NBC Refuses to Run Support the Troops Ads During Holidays

NBC Refuses to Run Support the Troops Ads During Holidays

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
December 7, 2007 - 15:05 ET

A conservative organization known as Freedom's Watch has had its advertisements rejected by NBC.

What was the heinous content of these ads?

A show of support and thanks to America's troops serving around the world during the holidays.

I kid you not.

As reported moments ago by the Associated Press (emphasis added):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The organization's CEO, Bradley A. Blakeman, responded to the rejection with a letter to NBC:

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

I bet they come around this

December 7, 2007 - 15:10 ET by Dan The Man 2

I bet they come around this time.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Hasn't NBC, MSNBC and/or

December 7, 2007 - 15:22 ET by Sick-n-Tired

Hasn't NBC, MSNBC and/or CNBC run adds for MoveOn.org before???

Do not want to air the URL/website; thats a lame excuse.

Whats that sucking sound?

December 7, 2007 - 17:51 ET by aerovelo

Oh yeah...that sucking sound is all their current advertisers pulling their ads over the holiday season in response.

Ask yourself: Do I want a good paying job, or do I want a government hand out. Its that simple!

I will never, ever watch

December 7, 2007 - 18:32 ET by Andrew H.

I will never, ever watch NBC, CNBC or MSNBC. "Policy" is getting in their way, way too much. Stupidity--who runs things over there? Idiots.

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

Evidence

December 7, 2007 - 18:51 ET by KC Mulville

These people pay Keith Olbermann. Lots of money. To be Keith Olbermann. It's like they're proud of it.

That's why I switched from

December 7, 2007 - 21:05 ET by Sonny Lykos

That's why I switched from CNBC to the Fox Business Channel.

NO SURPRISE

December 7, 2007 - 15:19 ET by American Taxpayer

This should not be a surprise to anyone at all, the big three do not support our troops this has already been established time and again by thier actions. How ironic that thier freedom of speech or the lack there of is provided by the U.S military. When our soldiers come home I hope they remember the ass*oles that never supported them......

rw taxpayers, why are you whining?

December 8, 2007 - 02:53 ET by professor truth

You should be happy to pay your taxes for endless wars. Look at all that security you now have. Those hundreds of billions in homeland security now let you walk anywhere and anytime you want and it's all because Homeland security has protected you from those headchoppers in Iraq. Just imagine the tens of thousands of iraqi killers that would be traveling by boat, airplane and space shuttle to the US just to get the chance to comit terrorism. Don't worry about any dysfunctional, white middle class students getting a gun and going wild. It can't happen now that we've spent billions on the homeland. Rwers, you should want to spend at least half of your income for security to protect yourselves from those terrorists that are coming to get you.

For the record

December 8, 2007 - 03:50 ET by KC Mulville

Well, for the record, we weren't attacked by an Iraqi. Apparently that part of the defense system is working just fine.

Instead, I find it curious that your proposed solution to the mall shooter is ... what? ... more taxes? Diverting taxes from foreign wars to ... what, exactly? Your solution to prevent a whacko kid shooting fellow citizens is ... financial?

You're exploiting a non-political tragedy to toss a political insult. You've rejected logic and compassion, and for what purpose? What did you hope to gain by that post? Surely you don't imagine that you can irritate your audience into a political conversion. I can only imagine that your purpose behind that post is simply to insult "the other side." OK, you've scored your "point." Feel any better?

The sad part is that we're fellow Americans. When it comes to these things, we're supposed to be on the same side.

Dead fish

December 8, 2007 - 10:33 ET by saw the light

OK, now that you have thrown out a ton of red herrings, how about getting to the point of the post?

If you want to rant and rant off-subject, take it to an open thread, where we can ignore you properly.

Looks like the support

December 7, 2007 - 15:22 ET by BuffNBone

Looks like they support neither the war nor the troops. Color me livid!

Let their sponsors know how you feel.

"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"

This is just despicable.

December 7, 2007 - 15:30 ET by motherbelt

This is just despicable. Between this, and Matt Lauer's disgraceful behavior toward Maureen Faulkner on the "Today" show, I think I'm just going to not watch NBC at all any more. If there's a contact email on their website, I think I'll send a nasty-gram too.

I know one person won't make a difference, but I'll feel better.

mb, I've already stopped watching NBC...think Alice's Restaurant

December 7, 2007 - 15:38 ET by RJ

"And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out. And friends they may think it's a movement." :^)

"And that's just what it

December 8, 2007 - 09:20 ET by Pete Wilson

"And that's just what it is..." - Arlo

Mother

December 7, 2007 - 15:38 ET by ricklail

What is needed is some veterans groups that will lauch a major writing campaign. I can't boycott them because I don't watch any of their shows-not even Sunday Night Football.

"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.” General George S. Patton.

my letter

December 8, 2007 - 00:45 ET by gordon

Gentlemen,

I wanted to let you know that I intend to write your parent company, General Electric, a letter expressing my utter contempt and disgust for your actions today. I will inform them in no uncertain terms that they cannot expect to distance themselves from your advertising antics. Your decision to not accept the Freedom's Watch advertisement and your completely indefensible excuse for doing so will not go unnoticed by General Electric. In light of the many defense contracts that they hold, your one-sided and completely transparent actions will, I hope, result in financial repercussions for them and perhaps a change in your decision making process in the very near future. Your decision is just another in the endless list of examples of your political stance influencing your actions on the public airwaves. As a taxpayer, I will not sit by while you use a public trust to influence the democratic process of this country.

JUST AN IDEA

December 7, 2007 - 15:35 ET by American Taxpayer

Just an idea: Take that putrid picture of Helen Thomas make it into Christmas cards and send them to the advertisers courtesy of N.B.C.....

keep up your pro war jingoism, rwers,

December 8, 2007 - 02:43 ET by professor truth

while the war profiteers and homeland security hucksters rob you blind. "support the troops" is empty, pro war jingoism masquerading as patriotism.

And the marxist agitprop

December 8, 2007 - 11:50 ET by pbanks7

And the marxist agitprop shines through.

Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.

I'm disappopinted. He left

December 8, 2007 - 12:03 ET by Jack Bauer

I'm disappopinted. He left out "corporate thievery, pigs, lackeys, caspitalist scum, and usurers"

Noel

December 7, 2007 - 15:36 ET by MrShy

You're kidding, right?

Oh wait, you added "I kid you not."

Good that Bradley wrote to them. This is outrageous, and further solidifies what we've already known for so long, that NBC and it's ilk operate along a very hardline ideology, and stoop so low to worry that something unthreateningly patriotic like a "support our troops" ad could "threaten" and offend segments of their viewers.

Ugh.

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

Mr Shy, how much are you donating to Halliburton,

December 8, 2007 - 02:46 ET by professor truth

Blackwater, and all those homeland security businesses who have robbed the public blind and given nobody anything other than fear?

Keep on believing in your jingoistic tripe, it's all for the benefit of war profiteers.

Just as a linguistic aside,

December 8, 2007 - 02:50 ET by tracheostomy

Just as a linguistic aside, it's only Jingoism to those who don't believe in it. >;)

Hehe, get it?

Meh, guess not.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

I guess to a rwer, "support the troops" is

December 8, 2007 - 03:03 ET by professor truth

another example of their 'faith based' jingoism.... Rwers believe it, so it MUST BE TRUE!

LOL! Supporting an

December 8, 2007 - 03:17 ET by tracheostomy

LOL! Supporting an aggressively protective foreign policy must be wrong, so therefore it must be jingoism.

To protect your life and property, you either own a personal firearm, call the police, or pray. Either way, you are supporting use of force personally or by proxy to keep an aggressor in check.

This is merely a world-scale example of that, and you throw the jingoism label around as if it really meant something.

Told you he wouldn't get it. >;p

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Trillions of military dollars thrown at a myth.

December 8, 2007 - 03:25 ET by professor truth

The US military budget dwarfs all other nations, yet the US is more terrified of terrorists than all other nations. The money thrown at security has done little other than create perpetual fear about a mythical beast that could be dealt with much more cheaply. REAL problems like healthcare and education and environment get shafted as money gets sunk into creating anti terror maginot lines. The Omaha shooting should tell anyone how impotent the homeland securtiy fraud is.

}}---> Begging again PT?

December 8, 2007 - 03:40 ET by Cool Arrow

More like complaining that those Americans who've been kicked in the teeth by the NEA aren't buying that crap about "If I could just get some more money your children would be literate"

You claim Socialism as a badge of evolvement while nothing about your work effort is measured in terms of accountability.

As long as you don't get caught boinking a student, you ain't gettin' kicked off the Nanny train.

Tell me Professor. How many failed commercial aircraft landings are you willing to accept? Kids are crash landing daily just because the NEA cares more about a political agenda than the job at hand.

Too funny, CA. I guess public education and

December 8, 2007 - 03:46 ET by professor truth

the military are both failures. Are we safer now that we've spent trillions of dollars on the military???? Are those FAUX NEWS color alerts dropping down to no danger??? After trillions of dollars spent, we are more afraid than ever. What gives??? I thought we were fighting terror??? I guess all those hundreds of billions spent on homeland security didn't stop 2 psychos at VT and a mall in Omaha. Homeland security is a scam. And if you want to hold teachers accountable, fine. How about failed presidents???

You aren't speaking Russian

December 8, 2007 - 03:50 ET by NL207

You aren't speaking Russian and you aren't required to observe Karl marx's birthday as a holiday.

Your father didn't have to speak German or revere an Austrian paper hanger.

I'd guess the military has done some considerable good.

I imagine..

