Cliff LyonOlbermann Calls for Bush to Resign. Ooops
Thank you God for the backbones of MSNBC and The Internet.
Fact: No president has ever issued a pardon or commutation on an obstruction of justice conviction related to the possible wrongdoings of THAT PRESIDENT.
James Madison said it was an impeachable offense.
By orders of magnitude, no president has ever lied or been accused thereof as many times, to and by the Congress and the American people.
But then again, the White House has never been occupied by the Devil Himself.
Calling all Devil Knowers….. Help!
July 4th, 2007 at 3:22 am
Keith didn’t disappoint, and didn’t hold back his disdain of this horrible “president” who makes Nixon look like a reasonable leader. Too bad every other pundit and commentator will ignore what is happening or mix truth with lies as if both apply to this story. Damn all of you, including local news outlets who let this continue as our young men and women suffer in the summer heat.
Damn you for not telling the truth about the stolen elections of the last several years that have resulted in a corrupt Supreme Court and religious subjugation of our people.
July 4th, 2007 at 4:46 am
Well, I expect to see Olbermann gone shortly, when he is, it will be 1933, and it won’t matter who is president, as if it has for quite a while.
We are to be morphed with Canada and mexico(only business, not people, unless they are rich or exploitable), in a glorious Frankenreich Schlemerica. Say goodbye, to the rights and Country you knew, because, it is gone.
I don’t like what I knew 10 years ago beginning with clinton coming to pass, but it seemingly is. You couldn’t expect millions of people violating our borders and doing what they wish with impunity, to not ultimately corrupt the whole nation. From top to bottom, bottom to top.
bush is only a symptom, the disease is sytemic, and unless you are living in a cave, off the land, all are part of it. bush is only our just desserts.
July 4th, 2007 at 4:59 am
My older(77) friend Mel from Seattle, sent me this. Keep in mind the war in Washington that is wrecking our Country, is costing us about 2 trillion a year. Iraq is a side show.
Sobering Statistics
Regardless of where you stand on the issue of the U.S. involvement in
Iraq, here is a sobering statistic.
There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre
of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,867 deaths.
That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons
for the same period.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in
the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq. I wonder what the statistics would be for New Orleans?
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington D.C..
July 4th, 2007 at 6:08 am
As I’ve always said Glenn, you should have studies more Greek and modern philosophy. Your conclusion doesn’t follow. Better tell Mell.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Read the post, it isn’t mine, however the stats for Washington DC are irrefutable. This is our Country, and we think Iraq sucks. Mel is 77, and is about the most erudite person I have conversed with on Roman, and just about history.
Cliff I have read all the philosophy, and sophistry isn’t one I believe in. As for Socrates, he could reach this conclusion and promote successfully, if he believed in it. As for modern philosophy, who are referring to? To look upon the state of humanity in the world would be to find the modern philosophers that seemingly have no impact, or have encouraged what we see, and string them up.
How do you argue with the logic? If, as a quasi peaceable population, DC is capable of producing such mayhem, and it is our flag Capital city, and Iraqi soldiers are fighting a dedicated intelligent enemy, and experiencing less deaths by firearm than DC inhabitants, what are we to think? DC is controlled currently, at least in theory, by the democrat party.
Anyway, Mel has a sense of humor at 77, and we all know that firearms are not IEDs, and that is what is blowing our troops up and killing and maiming them, by and large.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Glenn,
Easy boy.
I just meant you know, the conclusion isn’t supported by the premises.
By similar logic, we should stop driving cars too. It’s about how you define logic. Its a fairly complex subject that really does require study to engage with others on that level.
Imagine playing soccer against a team that doesn’t know the rules, and they use their hands and go offsides and hold your players. So they end up putting a bunch of balls in the goal. Do they win?
They think they do. They put more balls in the goal than you did. “But,” you say, “your goals don’t count because you didn’t follow the rules.” They respond rhetorically, “is the ball in the net?” And you say, “yes, but…”
See? That is what arguing with you is like. You don’t know the basic rules of Socratic logic. I’ve been trying to explain this to you for years. And your response, “How do you argue with the logic” is pretty much the same as saying, a goal is when the ball goes between the goal post.
It would be have been so much more interesting all those years if you had known the rules, but you insisted you did, but you don’t. But you sure do know some big words like sophistry. (I did a quick search. You’ve used it 82 times on this blog so far).
See what I mean Sophrates?
July 4th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Sadly, your “logic” does not understand Mels’ joke.
Unfortunately Cliff, this isn’t a game, and those who wish to win don’t give a fiddlers damn about the rules. Or what you think. You been noticing that with scooter and all.
Nobody who wants to rule gives a shit about arguing about your brand of logic.
Sophistry stated 82 times? It is necessary, that is after all what it is like to argue with you. You pre-determine what you would like to be reality in an argument, and then shape your questions, queries to support it. This is SOPHISTRY, 84 times. Socrates would name you such, and I know, for I have asked you to read his treatise on logic, and the word you are so aptly described by, he would define you as.
I submit, you don’t know the Socratic method…at all. You should read Socrates explanation on why he refused to recant himself, and chose death before dishonor. Interesting stuff. I told you to read it some 3 years ago. You clearly never did.
Driving cars has little to do with getting shot in Washington DC. Well maybe in a road rage incident. Accidents aren’t willful, shooting someone is. So much for your logic.
Meanwhile I have seen your logic in action, when we play chess, and it is safe to say, that it is unsound, and does not win. In addition, your soccer analogy is weak, and unconvincing. I would likely say the opposition is cheating, and if we were in DC, maybe shoot them.
July 4th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
….the conclusion isn’t supported by the premises.
So you say.
July 4th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I thought the wingers had already stopped using the bogus Washington, DC comparison. It’s based on the assumption that there is nobody in Iraq except American soldiers. Never mind the Iraqis who have been killed, wounded and driven from their homes or who are afraid to walk the streets of their own cities.