and/or obnoxious post made by any of the more extreme RWers who infrequently post replies here or post for a week or two, then disappear for a month or so, or never return at all.

[mjs]

I'm extremely confident it would have been better for America to reject the bank bailout though worse for those that limit market competition and destroy the total net worth for their own personal gain. So what if the losing high-risk banks would have to sell their assets to those that followed basic market principles? Most of those assets were acquired as the large short-term high-risk banks acquired the small long-range conservative banks. We'd simply return to the market concentration that worked for half a century. The government kept approving it because they showed improved short term profits. Then the Bush administration used a self-created panic by shouting the sky was falling. The drop occurred quickly when there was a panic, not slowly as the losers were losing and the drop continued after the magic bill passed. 331 university economists, 2/3 of the American public, and even Congress itself knew it was a bad idea. Even with the pull of the mega-contributing banking lobbyists, it couldn't pass until it was packed with ear marked pork barreling. They decided it would be better to spend $900 billion we didn't have rather than $700 billion we didn't have.

As to the vote itself, it was bipartisan but heavier to the Dems as the Senate Democrats voted 40-10, the Senate Republicans voted 34-15, the House Democrats voted 172-63, and the House Republicans voted 91-108. Come election time, forget the party affiliations for once and vote against those that approved this disaster. They're all listed below and both sides planned to have those not up for re-election do more of the yes voting because they figured we would forget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008#cite_ note-Senate_Vote-212-Amendment-147
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02bailout.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnlx=1222912061-mO3gwPp%20F69CybU450tXvQ&pagewanted=all
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

[Big Dog]

It's apparent you have exposed Dubby for what he is.

[oladub]

Flanders, The Nasdaq and housing bubbles created by the Clinton and Bush administrations ended. The choices were to allow the economy to correct itself or try to reinfate the bubble. Bush and Obama have chosen to do the latter. Either way there would be pain. Had Bush taken the first path, the big financial institutions would have gone into bankruptcy, smaller less greedy or corrupt banks would have bought up their worthwhle assets. A sharp recession would have probably gone the way of the 1921 depresion in which the government did nothing. Instead, Bush and Obama, tried to patch up the mess with billions of taxpayer dollars and reinflate the bubble. Without allowing a correction, this recession/depression will be extended though its effects may be muted. So its somewhat a choice between a sharp correction or an elongated financial mess. The second choice will destroy much of the spending power of the dollar. That misfortune will cause the poor and those on fixed incomes a lot more suffering than anything to date. But, hey, the big contributors to top Democrats and Republicans are doing pretty well.

Note that I cited Bush's Wall Street bailout as even worse than Obama's Porkulous, in my comments that you are criticizing. Since Bush and perhaps Republicans are history, Democrats are in power, and most posters on this site spout liberal cliches, it makes more sense to address what is going on than the shortcomings of President Bush's or President Fillmore's administrations.

You are correct that I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I voted for Nader and a third party candidate in the last two presidential elections. I don't vote for Wall Street, corruption, and wars. If enough people make that same decision there will be some real change. My kids make way more money than I ever did. I am not too worried about their financial futures but I worry about the next generation in general because they are being burdened by our generation's shortcomings. Ecologists and educators, often liberals, are doing what they can to improve the lot of the next gerneration. Its also common sense that we not steal from that same generation.

Look to California for a glimpse of our economic future. Californians voted for an unsustainable amount of government. The Governor had to end welfare. The federal government has a printing press to keep the game going for a little while like in Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic. That's the only difference. The game, as it is being played, is unsustainable.

[ccbatson]

It goes way further back than that. Carter for the housing bubble...leftist socialists preceding Carter (FDR) laying the groundwork for all of this mess

[mjs]

Very well said, Oludub. Big money gives major contributions to both sides. They know that both sides can incorporate their interests into the party ideology and just downplay it as an unexpected consequence. Its why voters need to become less partisan. The voters are the answer to big money. The debates then focus on the issues rather than the messengers so people can listen to the facts rather than the highly advertised party lines. And I mean listen, not just hear.

[ccbatson]

And Marxists like you and Obama would prefer to eliminate this form of freedom of expression?

[Detroitej72]

And Marxists like you and Obama would prefer to eliminate this form of freedom of expression?

I'm sure Obama would approve of Keith Olberman's freedom of expression while he pointed out the cowardice of Hannity!

[ccbatson]

Referring to corporate donations not Olberman

[oladub]

mjs, Big money owns the MSM too and utilizes it as a gatekeeper. Candidates like Paul, Kucinich, and Nader are not given face time and are subjected to discrimination. In one of the debates, Kucinich was asked if he believed in flying saucers. The moderator would be looking into new careers if he had asked Hillary that same question. It succeeded in making Kucinich look silly though. Third parties are no longer allowed into presidential debates because the two parties' Presidential Debate Commission won't allow it. They booted the League of Women Voters for letting Perot into debates. The two parties do not want to be embarrassed again by the likes of Nader or Ventura.