December 8, 2007 - 03:59 ET by Sua Sponte 75

that your security expertise is about that of your terrorism expertise, tactical operations expertise (Xbox does not count either). Equating public educuation and the military, not sure what that has to do with anything other than a complete grasping of straws. I'm sure it's nothing that can't be fixed with some Prozac and a polo mallet.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

PT Duncecap

December 8, 2007 - 04:01 ET by Cool Arrow

You think Presidents don't submit themselves to "review" every 4 years? Please tell me you've heard of the electoral process.

Yes, we're safer from foreign terrorists. You'd have to discount a lot if you think Clinton's record against terrorism is nearly as good as Bush's. But I have faith you will.

CA, Bush DE-EMPHASIZED INTERNATIONAL

December 8, 2007 - 04:07 ET by professor truth

TERRORISM until we got hit on Sept 11th. Bush was not doing squat about stopping terror even after receiving clear info that the threat was real. Now, we were already struck with acts of terror during Clinton's rule, so, don't you think it's just a little disingenuous to try to pin 9-11 on Clinton, especially since Richard Clarke, Natianl security advisor for Bush, had urged Bush to take the terror threat more seriously BEFORE 9-11 and Bush ignored him?? A little disingenuous!

}}---> Cut the crap teacher

December 8, 2007 - 04:18 ET by Cool Arrow

Your Democrat buddies were still squealing about the legitimacy of the 2000 election up until 9/11 when they momentarily sensed a sense of urgency. (I think some of them even dropped their nail files)

On the other hand, Republican legislators were quite willing to support BJ Clinton every time he attempted to show a pair. (Other than when he was raping or groping a woman without her consent).

Now, we were already struck

December 8, 2007 - 20:36 ET by red_dragon311

Now, we were already struck with acts of terror during Clinton's rule, so, don't you think it's just a little disingenuous to try to pin 9-11 on Clinton"

No, not at all, Clinton brushed off all acts of terror. He did nothing, wait he did blow up an asprine factory, and that was part of a plan to...... defeat the enemy by making sure they could never get rid of headaches??????

and as to Bush being warned about any attacks in the future, it has been proven that Clinton left a post-it note on the oval office desk.

I have seen this note and in telling you this my life is in danger, but this needs to be said, here is the content of the post-it, and most likly my last post, as I am going into hiding

Congrats on the win, I told Al that Florida thing wouldn't work, well anyway, there's this guy named Osama Bi Laden, he's wants us dead, just fyi.

Bill

P.S. Bang some interns for me

PMSL

December 8, 2007 - 22:28 ET by candance

That was friggin hilarious! I love, love, loved it!!

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

CA, do you...

December 8, 2007 - 04:00 ET by Sua Sponte 75

not realize the millions of dollars needed to teach our young what 2+2 is? Do you not realized the millions we need to pay those not willing to work? Do you not realize the millions spent on defense could have been more wisely used to fund a study on the warbled spider monkey bat? Do you not realize the millions better spent to provide health care, not just to those who can't afford it, but also for those who forego getting it and waiting for the government to pay for it? Money better spent for peanut storage? I mean what has military endevours really given us, sure top notch communications reasearch, development of medical standards and equipment now used throughout the world (i.e. Navy sonar technology brought about the ability for early detection of breast cancer), reasearch technologies and development. Oh yes the money can be better spent, cause you know, if there's a problem, best way to fix it is throw money at it.

sarcasm off

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

}}---> Forgive me Sua Sponte

December 8, 2007 - 04:04 ET by Cool Arrow

I'm so ashamed. Let's double our taxes to help out the professor. . .sniff

Sua, bushbot 30% er, if you spend TRILLIONS,

December 8, 2007 - 04:12 ET by professor truth

you will receive BILLIONS of dollars in technical innovations. Pretty inefficient way to acquire technology. I guess for kids waiting for kidney or lung transplants who can't pay for them since our healthcare system is sh**t unless you are lucky, a few hundred billion dollars spent growing new terrorists for thefuture could be spent on helping kids have a life. But, rwers like to kill people, not save them, especially when they can make lot's of cash in the process.

Bawhahahah..

December 8, 2007 - 07:42 ET by Sua Sponte 75

Nutty proffesor...You are defnitely unhinged. Yes, everything, EVERYTHING is so bad in the U.S. We have the worst of EVERYTHING. How about the hundreds of millions spent on shoddy teachers producing shoddy students? Right wingers like to kill? There really is something wrong with you, it goes beyond the atypcial lunacy. If things are that bad, to you at least, why in the world would you hang around?

Whomever coined it first was correct, we need a better class of troll. One two many clowns slipped into the program.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"

You mean like those morally

December 8, 2007 - 03:15 ET by NL207

You mean like those morally reprehensible scaremongers who have been pedaling their climate disaster fairy tale so they can sell phony carbon offsets to worried citizens?

Tripe? You are the expert on that topic, Truth. Now I see you are reduced to simple insults since you lack anything with any real intellectual content to say.

there's a symmetry between the climate alarmists

December 8, 2007 - 03:20 ET by professor truth

and the terrorist alarmists. Each have their disaster scenarios. But, rwers believe one and deny the other, while the reverse is true for leftwingers. So, either one believes in the precaustionary principle , in which case you do everything needed to protect against both, or you don't accept the precautionary principle, where you take no action for both. Rwers love throwing money at stopping "terror", which will never happen unless the Omaha shootings are not considered terror.

For rwers, no amount of money is too little for throwing at the war on terror. They should be consistent regarding precautionary principles.

There is one important

December 8, 2007 - 03:37 ET by NL207

There is one important difference: History has shown the Islamic Jihadists are a threat to all of Western Civilition. History has conclusively shown that global climate change is both unavoidable and the warming sort is actually beneficial.

The left in general, and YOU in particular, are unable to correctly distinguish that which is a genuine threat from that which is a convenient excuse.

The jihadist threat has been dramatically hyped,

December 8, 2007 - 03:55 ET by professor truth

and counter measures have been a failure as seen by the fear of rwers on this issue after over four years of war and hundreds of billions spent. Your statement regarding the unavoidablity of climate change is analogous to saying one's going to die so nothing one does affects his life span. Humans have dumped 100ppm of CO2 into the air in the industrial age and as a result, there is a CO2 forcing DIRECTLY attributed to this. My point on all this is the terror alarmists manipulate and make claims which have a similliarity to climate alarmists. Everyone has their facts and uncertainties on these issues. If one wants to use the precautionary principle, they should be consistent.

recautionary principal

December 8, 2007 - 09:32 ET by Pete Wilson

"I am not sure that word means what he thinks it means." the guy in Princess Bride.

He eventually breaks down

December 9, 2007 - 08:05 ET by bretzysdude

He eventually breaks down like that.

Our military defends a

December 7, 2007 - 15:51 ET by mattm

Our military defends a whole bunch of people who don't deserve it.

matt, you are absolutely right:

December 7, 2007 - 22:08 ET by professor truth

all those multinational corporations and war profiteers are just despicable.

This is the same NBC

December 7, 2007 - 15:54 ET by deerjerkydave

Isn't this the same NBC that devoted an entire week to the political cause of global warming? Not to mention free time for politician Algore in his Live Earth concert? NBC also runs ads promoting global warming, like the one where the freight train is about to run over a little girl (yes, if you don't accept global warming as a threat you are equivalent to someone who wants to run down little kids in a train). The standards at NBC are only consistent when one considers liberal vs. conservative positions, they always come down on the side of liberals.

BTW, I'll be voting for Mitt Romney in the primary.

NBC

December 7, 2007 - 16:02 ET by ammo john

NBC:

Needs Body Counts

Nasty Bunch of Cowards!!!

December 7, 2007 - 16:22 ET by The Wicked Conservative

This grieves me beyond belief! Talk about overt discrimination. This isn't hate speech or part of a radical agenda. We're talking about a conservative group running ads SUPPORTING THE TROOPS to combat radical groups like Moveon.org's efforts to smear the troops. Oh boy thank you NBC for saving us from such vitriol! I am thoroughly disgusted. What a bunch of two-faced filth n foul n filth n foulin pieces of filth n foul.

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill

"...a conservative group

December 7, 2007 - 16:26 ET by Chris Norman

"...a conservative group that supports administration policy in Iraq..."

If this was a liberal group, do you think it would have been identified as such so early in the story, if at all?

A liberal group that

December 7, 2007 - 16:38 ET by motherbelt

A liberal group that supports administration policy.....

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You WERE joking, right???

mb, I used to be quite the

December 7, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Chris Norman

mb, I used to be quite the drinker in college and had - er - adventures, I was happy to forget. However, I have never been so drunk that I would suggest that a liberal group may support this administration.
I meant "liberal group" without the other stuff about supporting the administration. :)

Yeah, I knew that, but I

December 7, 2007 - 22:00 ET by motherbelt

Yeah, I knew that, but I couldn't resist it... ;-)

Well I guess there's one

December 7, 2007 - 17:02 ET by Jack Bauer

Well I guess there's one good thing about this.

NBC is finally admitting that as well as not supporting the mission, it's official...

Truth at last! Hey it's their network, they can do anything they damn well please.

I hope everyone remembers this when it comes to choose who to watch.

What is the NBC definition of "too political"?

December 7, 2007 - 17:52 ET by Intellectual Honesty

NBC said it declined to air the ad because it refers to the group's Web site, which the network said was too political, not because of the ad's message. "We have a policy that prohibits acceptance of advertising that deals with issues of public controversy," Wurtzel said.

I believe it is incumbent that NBC, as it is federally licensed by the FCC, needs to spell out in a legalistic manner what they deem to be "too political."

"This particular ad, in and of itself, is fine. It thanks the troops for their action overseas. We asked them to eliminate a URL address where a person is asked to contact elected officials and told not to cut and run on the war on terror."

An added question for NBC is whether the main address URL for the website or some sub-address that directs the viewer to a link is the offending factor.

"It's a long-term policy, it goes back decades," Wurtzel said of NBC's stance of declining controversial issue advertising.

Decades is a bold boast. In this case they are placing the blame on the existence of a website URL but what ads pre-internet did they reject in the aforementioned "decades" period?

Bottomline: NBC needs to define "too political" in a palatable way. As it is now they can whip the phrase out whenever they want to flex their ideological muscles.

I am sorry ... I cannot

December 7, 2007 - 17:54 ET by drillanwr

I am sorry ...

I cannot post a reply about this story ...

AS IT MAY GET ME BANNED FROM NBs FOR EXTREME LANGUAGE USE!!!

NBC said it declined to air

December 7, 2007 - 17:58 ET by MidAmerica

NBC said it declined to air the ad because it refers to the group's Web site, which the network said was too political, not because of the ad's message.

????????????????!!

The network that PAYS Keith O. to spew sick political venom?

ON PERAL HARBOR DAY WHAT DO YOU EXPECT!

December 7, 2007 - 19:05 ET by Der Alte

On the 66th anniversary of Pearl Harbor attack what else can you expect for this miserable excuse for a major network! All I can say is go to Pearl Habor, visit the USS Arizona memorial and then read the names of the dead entombed below and know that they sacrificed their lives to protect our freedom! Know that they and those in the service today carry on that nobel tradition that goes back to Lexington and Concord and that all of these brave servicemen and women deserve our respect and eternal gratitude. For the network of "Bathtub Boy" to deny these ads is to be expected and desreves the contempt of all good citizens!

NBC - Nothing But Crap

huh?

December 7, 2007 - 19:27 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

"All I can say is go to Pearl Habor, visit the USS Arizona memorial and
then read the names of the dead entombed below and know that they
sacrificed their lives to protect our freedom!"

I believe you meant to say that the service men and women entombed in the USS Arizona are there because Roosevelt ignored warnings to move them out of harms way because he needed a pretext to declare war againt Japan, who was fighting to maintain [legal] access to South American raw materials.

The CFR had already briefed FDR on how the US and UK were to divide the planet with the US gaining access to all South American and SE Asian areas for pillaging.

And the Japanese responded to the US build up of long range bombers [B-17] capable of attacking the Japanese mainland with the same kind of pre-emptive attack the rightards laud Bu$h for. If you support Bu$h invading Iraq BEFORE they could have the capability of attacking the US, then you have to support Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor.

Why do you hate America so much?

Someone stinks

December 7, 2007 - 19:51 ET by ThisnThat

.... I believe it's you. Go clean out your mouth.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

huh?

December 7, 2007 - 19:53 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

...eh, forgot to address the issue, no? That's why they called you brianiac is the 5th grade, right!

You've got to get

December 7, 2007 - 19:56 ET by ThisnThat

... that diaper changed.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

huh?

December 7, 2007 - 20:55 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

"
... that diaper changed."

Thanks for the sophisticated debate!

I've got it me:1 you:0

Don't forget

December 7, 2007 - 21:39 ET by ThisnThat

... to wipe the food and drool off your chin when you're done.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

On the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, even fools like W.H.Y.

December 7, 2007 - 19:53 ET by RJ

are able to spout their ignorant bs, thanks to the freedom given them by the lives of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. I honor their memory.

Why are you so full of hate?

December 7, 2007 - 20:41 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

Why are you so hate-filled? Are you a Christian? I made a statement, show me where I'm wrong instead of calling me names. I believe everything I posted is true and correct. Instead of verbal-vomit, how about trying to put your beliefs into words and changing a mind? If you have facts, bring them to the table.

On the anniversary of Pearl Harbor,

December 7, 2007 - 20:52 ET by RJ

even fools like W.H.Y. are able to spout their ignorant bs, thanks to the freedom given them by the lives of our soldiers, sailors and airmen.

I honor their memory.

Pearl Harbor myths

December 8, 2007 - 03:28 ET by Carl Kolchak

"I believe you meant to say that the service men and women entombed in the USS Arizona are there because Roosevelt ignored warnings to move them out of harms way because he needed a pretext to declare war againt Japan, who was fighting to maintain [legal] access to South American raw materials. The CFR had already briefed FDR on how the US and UK were to divide the planet with the US gaining access to all South American and SE Asian areas for pillaging. And the Japanese responded to the US build up of long range bombers [B-17] capable of attacking the Japanese mainland with the same kind of pre-emptive attack the rightards laud Bu$h for. If you support Bu$h invading Iraq BEFORE they could have the capability of attacking the US, then you have to support Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor. "

Japan was expanding their power in the South Pacific. They had aquired Manchuria and much of China which allowed them access to materials. They then joined the Axis Powers in 1940, which gave them access to more materials. Once France was defeated by the Germans, they aquired Indochina. However, Japan still lacked oil resources. The U.S. supplied much oil to Japan, and then placed an embargo on oil to Japan in response to their agression. This lead to negotiations between the U.S. and Japan, but both sides realized that it was only a matter of time before war would break out. Japanese military and civilian leaders thought the U.S. was their only obstacle to conquering all of Eastern Asia. They thought if they attacked and destroyed U.S. Pacific Fleet, the U.S. would sue for peace. Around the end of November 1941, negotiations broke off, and the U.S. refused to send oil. Admiral Chuichi Nagumo lead the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Americans had broken Japanese codes, so they knew an attack was coming, but it doesn't appear that they knew when or where. Some naval commanders thought Pearl Harbor was difficult to defend, but those in D.C. didn't think the Japanese had the will to attack that far .

Here is a pretty good link that looks at the myths and uses documentation to dispel the myths surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had been wrong, because it didn't lead to isolationism but lead to a unified country that took action.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/index.html

ON PERAL HARBOR DAY WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM NBC

December 8, 2007 - 12:31 ET by Der Alte

My comments had to do with the NBC position denying the ads thanking the troops coinciding with the Pearl Harbor attack anniversary. It has nothing to do with why they were there or any conspiracy theories. However, since it was brought up our prewar policies justified Japan attacking us? That's the sort of crap arguments you would find on NBC where self hating idiots say the WTC attacks were our own fault!

I thank the troops, then now and in the future!

I was responding to the

December 8, 2007 - 12:51 ET by Carl Kolchak

I was responding to the poster who said that the U.S. and UK wanted to pillage South American and Asia. After WW2 concluded in the South Pacific, the U.S. and UK didn't pillage all of that territory. They helped Japan rebuild, and didn't control China. Some people think FDR knew about the attack and didn't warn Pearl Harbor. The link shows some of the myths in regards to this. However, it was obvious that sooner or later things would come to a head between Japan and the United States, and it was only a matter of time before the U.S. would get involved in Europe as well.

I also thank the troops in the past. I grew up on military posts, so I am extremly thankful to all the armed services past, present and future.

Acronym

December 7, 2007 - 19:13 ET by stratman

NBC = No Bothersome Conscience

Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

Whatever Your Disgust Might Be

December 7, 2007 - 19:25 ET by Bourbeau

It accounts for nothing if you don't demonstrate how you feel by e-mailing GE and NBC about this disgraceful decision. GE has been able to exempt itself from any responsibility and is rarely assailed whenever one of "it's NBC employees", such Christ Matthews, or Keith Ohlbermann go off the deep end. GE, by the way, has a huge investment in military hard-ware thru jet engines and materials; so they benefit mightily from our military. In otherwords, it's okay to make money from the military contracts, just don't ask us to support the troops openly. Go to NBC and GE homepages; get their e-mails, and YELL LIKE HELL!!!!!! Do it now, not next week.

Networks not obligated to air ads that are blatant lies...

December 7, 2007 - 19:19 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

It simply isn't true that all of America supports the troops.

We supported those who were drafted back in VietNam, but these guys are volunteers and frankly, they should be refusing the illegal orders to invade other countries like we expected the Germans to do in the 1930s.

Support the troops! Bring them [and the National Guard] home now, and fire all of the mercenaries! Restore the USAs high standards which made us the envy of the world! End the Republican MO of lowering ourselves to the standards of those we claim to have moral superiority to.

Bring back truth, justice and the American Way!

Troll crap alert!

December 7, 2007 - 19:28 ET by drillanwr

We supported those who were drafted back in VietNam

bullshit !!!

but these guys are volunteers and frankly, they should be refusing the illegal orders to invade other countries like we expected the Germans to do in the 1930s.

double bullshit !!! ... especially for making the analogy of German Nazi soldiers to OUR troops

Support the troops! Bring them [and the National Guard] home now, and fire all of the mercenaries!

triple-dog bullshit! Away with you, before someone drops a house on YOU!

hey drill -- ignore

December 7, 2007 - 19:35 ET by Jack Bauer

hey drill -- ignore the fascist/commie troll. Fascist / commie / socialist worker / whatever / they're all the same.

He's just another America hating totalitarian with a burger for a brain. It's pretty pathetic.

And as ususal with these types -- he's had a triple humor bypass.

When you don't have any facts, resort to ad hominum

December 7, 2007 - 19:41 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

He's just another America hating totalitarian with a burger for a brain. It's pretty pathetic.

And as ususal with these types -- he's had a triple humor bypass

Humor bypass? America hating totalitarian? Now THAT'S funny! Oh yeah, did you have anything to add to the conversation, or do you only post bloviation?

I'm not a commie, nor a fascist, nor a socialist worker. I'm a hard working American who loves his country, and works to keep it from being drained of all liberty and justice by those who want to steal everything for themselves.

Remember, the founding fathers weren't corporate robbers.

Back on point, can't refute my post can you?

There's no obligation to refute bullsh*t

December 7, 2007 - 20:08 ET by RJ

;^>

RJ -- you just repeated one

December 7, 2007 - 20:14 ET by Jack Bauer

RJ -- you just repeated one of the eternal verities.

I've always tried not to touch sh+t, since my older brother made me pick up a large "brown" log in the back yard. And that was no log as I found out.