There are some issues like abortion and prayers in public schools that big money doesn't care about. So there are some issues that separate Republicans and Democrats and distract voters from the lack of differences between Reps and Dems regarding foreign policy, the military/industrial complex, and financial scams.

-Nice work collecting facts on your post #192 by the way.

[ccbatson]

Some of the questions asked are so biased and so malicious, I am baffled that liberals don't recognize it. A few on this forum are convinced that the mainstream media is not left biased.

[mjs]

Thanks. MSM= Main Stream Media. I had to look it up. Yeah, its why my televised news comes from PBS, BBC, or CBC. Its amazing how much international news isn't covered by the MSM and they never provide background on why things happen like they do. I started to learn that when Clinton was trying to keep that American kid in Thailand from getting lashed by the government. The MSM made it sound like it was a first time offender doing a little graffiti. They must have missed all the international reporters mentioning that it was like his sixth arrest and he was leading a gang.

Though I got too frustrated to finish it, you might like this book. http://www.amazon.com/Hostile-Takeover-Corruption-Conquered-Government/dp/0307237354

[ccbatson]

Remember who is behind some of that "big money" Souros (misspelled out of contempt), Ted Turner and their radical liberal buddies.

[mjs]

Batson, each side says the MSM is biased the other way because there's examples of it being biased both ways. They're all a bunch of sensationalists. Drop Fox's propaganda and come with us over to PBS. Its less flash and fight, but creates a hell of alot of times where it makes you say, "I didn't know that!" or "I was only told half that story!" and thats what the news is supposed to do. Its not supposed to think for you or even agree with you. Its supposed to give you what you need to think about and challenge your assumptions. I think you'll love Frontline's newest episode on the Taliban in Pakistan. It provides neutral coverage that you can use to justify the war against the Taliban. It re-airs Thursday at 7 am and Sunday at 5 am. Enjoy an episode of "The News Hour" or "PBS International" while you're at it.

http://www.dptv.org/watch/schedule.shtml

[Flanders]

Batson, each side says the MSM is biased the other way because there's examples of it being biased both ways. They're all a bunch of sensationalists. Drop Fox's propaganda and come with us over to PBS.

I believe that Fox News is biased hard right, and MSNBC is biased mildly left, as far as convincing Bats to abandon hard core conservatism/objectivism, all I can say is GL with that.:cool:

I spend much more time browsing conservative websites than reading and posting here, because I consider Republicans and their hard core RW supporters to be a very real and serious threat to my continued survival as a person with disabilities, which now prevents me from earning a living after 35 years of supporting myself...and the blogs, commentary, and the articles that I read online and subscribe to by email that are written by "leading" conservatives bear that out.

If my voting for a Democratic candidate in any local or state election instead of a third party candidate who might have a better platform and ideas, JUST to help prevent the election of a Republican is obviously wrong, so be it, there are likely many like me who have done so in the past, and will continue to vote straight party ticket for that sole reason.

Perhaps you and oladub can afford to play around and post in threads here with the idea of supporting a truly viable third party that can win elections on a national level, and I have my doubts if either of you are really physically active in your support, for example, by helping out going door to door, passing out campaign literature, or manning phone banks for any third party candidate(s) campaigns, but IMO, the best than can be realistically achieved by electing any third party candidate, at least at this point, is still only on a local level, and to a lesser degree on a state level.

[4real]

The nicest thing I can say about dickhead Keith Olbermann, is that he is a worthless piece of shit.

[ejames01]

Why do you say that? He is a blow hard, but what has he done to make you think that he is a bad person?

[mjs]

Perhaps you and oladub can afford to play around and post in threads here with the idea of supporting a truly viable third party that can win elections on a national level, and I have my doubts if either of you are really physically active in your support, for example, by helping out going door to door, passing out campaign literature, or manning phone banks for any third party candidate(s) campaigns, but IMO, the best than can be realistically achieved by electing any third party candidate, at least at this point, is still only on a local level, and to a lesser degree on a state level.

I am not physically active in my support. At the national level, third parties historical role has generally been the introduction of new ideas that neither party will initially adopt, yet when the ideas become popular, they get incorporated into the platforms of the primary parties. They also create the publicity needed to win on the local level. In the 1850s, the Republican party was a third party, and the Whigs and Democrats were the primary parties. Statuses change. If the Republican party does die, it will be replaced by something. We're just saying, let third parties be heard so they can perform their role and don't accept that you have to agree with either Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch. The First Amendment is designed to protect the market place of ideas which says that all sides should be heard.

[mjs]

I spend much more time browsing conservative websites than reading and posting here, because I consider Republicans and their hard core RW supporters to be a very real and serious threat to my continued survival as a person with disabilities. . .

If my voting for a Democratic candidate in any local or state election instead of a third party candidate who might have a better platform and ideas, JUST to help prevent the election of a Republican is obviously wrong, so be it, there are likely many like me who have done so in the past, and will continue to vote straight party ticket for that sole reason.

So why don't you track the bills and vote straight issue? If they support persons with disabilities, you vote for them regardless of affiliation. GovTrack will send you regular email links on any issue or any bill that you want and summarize it for you. You can even read the bill rather than the big money party lines on the bill. I'm tracking Cash for Clunkers and the Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights.