Seems like he's on the manic end of what they used to call

December 7, 2007 - 20:25 ET by RJ

manic-depressives (I think it's "bi-polar" now)....either that, or he's on some kind of speed. I'm guessing that's also why he has a short attention-span.

here's your chance!

December 7, 2007 - 20:34 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

Instead of stroking each other, why not take the opportunity to correct me, show me where I'm wrong? If your position is so valid, you should easily show me the truth and lead me forward! Or are you all just a bunch of circle-jerks?

When I was younger, W.H.Y.

December 7, 2007 - 20:47 ET by RJ

I worked in a mental institution. From that experience, the truth I can show you is "it's time for your meds"...

You speak in manic cliches, not thoughtful ideas. We have several intelligent leftist posters who debate well, but attempting to refute someone like you would be pointless and a waste of time.

huh?

December 7, 2007 - 20:53 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

"We have several intelligent leftist posters who debate well, but
attempting to refute someone like you would be pointless and a waste of
time."

But you have the time to post BS like this: "the truth I can show you is "it's time for your meds"..."

HaHa that's SOOOO funny! And BTW since you are such an expert in mental health [Where'd you get your degree?] list below one thing I posted that represents a manic cliche:

That is, if you really understand what the term means.

When I was younger, W.H.Y.

December 7, 2007 - 20:59 ET by RJ

I worked in a mental institution. From that experience, the truth I can show you is "it's time for your meds"...

You speak in manic cliches, not thoughtful ideas. We have several intelligent leftist posters who debate well, but attempting to "refute" or have a policy discussion with someone like you would be pointless and a waste of time.....just as it would have with our patients.

MANIC CLICHES FROM 007

December 8, 2007 - 01:19 ET by MrShy

MANIC LIBERAL CLICHE #1:

I'm a hard working American who loves his country, and works to keep it from being drained of all liberty and justice by those who want to steal everything for themselves.

Nope, no cliche there... about how Bush is stripping us all of our freedoms.... "illegal wiretaps, illegal wiretaps!".... and "they're all rich and getting richer, stealing from the poor!!!"

MANIC LIBERAL CLICHE #2:

Remember, the founding fathers weren't corporate robbers.

You REPEAT a tired, worn-out cliche: "those filthy, money-grubbing, corporate/Halliburton Rupugs!!"

MANIC LIBERAL CLICHE #3:

OMG, did you insert a Nazi Germany reference into your Bush/Repub bashing?? Why, yes, indeed, it appears you did!

MANIC LIBERAL CLICHE #4:

Support the troops! Bring them [and the National Guard] home now...

No cliche here, everyone move on.... (oops, "We support the troops... bring them home! ... and out of harms way!!" Because, well, you know, that's not the job of a soldier, to be, you know, in harms way..... cookoo, cookoo...)

MANIC LIBERAL CLICHE #5:

Restore the USAs high standards which made us the envy of the world!

Aaah, everyone's favorite 'round the NB fireplace. How the world hates us now, how we've "lost our way"... and we need to return to being "the shining example of (word here) again"....

MANIC LIBERAL CLICHE #6:

And since you don't know me, you don't know that I don't already do many things to help bring this country back to the great nation it was before Bu$h & Co. stole it

MANIC LIBERAL CLICHE #7:

[check your facts: Bu$h lost in 2000 and 2004].

(UGGGGGHHH...... the 2000 election, again, AND, you absurdly include 2004 !!! ????)

MANIC LIBERAL CLICHE #8:

And I'm not 'bitchin' about any heroes. But don't claim that every person in uniform is a hero, either.

MANIC LIBERAL CLICHE #9:

And finally, remember that nobody in the Bu$h administration served their country before they began to take advantage of the great nation in which we live.

As you can see, I got tired of the play-by-play for each and every yawner of a cliche (and a few use "Bu$h" with the $ sign.... naaaah, cliche? like, say, "BushCo"?.... but we all get the idea.

YES, Agent W.H.A.?.H.U.H.?., you are stock-piled with manic cliches.

Do you understand now, why we get tired of sitting and really debating all this rehashed nonsense? If you know how much many of us have seriously taken up the valiant job of debating leftist posters in the past, who had nothing of real substance to bring to the table, then forgive us for being a little burned out at this point. Sorry.

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

RJ

December 7, 2007 - 20:58 ET by MrShy

"We have several intelligent leftist posters who debate well..."

Several? I can think of one, Jer. And Balboa, but well, can't quite say he's all that much of a debater, and intelligent, yes, but not quite razor sharp.

Otherwise, it's the REAL circle-jerk(s)..... Professor Cheetos, Leon Spinks, this newbie, Agent B.D.S., and a few others I can't think of off-hand.

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

shy

December 7, 2007 - 21:01 ET by

occassionally cleverpig is rational

"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff

how bout that shawn troll?

December 8, 2007 - 00:49 ET by shawn228

We have several intelligent leftist posters who debate well..."

Several? I can think of one, Jer. And Balboa, but well, can't quite say
he's all that much of a debater, and intelligent, yes, but not quite
razor sharp.

ahem, I guess I have to work harder to have as much recognition as Jer and Balboa:-)

Shawn is nice

December 8, 2007 - 00:59 ET by candance

I've always found Shawn polite and fun to debate with. He gets the whole "mutual respect" thing.

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

candance

December 8, 2007 - 01:08 ET by shawn228

Hi Candance. I was just being tongue and cheek about troll thing. thx for the kind words . I guess I just have to be as intelligent as Jer or Balboa in the future :)

Shawn, I don't know about balboa's "intelligence"

December 8, 2007 - 07:53 ET by RJ

....but his "debating skills" are low to nil. His forte is short word bursts of observation that are sometimes wry and on target, but more often than not miss the mark by a wide margin. It's an avoidance mechanism that enables him to distance himself from actually engaging in debate and considering new information.

You, on the other hand, debate the subject at hand and are open to the exchange of information.

Just my opinion, of course..... ;^>

RJ

December 8, 2007 - 10:12 ET by shawn228

You and I have definitely had our share of testy exchanges. It means alot to have your compliment:-)

btw, yes Bal has his share of oneliners but imo he can more than hold his own. jmho.

Look more closely, shawn

December 8, 2007 - 13:00 ET by RJ

...bal typically goes for the contrarian bon mot (with only partial success) and avoids debates. That's not exactly "holding his own."

Sorry Shawn... come here,

December 8, 2007 - 01:08 ET by MrShy

Sorry Shawn... come here, get your right-winged hug :)

I forgot about you, my apologies, and yes, you also seem to be one of the civil ones. And there's JasonC -- what happened to him? He hasn't been around for a while, and I think he was a liberal. I recall him being a little more biting and confrontational... Leon Lite, sort of.

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

shy

December 8, 2007 - 01:27 ET by shawn228

Sorry Shawn... ome here, get your right-winged hug :)

Sniff.....okay Mr Shy only If you give me a free shyware shirt.

shawn stop!

December 8, 2007 - 01:28 ET by candance

You made me spit on my screen!

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

What Shawn?

December 8, 2007 - 01:21 ET by well99

I thought you were a UltraConservative?I actually considered you more a old school liberal.Same as Jer and balboa.None of you have that Kos Kid mentality.You are wrong on what part of the chicken is best but that is ok.

well99

December 8, 2007 - 01:34 ET by shawn228

I have a cofession to make. I was getting kind of frustrated with NB about a month ago because of many mean comments from other posters. So since so many people called me such a liberal I decided to post on DU for one day.

Most were nice when I introduced myself, but one poster attacked me when I said I did not believe in free medical for illigal immigrants. There were definitely as many if not more fanatics as here.

Best technique for carving a turkey. slice thighs, drumsticks and wings and use the rest to make soup :-)

don't feel bad Shawn

December 8, 2007 - 01:38 ET by candance

I'm in the religious right and I still get ripped by people here for not being "right" enough.

I firmly believe mean, petty, arrogant people on either side would continue to be mean, petty, and arrogant even if their politics changed.

Keith and Agent WHY are two very good examples of that.

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

I firmly believe mean,

December 8, 2007 - 01:52 ET by MrShy

I firmly believe mean, petty, arrogant people on either side would
continue to be mean, petty, and arrogant even if their politics changed.

Keith and Agent WHY are two very good examples of that.

Um, hello?... Leon? Anyone??

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

don't say that name Shy

December 8, 2007 - 01:59 ET by candance

The less I have to think about him the better. He and Whiner would really get going if they ever met up with each other.

wait....are you....thinking....what I'm thinking.....???

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

Yeah, Brain, but how are we

December 8, 2007 - 18:07 ET by JoeBob

Yeah, Brain, but how are we going to fit Helen Thomas in the gunneysack, too?

Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious

Blasphemy!

December 8, 2007 - 04:38 ET by well99

It is the reverse.Dark meat is only good for soup and turkey,peas and gravy. To be honest I dont have anything against liberals(old school).Leftist yes.There is a difference.I am independant and a centralist.Hey a internet test said I was a centralist so it must be right.As far as your posts they have always been respectful of others opinions.So to me that is what forums are for.I know sometimes I go off on some but it is a medical problem.I am alergic to lefties.When someone tells me the debate is over or uses because I think it is true it must be facts.I get ticked.Anyhow I been to Huffs and Kos Kids and I have yet to see anyone sink to their level.Even me.As far as your politics well I said liberal because of your post.I not sure really about your leanings but it isnt something I look for in a post unless it is extreme one way or the other.

McShawny -- you gotta

December 8, 2007 - 05:27 ET by Jack Bauer

McShawny -- you gotta admit, these far-left kook sites like Kos, DUmmies, and Zsa Zsa Huffington's are totally humor and culture free zones.

NB is just more interesting -- and open. Even it's thread'posting design is better.

That turkey tip -- do you really wanna see that happen to Pelosi and Reid?

Jack

December 8, 2007 - 10:01 ET by shawn228

There were actually some nice people when I went on, but this one poster pretty said I was heartless and just kept questioning my motives when I politely disagreed with free medical for immigrants. The format on that site is a little lame.

That turkey tip -- do you really wanna see that happen to Pelosi and Reid?

Aww come on Jack, you know I like my poutry"deep fried" :-)

bushbot 30%ers, looks like military families also disapprove

December 7, 2007 - 20:44 ET by professor truth

of the way Bush is handling the needs of active duty troops, military families, and veterans according to a LA Times/Bloomberg poll taken on Nov 30th thru dec 3rd. (headline at common dreams). Even the majority of military families have turned against the policies of the malignant chimptator. I guess you nickel grade bushbots will respond with personal smears but perhaps platinum bushbot 30%ers can articulate a coherent resonse to this revelation.

The smearer whines about getting smeared

December 7, 2007 - 20:52 ET by Unsane

The one who smears (and constantly slanders the military) whines about getting smeared. Contradictions collapse.

I am military, yet I have no complaints about the support I have gotten in my endeavors. In fact, I have gotten more than adequate support. You'll spot my parents driving down the road soon: sporting a blue star flag. And that is to complement the blue star they have hanging in the window.

The President (your 30% whine notwithstanding, he is a President, not a Prime Minister, and he will be in office until 2009) even visited with the troops in Korea when I was there. He could have kept right on going to China, but he elected to stop by and see us. That kind of a hat tip is not easily forgotten.

You know, if you spent more time looking after your own financial needs instead of throwing constant online temper tantrums because the government isn't your personal nanny, your personal pampering agency, I bet you would have a lofty net worth...

What's wrong with

December 9, 2007 - 08:27 ET by bretzysdude

What's wrong with bloviation? It works for me.

JB -

December 7, 2007 - 19:42 ET by drillanwr

Probably living in his parents' basement with molding pizza boxes, stacks of Red Bull empties, and a dried-up capless tube of Clearasil. And I won't get into what his bed sheets are like ...

drill -- argggh. A nasty

December 7, 2007 - 19:50 ET by Jack Bauer

drill -- argggh. A nasty image for me to contemplate. Thanks man.

Frankly I could give two craps where he lives. He's clearly a lying jerk on every level. Why anyone can be bothered to respond to his ravings is beyond me.

Reading his irrational ramblings is like listening into a meeting of International ANSWER.

I used to see his type on campus all the time back in the day. Plotting world revolution, blah de blah.

Hel'l be on about "corporate thievery" next.

"He's clearly a lying jerk

December 7, 2007 - 19:56 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

"He's clearly a lying jerk on every level."

Forgot to point out anything I posted that was a lie, again. Yawn. You guys got a real sophisticated web site here, what with all the name calling and pissing and moaning. What a bunch of babies! Now THAT'S funny!

Go back to sleep...

Agent W.H.Y. Just to get

December 7, 2007 - 20:36 ET by hydrodynDM

Agent W.H.Y.

Just to get this straight - you do nothing but post completely unoriginal liberal catch-phrases and you accuse the folks on this site of be unsophisticated.

Just so you know, no one is going to take you seriously so you might as well get used to posts that do little more than make fun of you.

Why should anyone put the effort into a real response when you do nothing but put out bumper sticker ideas that everyone here has seen a thousand times before from folks like you?

If your one forum post is an example of "sophisticated", you might as well just save yourself the bother and stop posting.

Hydro, he's just another

December 7, 2007 - 20:43 ET by JAB

Hydro, he's just another kos loser that lacks any original thought. I've watched him post for a while now and found he mirrors the DU/kos sites. My vote is we starve him out too.

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

JAB, Starving out someone

December 7, 2007 - 20:55 ET by hydrodynDM

JAB,

Starving out someone is good in theory - but I'll admit, I find it tough not to respond to some folks even when I know I shouldn't.

Besides, I have this idea that he thinks he's so original and that his posts are so disruptive to the closed off views of the folks on here, that's he's convinced himself that people don't respond seriously because they can't.

Makes me laugh.

Hydro, I have to agree, it

December 7, 2007 - 21:09 ET by JAB

Hydro, I have to agree, it is better than paying for a "B" rate movie. Watching these "intellectuals" "teach" us something we don't know is quite amusing.

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

JAB, It's funny you would

December 7, 2007 - 21:22 ET by hydrodynDM

JAB,

It's funny you would use the "B movie" analogy - I was thinking exactly the same thing - I kid you not.

You can almost predict what the next thing guys like Agent will say like you can almost see what's coming in a bad movie - and it's generally not worth the wait.

Great minds and all ...

Take it easy - I'm expected somewhere else.

Hydro, GMTA :-) Have a

December 7, 2007 - 21:33 ET by JAB

Hydro, GMTA :-) Have a great weekend and a Very Merry Christmas to you and yours should we not pass again before then.

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

" Just to get this straight

December 7, 2007 - 20:46 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

"
Just to get this straight - you do nothing but post completely unoriginal liberal catch-phrases"

List one unoriginal liberal catch-phrase I used in my post:

"
Just so you know, no one is going to take you seriously"

You have to take yourself seriously first.

"Why should anyone put the effort into a real response when you do
nothing but put out bumper sticker ideas that everyone here has seen a
thousand times before from folks like you?"

But you have time to put the effort into blathering?

"
If your one forum post is an example of "sophisticated""

I'm not claiming to be sophisticated. I'm just noting that like most partisan blogs, this site has little more than a bunch of posts in the line of 'I hate the [fill in the other end of the spectrum] more than you!"

Agent W.H.Y.

December 7, 2007 - 21:02 ET by hydrodynDM

Agent W.H.Y.

Um, that Bush didn't win the last two presidential elections, that private security people are "mercenaries", that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbor attacks ahead of time, ...

Give me a break, dude.

And it's funny you refer to my post to you as "blathering" when you tried to chastise someone for an "ad hominem" in one of your previous posts.

What's a hypocrite?

But hey, if you want to characterize this site is juvenile and nothing more than a bunch of sheep agreeing with each other, go for it. Whatever makes you feel superior, pal.

right on

December 8, 2007 - 00:53 ET by candance

I don't usually condone profanity, but this blatant attempt to rewrite history deserves it.

I very much doubt Agent WHY was even alive in the 1970s.

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

candance!

December 8, 2007 - 01:04 ET by MrShy

First off, haha.... I think The Nutty Professor should be sending us checks in the mail. He's getting all this free publicity in our signatures. I love yours! :)

And yeah, enter stage right, er, left.... the latest babbling troll, ladies and gentleman..... Agent B.D.S. :p

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

so-called centrist

December 8, 2007 - 01:11 ET by candance

If he's a centrist, who the heck is to left of him?

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

I know, tell me about it.

December 8, 2007 - 01:14 ET by MrShy

I know, tell me about it. Did you see the high-lighted cliche talking points I called him out on, above?

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

lemme see

December 8, 2007 - 01:23 ET by candance

Without even going back, I bet I can recite them all from memory.

-I'm a good American citizen fighting to get my country back.

-Bush illegally invaded a country so Halliburton could sell a few more humvees.

-You Republican robots can't stand to hear dissention.

-Our Constitution is being shredded as the GOP turns this country into a money machine.

-Halliburton!

-We would gladly support the troops....just not when they're fighting anyone.

-Bush stole the election.

-Halliburton!

-This country is more divided than ever.

-Republican morons can't debate real points so they call people names.

-Halliburton!

...same story, different decade. Nothing ever changes with these people.

And those entertaining part is how they always act like they are shaking our worlds with something we've never heard before!

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

Funny thing about Haliburton

December 8, 2007 - 01:52 ET by well99

I dont remember all the screams from the Left when Clinton gave them a no bid contract.

http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIII/Issue_4/Features/Features1.shtml

LOL well

December 8, 2007 - 02:04 ET by candance

Didn't you know BDS causes memory loss?

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

True lol

December 8, 2007 - 04:40 ET by well99

It really seems that way.Especially with the msm.

}}---> Halliburton

December 8, 2007 - 04:57 ET by Cool Arrow

Seems there aren't any companies in the world who dan do the job Halliburton can.

I guess Schlumberger could come close, but there was that little "oil for food" scandal with the French.

well & candance

December 8, 2007 - 02:05 ET by MrShy

Great link well99, thanks!

I read some of it, and yeah, people should simmer down and get the knot out of their knickers about Halliburton... it's amazing, the propaganda built up around that and Cheney. Everyone sees these existing ties as fact.

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

Yes Cheney

December 8, 2007 - 04:46 ET by well99

Yes that awful person who donated close to 7 million to charity.Why couldnt he be more giveing like Gore.

http://archive.newsm...

Agent W.H.I.N.E., it is

December 7, 2007 - 19:41 ET by JAB

Agent W.H.I.N.E., it is appearent to me you have never served this country nor added to it's greatness with the attitude you espose. Therefore I challange you to do something more than sit behind a computer screen BITCHIN' about the hero's we love, support and have raised from babies.

Your BDS has blinded your insightful side and made you an angry individual. LPTU, unless I see a change.

OK NBer's, bets on the table how long this kos lover lasts. I give it two weeks because it has to be haters (AKA, Leon's) freind.

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

Your BDS has blinded your

December 7, 2007 - 19:48 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

Your BDS has blinded your insightful side and made you an angry individual. LPTU, unless I see a change.

Angry? I'd say re-read your post and ask yourself who is angry. I'm not angry. I may be disapointed once in a while, but I'd say it's you who is letting anger rule your being.

And since you don't know me, you don't know that I don't already do many things to help bring this country back to the great nation it was before Bu$h & Co. stole it [check your facts: Bu$h lost in 2000 and 2004].