[oladub]

Flanders, "Perhaps you and oladub can afford to play around and post in threads here with the idea of supporting a truly viable third party that can win elections on a national level, and I have my doubts if either of you are really physically active in your support, for example, by helping out going door to door, passing out campaign literature, or manning phone banks for any third party candidate(s) campaigns, but IMO, the best than can be realistically achieved by electing any third party candidate, at least at this point, is still only on a local level, and to a lesser degree on a state level."


You guessed wrong in my case. I actively did those things in the Ron Paul campaign. Hundreds of hours and dollars involved. What an eye opening experience that was! I recommend that everyone get deeply involved in the campaign of your choice if you want a good civics lesson. Paul's campaign was alternately attacked and ignored by the MSM. However, some Republicans are shifting from a neocon message to a more libertarian one. Maybe not all was in vain. Had Paul won, we would be headed out of national bankruptcy and wars so there would have been a real chance that your state had money to implement its own health care plan. Instead of a Paul or Nader, you voted for wars and banksters who rob the Treasury and undermine the spending power of the dollar.


One of the highlights of the campaign was attending the Rally for the Republic, a sort of libertarian and anti-Republican convention held across the river from the Republican National convention and attended by 10,000. Jesse Ventura gave a great speech there. This is the first of three parts in which he addresses the two party system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79eCo6ocBEc
I think that Jesse could beat Obama and the next Republican presidential candidate if a) he was allowed on the debate stage and b) he wasn't more interested in Cuban surfing opportunities. Jesse did not go after to poor in Minnesota as Governor but he sure angered some establishment types by going after corruption.
__________________________________________________ ______


This is one of my favorite Olbermann pieces. Here he attacks Bush for things that Bush signed into law which President Obama has not reversed.
Olbermann: the beginning of the end of America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs


Olbermann can also dish it out to those he supports.-
Keith Olbermann: "President Obama, You Are Wrong" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fk5wfAYX0U

[Detroitej72]

Why do you say that? He is a blow hard, but what has he done to make you think that he is a bad person?

When wackos have nothing to add to the conversation, they resort to name-calling. Its just a cry for attention.

Back to the topic, good thoughts and ideas, Oladub and Mjs, keep them coming.

[Flanders]

So why don't you track the bills and vote straight issue? If they support persons with disabilities, you vote for them regardless of affiliation. GovTrack will send you regular email links on any issue or any bill that you want and summarize it for you. You can even read the bill rather than the big money party lines on the bill. I'm tracking Cash for Clunkers and the Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights.

Thanks for the infomation mjs, I vaguely remember reading something about GovTrack maybe a year or so ago while browsing, but forgot about checking further into it.

[ccbatson]

Ron Paul...like most libertarians, could have been great if he just threw off the weak stance on defense.

[Detroitej72]

Ron Paul...like most libertarians, could have been great if he just threw off the weak stance on defense.

One of the basic principles of the Libertarian Platform is for the U.S. to be, for the most part, an isolationist country. This is why all the neo-cons on this board wouldn't support him, as they are supporters of the failed Bush Expansionist agenda.

[ccbatson]

Not a bad analysis...except for the part where you describe the Republican foreign policy as failed...and the part where you label us as neo-cons.

[Detroitej72]

Since the neo-cons have basically taken over the Republican Party, there really isn't much difference anymore.

That includes the neo-con god Rush.

[ccbatson]

Rush is not a Statist, or an advocate of spending like a drunken liberal...therefore not a Neo con.

Your first point is well taken...and in the process of changing for the better.

[Detroitej72]

He blindly supported Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and all their neo-con agenda, so that would make him a neo-con by definition.

In reality, Rush is a pompous, self serving elitist who spouts off for his ditto heads to have talking points, nothing more.

[ccbatson]

Clearly you don't listen to him with any regularity. He excoriated Bush on social spending, open borders, the bailouts, and other liberal tendencies of GWB.

[rb336]

In reality, Rush is a pompous, self serving elitist who spouts off for his ditto heads to have talking points, nothing more.


and his little mob of reactionaries are so proud of their utter innability to think for themselves that THEY coined that term

[Detroitej72]

Clearly you don't listen to him with any regularity. He excoriated Bush on social spending, open borders, the bailouts, and other liberal tendencies of GWB.

I can only stomach so much of his lies and propaganda.

[ccbatson]

If by "so much" you mean none, then you are being truthful (and ignorant in making any comments about which you know nothing).

[Detroitej72]

You can usually get his point of view in listening to the first ten minutes of his rants, then anything else is redundant.

[cheddar bob]

I happened to catch the Frank Beckman Show today for a little while. Beckman was out so some equally large DB filled in. In the 10 minutes or so I spent listening, just about every caller bitched and moaned about how Obama took his wife out and they had Kobe beef. Like no other president has had Kobe beef before.

[Detroitej72]

I was a slow news day and the neo-cons needed something to whine about.

[ccbatson]

A small taste of his (Obama's) own medicine when an individual's freedom is called into question...One can only hope for more of the same.