And I'm not 'bitchin' about any heroes. But don't claim that every person in uniform is a hero, either. And finally, remember that nobody in the Bu$h administration served their country before they began to take advantage of the great nation in which we live.

[...] Thanks for the

December 7, 2007 - 19:50 ET by JAB

[...]

Thanks for the confirmation.

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

I'll respond only in part

December 7, 2007 - 21:23 ET by Unsane

And finally, remember that nobody in the Bush administration served their country before they began to take advantage of the great nation in which we live. I'd be willing to guess you haven't either. Yet, you sure love to bitch and whine, all the while sucking those tits of democracy and freedom dry...

Check your facts:

Presidential elections are determined by electoral votes. Bush won the most electoral votes in 2000 and 2004. But if you want to run against Bush in 2008, please feel free. Personally, just like Профессор Правда, I just think you are throwing a temper tantrum, because you simply cannot function without the government holding your hand 24/7. You NEED to have complete, 100%, micromanaging, total government control of your life, because you cannot handle the act of living your own life, making decisions that may have consequences...or personal responsibility.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Sorry folks, but I can't

December 8, 2007 - 03:54 ET by Gary P Jackson

Sorry folks, but I can't take this guy much longer!

First, Bu$h%Co?

Second, go check YOUR facts, it was indeed Mr Gore that tried to steal the 2000 election. Wasn't in the room when he conceeded defeat (the first time) I was instead standing in downtown Austin Texas, on a cold rainy night watching Gore on the big screen, and cheering Bush had won, only to here Gore took it all back. Again, not in the room, but I'm sure some advisor grabbed the guy and said wait a minute.

I watched the circus in Florida. The counties were run by dems, and supervised by dems. The reason why the U S Supreme Court ruled the way it did was two fold, one: Gore's people would have demanded recount after recount until enough votes were "found", and two: The recount was illegal, because Gore didn't want to have a state wide recount. That recount would have included more than a few military absentee ballots, that they were trying to suppress. Actually they were successful at suppressing these votes. At least libs are consistent. They hate the military so much, they try to deny them their vote!

Two more things you seem to forget. Florida is in two time zones. The networks, obviously trying to influence the vote, called Florida an hour before the polls closed in the panhandle. The REPUBLICAN panhandle! You also seem to conveniently forget major news outlets, after the fact, did their own recounts hoping to start something, but after counting the ballots in every manner possible, Bush won every count. Not by a heck of a lot, but by enough. BTW, how do we know how to project panhandle votes? Enter Michael Barone, who can tell you the voting habits of every precinct in the country, and publishes them. The 2004 vote in the panhandle of Florida was very close to what was projected in 2000.

As an aside, to show just how classless Gore was, compared to Richard Nixon, who lost a similar race to Jack Kennedy. It wasn't a well kept secret that enough dead folks put JFK over the hump. Nixon had a clear case to base a recount on, but when prompted to, had the class to realize the country didn't need to go through a Constitutional crisis. Nixon conceded.

I don't have much admiration for John Kerry, but he did have the good graces to admit defeat in 2004. That's the way it works. And if anyone has the right to complain it is the GOP, who had vandals destroy property. And discovered many cases of voter fraud.

Lastly, concerning the elections, you DO realize that America is a representative republic? WE chose a president with the electoral college rather than the popular vote. This is done to allow smaller populated states an actual say in how the country is run. It's not perfect, but it is the best there is.

This country IS a great nation. We don't need your help to "bring it back". For some reason you retards think the world is a popularity contest. You have this incessant need to be loved. It's better to be respected. And no mater what you nuts chant, America is the best brand going. It's why people risk death to try and break in to the country illegally! You don't see illegals pouring into France do ya? They really ain't pouring into South America!

And if you don't think 99.9 percent of the military isn't heroic, you are definitely unAmerican. No group is perfect, but most of the free world can thank the US Soldier, Marine, Airman, and Sailor for it being so. Our brave men and women have freed tens of millions in this fight. If that's not heroic to you I sincerely urge you to pack your bags an leave.

As for the tired old "no one served" crap, you are wrong again. This has been well vetted. Bush was in the National Guard. Bush is a trained fighter pilot (can't be a moron and do that, so I'll stop ya here) It also has been reported that Bush had requested an assignment in Vietnam. Bush's father is a decorated WWII pilot. However, as the war was winding down, Bush was not assigned. Remember, in the military, unlike the civilian world, you do as you are told, no questions asked.

Don Rumsfeld served in the Navy from 1954-1957 as an aviator and a flight instructor.

Remember though, service to one's country doesn't mean you have to join up. The rest of Bush's circle has a distinguished record of civilian service. (besides, aren't you guys the one who preaches this?)

Here's what I'd love to see from you, and the lovely "professor". I'd like to see real factual, verifiable (with links, photos, etc) "proof" you think you have of wrong doing by "Bu$h & Co"! When I bring this up all I ever hear is crickets chirping in the distance!

Now, hit the ground a runnin'!

Agent W H Y will resign

December 7, 2007 - 19:53 ET by ConservativeRex

Agent W H Y will resign as the President of NBC in the morning. And you supported the draftees in Vietnam?? You have got to be kidding, and all that you wrote was in jest, because it had better be. You are not old enough to make a statement such as that.

I am not sure where you get your propaganda, but it doesn't cut any ice with me, partner. I do not take kindly to you calling my son a mercenary. Oh that he was, so both of us could take up the case against the likes of you in this country. And we would/should, gladly. You give cowards a bad name. To think he and I defend your rights at all, it's absolutly sickening.

"And you supported the

December 7, 2007 - 20:01 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

"And you supported the draftees in Vietnam?? You have got to be
kidding, and all that you wrote was in jest, because it had better
be. You are not old enough to make a statement such as that."

Such as what? Since you don't know me, you don't know how old I am, and you don't know enough to back up your ridiculous claim.

"I do not take kindly to you calling my son a mercenary."

If the shoe fits...

"To think he and I defend your rights at all, it's absolutly sickening."

Clacking away on your keyboard does nothing to protect my rights. If your 'son' wants to do something to protect my rights, why doesn't he enlist instead of suck from the public teet as a mercenary? Or does his greed exceed his patriotism? Why do you and he hate America so?

Agent W H Y, where do

December 7, 2007 - 20:37 ET by ConservativeRex

Agent W H Y, where do you live?

huh?

December 7, 2007 - 20:48 ET by Agent W.H.Y.

"
Agent W H Y, where do you live?"

Ah, yes, conservativerex can tell what is true and what isn't by the location of the person. Where I live we call that a bigot.

Double Huh??? Agent

December 7, 2007 - 21:01 ET by JAB

Double Huh??? Agent W.H.I.N.E.S' Profile is as follows:

"Fair minded centrist with main stream values and opinions, but not afraid to express them, nor learn new things."

HistoryMember for 6 weeks 3 days

My vote is, we have another youngster amongest us that has a reading comprehension problem because of the public education system.

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

That's funny, JAB. Given W.H.Y.'s postings, it makes him either

December 7, 2007 - 21:17 ET by RJ

a liar or completely irrational....maybe both. He's about as "centrist" and "main-stream" as Hillary or Teddy Kennedy. :^)

Thanks RJ. "That's funny,

December 7, 2007 - 21:26 ET by JAB

Thanks RJ.

"That's funny, JAB. Given W.H.Y.'s postings, it makes him either a liar or completely irrational....or maybe a true liberal too scared to come out of the closet." ?!

<edited for effect> ;-)
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

RJ & JAB

December 7, 2007 - 21:45 ET by MrShy

Or.... RJAB :p

I called out our new "fair minded centrist" (yuk yuk) guest on a laundry list of cliches, above, after he asked someone to list just one.

What he doesn't even know is, the real sharp debators who have more patience with these types, don't seem to be on tonight (nothing against either of you, or myself :p but there are some that are always game to roll up their sleeves, and their names are eluding me at the moment...)

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

Agent why is making lot's

December 7, 2007 - 21:51 ET by Clear thinker

Agent why is making lot's of friends. You know, the kind that would like to invite you into the ring for a friendly go-round.

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson

Ooooops #2

December 7, 2007 - 21:54 ET by Clear thinker

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson

Oooops

December 7, 2007 - 21:53 ET by Clear thinker

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson

MrShy, after 20+ years of

December 7, 2007 - 22:04 ET by JAB

MrShy, after 20+ years of being in business for myself with employees's, my level of patience for ignorance is at a minus. I have empolyed too many "fair minded centrist's" and just pain dumb as--'s to have to deal with them on here.

btw, have you noticed I have not been responded to either ?!

FYI, you are looking for "Roger the Shrubber", "Jack Bauer" and sometimes "Noel" to put the lackies in their place, while we are throughly entertained.

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

PT and Agent WHY

December 8, 2007 - 00:32 ET by well99

You know that they come on here just to get the attention.In real life no one pays attention to them so they come here spout some lies and tell folks it is the truth.The debate is over.They post "facts" from leftwingrhetoric.com and were suppose to except that.Some people just like negative attention and these two definately want it.What they need is a pacifier and a timeout.One thing I find funny is Agent Why and his calling himself a centralist.Seems alot of leftist like him try to play themselves off as centralist.Must be a Kos Kid thing.I am a centralist and him and Hillary aint it.

The Agent's Shame

December 7, 2007 - 22:33 ET by Unsane

THAT is in the Agent's profile???

Socialists and Leftists simply cannot be honest, even slightly, about who they are.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

yes, unsane, only rwers like Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham

December 8, 2007 - 03:00 ET by professor truth

have integrity. That's why no investigations occurred during rw controlled congress. They all had unimpeachable integrity. Yeah, they put corporate lobbyists like Steve Griles in positions like asst. dept of interior where he could either strip away regulations or just ignore them. Just look at how mountaintop mining has created pristine landscapes in W Virginia. All those patriots who've had their streams filled in with debris must be overjoyed to have these high integrity republicans protecting them.

Seems to me that (1)

December 8, 2007 - 03:28 ET by NL207

Seems to me that

(1) Abramoff didn't actually commit any crime. He plead guilty to "conspiracy", whatever that is. His clients were American Indians, who, for whatever reason, were specifically exempted from the campaign finance laws by the Congress. The Indians are allowed to donate whatever they like to whichever candidates they like without limit. Personally, I think this is an unacceptable double standard, but it IS what the law allows.

(2) Whatever stupid things Duke did in the last fifteen years, I can remember (a) When his call sign was "Yank" and (b) He was doing duty for this country that would have left petty, name calling little cowards like you with a nasty scorch mark in their shorts.

Duke was convicted, he's a crook

December 8, 2007 - 03:35 ET by professor truth

who made lot's of money off giving away millions of US dollars to buddies like Mitchell Wade of MZM, who fed from the federal trough.

Alberto Gonzalez was another crominal who tried to provide legal cover for another criminal, Bush, who knew and allowed torture, while claiming otherwise. Bush also knowingly allowed illegal domestic wiretaps, while lying in public about how wiretaps needed a judge's approval. Not to mention his flagrant Iraq war crime. But, rwers always like to say if someone is innocent, they shouldn't be afraid to hide anything. But for Bush-Cheney crimes, there's always executive privilege, even when that privilege doesn't apply. Being a rwer means never having to apologize for your crimes!

Randy Cunningham plead

December 8, 2007 - 03:47 ET by NL207

Randy Cunningham plead guilty. That is more than Clinton, Torricelli, Traficant, Mollihan, Studds, Frank, Schumer or a whole host of other Democrat scum who were no less guilty than Cunningham have done.

You couldn't clean Cunningham's dirty underwear. In fact, if it wouldn't get some good men killed for no good purpose, I'd actually like to see you try to take a trap.

I see the first slander doesn't concern you. Gonzalez has never even been accused of a crime. You have not one scrap of evidence that he has ever committed a crime. Your logic here is no better than it is w.r.t. global climate science.

NL, you're right. I couldn't clean the Dukester's

December 8, 2007 - 04:18 ET by professor truth

underwear, especially since he's locked up and I'm not. Gonzlez is a criminal who gave legal cover for toruture, something rwers seem to admire(except McCain, who, on this issue, I admire). These guys should appoint a special prosecutor if they're so innocent. They hide behind executive privelege, lie under oath or refuse to testify under oath. Gonzalez lied under oath over why those US attys were fired.

OK, Professor

December 8, 2007 - 04:51 ET by Cool Arrow

Your claim that Gonzalez is a criminal is not supported in fact.

After months of "investigation" I challenge you to name the charges Congress brought against Gonzalez.

Didn't think so. You just have a certain idea of how Mexican-Americans are supposed to act. Did he stray too far from roofing/lawncare/lettuce picking for your tastes?

I disagree with Gonzalez on a couple of issues, but your jumping straight to "criminal" without even knowing what accusations you could bring suggests something far deeper and sinister than mere politics.

With Clinton, we had clearly defined accusations. You have only your hatred when it comes to Gonzalez.

}}---> PT

December 8, 2007 - 03:52 ET by Cool Arrow

I notice you're bashing Alberto Gonzalez. But not a word about Janet Reno, who under Clinton's watch, burned up a building full of Religious zealots with their children and kidnaped a little Cuban boy whose mother died getting him to freedom. Additionally, rather than waterboarding the WTC bombers for Intel, Reno just had those arrested sent to Egypt for "interrogation". What lily white hands your President Clinton had.

Obviously you hate Mexican-Americans and Cubans. Doubtless you are wonderfully patronizing and condescending in your classes. How's that "soft bigotry of low expectations" approach working for you teacher? Ain't doing a damn bit of good for your victims.

CA, soft bigotry of low expectations???

December 8, 2007 - 04:00 ET by professor truth

kids have no math or reading skills when they come to my class. I have a range of students from 4th grade level to college bound. They live in tough neighborhoods in lousy apartments and may not eat very well and you're blaming me?? Too funny, CA!

Yes, bigotry

December 8, 2007 - 04:09 ET by Cool Arrow

If the student hasn't learned, the teacher hasn't taught.

If you can't do the job, you should either gravitate to a class where you can capably challenge students, get some training, or quit.

It wasn't hard to predict you'd hide behind the "tough neighborhood" excuse. Bush was right. We hide our schools' failures in the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Oh! A victim! Wow, I am

December 8, 2007 - 04:31 ET by tracheostomy

Oh! A victim! Wow, I am so sorry PT. Gee, how tough a neighborhood is it?

They stuff the Professor in a locker or something?

Maybe you should address your grievance with your Union rep.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

CA, there are a few factors beyond the teacher's

December 8, 2007 - 10:40 ET by professor truth

teaching to consider. And, students learn. It's the how much part that varies. When students are habitually absent, have no materials, are lacking basic skills, are learning in a second language, are in an inner city environment, are forced to learn "standards" which have absolutely no immediate relevence on their lives, are continuously distracted or interrupted by outside disruptions(PA announcements, construction work , counseler notices, etc), are learning in dilapidated buildings, are constantly forced to take multiple choice tests, are threatened by gangs daily, have grown up with serious learning disorders along with other factors I know exist, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to blame teachers ?? It's like blaming soldiers for having a disastrous war in Iraq. Blame those who created the system and forced others to go along.

Oh, come on! You

December 9, 2007 - 08:45 ET by bretzysdude

Oh, come on! You "teachers" don't give a crap either! I hear from my daughter that instead of learning, they end up watching popular movies, because the teachers don't really want to teach. It works both ways, truther.

Oh great, I think PT

December 8, 2007 - 04:27 ET by tracheostomy

Oh great, I think PT additionally has a unique definition for the self-given title of "Professor" as well.

Or "truth" for that matter. Take your pick. Either way, if it's all subjective definition, then we don't have to listen to it.

You can't work effectively with us or the audience until you bring some honesty and consistency to the table.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

tracheostomy, lighten up.

December 8, 2007 - 10:44 ET by professor truth

Anyone who uses the name, "Professor Truth", is playing around, creating something provocative. Like Limbaugh claiming he has "talent on loan from God', it's just for provocation purposes.

The only difference is that

December 9, 2007 - 08:46 ET by bretzysdude

The only difference is that it applies to Rush. Since when did it apply to you, "truther"?

Anyone who says they are a

December 8, 2007 - 02:17 ET by NL207

Anyone who says they are a fair minded centrist is neither.

WHY You calling me a

December 8, 2007 - 00:38 ET by ConservativeRex

WHY You calling me a bigot is high praise indeed. And in fact I certainly can tell what is true and what isn't by where you live, now, answer the question.

The Projection Of A Liberal

December 7, 2007 - 20:50 ET by Intellectual Honesty

Agent W.H.Y. uses all the sophisticated buzz words:

CFR, divide the planet, pillaging, rightards, Bu$h, illegal orders, invade, mercenaries!, Republican MO, drained of all liberty and justice, steal everything for themselves, real sophisticated web site here, pissing and moaning, bunch of babies!, Bu$h lost in 2000 and 2004, nobody in the Bu$h administration served their country, suck from the public teet as a mercenary?, Or does his greed exceed his patriotism?, Why do you and he hate America so?

Psssst - Secret WHY Agent Man: you are EVERYTHING that you say you are against.

Such as what? Since you

December 9, 2007 - 08:41 ET by bretzysdude

Such as what? Since you don't know me, you don't know how old I am, and you don't know enough to back up your ridiculous claim.

Well, you certainly act like you're four years old. This is you, whiner (Sorry, blonde, I have to do it):

I BLEEV U MEANT 2 SAY DAT TEH SERVICE DOODZ AN WOMEN ENTOMBD IN DA USS ARIZONA R THAR CUZ ROOSEVELT IGNORD WARNINGS 2 MOOV THEM OUT OV HARMS WAI CUZ HE NEEDD PRETEXT 2 DECLARE WAR AGAINT JAPAN, HOO WUZ FIGHTIN 2 MAINTAIN [LEGAL] ACCES 2 SOUTH AMERICAN RAW MATERIALS.

TEH CFR HAD ALREADY BRIEFD FDR ON HOW TEH US AN UK WUZ 2 DIVIDE TEH PLANET WIF TEH US GAININ ACCES 2 ALL SOUTH AMERICAN AN SE ASIAN AREAS 4 PILLAGIN.

AN TEH JAPANEES RESPONDD 2 TEH US BUILD UP OV LONG RANGE BOMBERS [B-17] CAPABLE OV ATTACKIN TEH JAPANEES MAINLAND WIF TEH SAME KIND OV PRE-EMPTIV ATTACK TEH RIGHTARDZ LAUD BU$H 4. IF U SUPPORT BU$H INVADIN IRAQ BEFORE THEY CUD HAS TEH CAPABILITY OV ATTACKIN TEH US, DEN U HAS 2 SUPPORT JAPAN 4 BOMBIN PEARL HARBOR.

Y DO U HATE AMERICA SO MUTCH?

hmmmm

December 8, 2007 - 00:28 ET by gordon

Does your mom know you're on her computer?

WHY do we listen to this troll?

WHY is he allowed to touch his mom's machine?

WHY is he not in school and instead on Newsbusters wasting our valuable time?

These trolls.. It reminds

December 8, 2007 - 07:10 ET by USA4freedom

These trolls..

It reminds me of the Jimmy Buffett line: even if we kill all the A$$ holes today, they will make a new batch tomorrow.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

seriously

December 8, 2007 - 00:51 ET by candance

Newsflash: liberals never supported the troops sent to Vietnam. Not any of them. Period. John Kerry called them rapists and baby killers and Jande Fonda called them war criminals. Didn't matter if they were drafted or not.

America has never had "good moral standing" with the world. From the year of our birth until now we've been attacked, despised, and seen as red-headed stepchild.

You don't support the troops. Nice to know we have that on record.

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

Thank goodness there are

December 7, 2007 - 19:27 ET by Jack Bauer

Thank goodness there are groups like Freedom Watch which are prepared to dissent against the shrill leftists ideology that pervades the MSM.

If NBC is dumb enough to piss off a good proportion of its audience, more fool them.

Clearly they think this is the 1960s when all the lying socialists, commies and assorted "radicals" felt they could spit on the troops with impunity.

Boy, are they in for a shock.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Aside from the unknown definition of "too political"

December 7, 2007 - 20:15 ET by sarcasmo

The weird thing, for me, is that doing this pretty well guarantees someone on Fox News, at least, is going to play the commercial FOR FREE. I wouldn't be surprised if the thing made Drudge, too. Can NBC ad-execs really be dumb-enough that this is an unintended consequence?? Stockholders should consider a lawsuit, if so...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

sarc -- yep, just to repeat

December 7, 2007 - 20:29 ET by Jack Bauer

sarc -- yep, just to repeat I agree NBC and its minions are perfectly in their rights to make commercials decisions on what runs on their network.

But I wouldn't be too sure Fox will run it either. They also have a track record of refusing to air ads from conservative groups recently.

What's the FCC regs on camapaign ad direct from candidates, by the way. You being the resident authority on that.

Oh, my goodness.

December 7, 2007 - 20:38 ET by sarcasmo

I'm not sure. I'm not so much an authority on them as I am an authority on what's likely to upset their ever-increasing bevy of lawyers. The real expert is Bradley Smith, who is, I'm told, working for both the RP-Blimp project and the Romney Campaign. Anyway, he's the reason they're structuring the blimp as a business.
JMR

PS Apparently, NBC can't even be trusted to honestly-report THEIR OWN POLLS!!! I'd love to hear how this isn't media-bias, if an NBC-apologist is left. ;)

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)

Fox is running the ad, as

December 8, 2007 - 04:04 ET by Gary P Jackson

Fox is running the ad, as well as CNN, or so says Fox News. I have not watched a Fox News program today that didn't cover this and have many free airings of at least part of the ad.

Yep Gary P., I just saw

December 8, 2007 - 05:32 ET by Jack Bauer

Yep Gary P., I just saw that on BOR, and stand corrected.

But unfortunately Fox has also refused to run ads in the past year from Move America Forward, which supports the troops with direct action.

Perhaps it's time

December 7, 2007 - 20:12 ET by c5then

Time for all conscientious people to boycott NBC, MSNBC and CNBC until they get the message that America is VERY annoyed with them.

They will run adds from MoveOn, but not from Freedom's Watch??!! The argument that the organization is "too political" is completely disingenuous because they run political adds from candidates and issue groups and you can't get any more political than that.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08. RenewAmerica.us

c5then

December 7, 2007 - 20:23 ET by MrShy

I totally forgot about the whole Gen. Petraus/BetrayUs MoveOn smear campaign ads the "reputable" NY Times ran, and yet NBC (MSNBC? whatev') won't run this because it has a website listed on it?

UN - REAL !

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

}}---> Shocking News

December 8, 2007 - 01:28 ET by Cool Arrow

GE just announced it will no longer pursue nor accept defense contracts.

OK, I'm joking, but with GE so totally into the "hate the troops" movement, isn't there at least some hypocrisy given their significant reliance on Government contracts?

CNN and FNN

December 8, 2007 - 01:35 ET by lumpy

are running the ad. Only NBC and MSNBC are not. NBC has run all sorts of political/controversial ads. So this is a first for them.

Money talks. Threaten to boycott the NBC sponsors and GE products.

NBC

December 8, 2007 - 01:43 ET by candance

Were they not the people who put Algore on 30 Rock to promote Green Week? And if my memory serves, is he not a Democrat?

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

PT and Agent WHY???

December 8, 2007 - 01:50 ET by DBW

I don't comment all that often, but this subject about NBC fits my response about the same. Just remember the verse in the bible about not throwing your pearls before swine, as it is just a waste.

These two new trolls, well, don't throw your pearls. Just pray for them.

I can't really recall anything I watch on that network.

good point DBW, what is the

December 8, 2007 - 07:13 ET by USA4freedom

good point DBW, what is the use. someone that buys in to their BS are fools..

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

I can't find Jeff Zucker's email

December 8, 2007 - 03:41 ET by timothe

but here's one for GE:

Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO
jeff.immelt@corporate.ge.com

I'm going to wait until morning to write so he doesn't discount my letter as being from some loon.

Thanks

December 8, 2007 - 06:08 ET by well99

I going to email him also.

I have gotten to the point

December 8, 2007 - 07:17 ET by USA4freedom

I have gotten to the point that the only TV I watch is the NFL. (and dam if they don't put OB on that)Maybe Fox in the morning.I am glad that people are calling to task the MSM.Boycott sounds good to me. Just like Hollywood, hurt them where it hurts, in the wallet..

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

Well pretty much the same

December 8, 2007 - 08:22 ET by well99

Except got hooked on cooking shows.I watch some Fox and Iron Chef..also like Hell's Kitchen.Most of the food I wouldnt eat but for some reason I get a kick out cooking shows.NFL is also good.Pats have been on alot this year in my area.I dont watch tv shows because there is to many pushing political agendas.I want entertainment.There should be a John Wayne and Jimmy Stuart channel.

Typical NBC Liberal Drivel

December 8, 2007 - 07:32 ET by Cool Arrow

So GE and its affiliate NBC want us to know: Of course we support the troops. . . but this successful surge is unacceptable. Thank them? For what?

NBC... Breaking News

December 8, 2007 - 09:38 ET by Jack Bauer

NBC... Breaking News

NBC announces its Christmas message to the troops...

Jack

December 8, 2007 - 10:44 ET by

why does NBC keep breaking the news? And who's gonna fix it?

"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff

botg -- funny dude! But

December 8, 2007 - 11:06 ET by Jack Bauer

botg -- funny dude!

But the fix is in. For the Democrats08.

fortunately JB

December 8, 2007 - 11:19 ET by

the fix is not certain (2000, 2004) it makes what should be a shoe-in a horse race though. Perhaps we should thank the MSM for keeping us vigilant?

"newspapers mold minds" Mr Kotter

"who would want a moldy mind?" Horeshack

I've noticed

December 8, 2007 - 10:49 ET by ThisnThat

that this thread is dominated by the Professor Truth and Agent WHY goons. Their comments have added nothing; in fact they have successfully diverted all the discussion towards their topics simply by being outlandish and untruthful.

Is that what we want? I find it to be very tiresome, myself, and have lost all interest in following this. Does anyone else think these people should be getting any response at all? Am I the only one who thinks this is zero-value-added?

The reason I ask this is because when these two people dominate by their typical flame-thowing, it begins to look a lot like the leftist blogs -- all hate, illogic used, talking points galore.

If this is the trend that NB is going to support, I will cease posting any comments myself, and certainly seek alternative information sources. Just my 2c.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

thisNthat

December 8, 2007 - 14:33 ET by MrShy

Hey, I very much agree. When I DO respond to them, I don't attack them or name-call -- well, ok, Prof Truth has dragged me down to his level, a bit, I plead guilty... but I'm vowing to stop that. He's just so incapable of debate and seeing anything beyond his liberal-colored glasses, that I get fed up and tease him. I just don't take him seriously at all as he's also not very articulate.

But I honestly do try to keep them focused either on the topic of the thread at hand, OR, if they've thrown out a million talking points along with the kitchen sink, I might take just one claim they've made and ask them specifically to give me an example -- some proof. If they fail to do this, I don't bug them anymore.

But, yes, these trolls DO come on here to litter the site with off-on-a-tangent attention-getters. This is also not akin to a liberal site that is pushing a leftist agenda, but ratther one that's specifically exposing a serious mainstream-media liberal bias that's out of control, both in the U.S. and abroad, too.

When they come on and attack "Bu$hCheneyCo", etc.., we are spending most of our time defending right-leaning ideology/beliefs, not attacking liberal ideology.

"Are ZZ TOP part of the Taliban?? Think on it, son."

-- Professor TP&C (Talking Points & Cheetos)

MrShy

December 8, 2007 - 20:20 ET by ThisnThat

... you've summarized it very well.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

TnT

December 8, 2007 - 15:26 ET by Noel Sheppard

TnT,

I've been watching PT for a while, and though I find him extremely annoying and absurd, he hasn't crossed my threshold into troll status. He's close, but not there yet. Can you give me some examples that I should look at?

Bear in mind that I've taken a different position on these folks inasmuch as once I identify someone's opinions to be valueless, I stop reading their comments. I've got more important things to do. Make sense?

As for Agent WHY, I don't like his first post in this thread, but would have preferred some of the historians here to discredit his views concerning FDR, Pearl Harbor, and WWII rather than just attack him for his foolish opinions. In fact, he several times asked folks to intellectually retort rather than lambaste him.

Now, I agree what he wrote -- especially on the 66th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor -- was deplorable. However, couldn't someone have refuted his contentions? Wouldn't that have dramatically changed the entire thread? ns

"Bear in mind that I've

December 8, 2007 - 15:44 ET by saw the light

"Bear in mind that I've taken a different position on these folks inasmuch as once I identify someone's opinions to be valueless, I stop reading their comments. I've got more important things to do. Make sense?"

So that's why he won't return my calls. Man, I make one crack about Nebraska getting beat by Missouri...

Chasing A Fool's Folly

December 8, 2007 - 17:28 ET by stratman

Noel:

I agree that the best approach to these agitprops is to not play their game at all.

Barring that, since A. W.H.Y. proposed an alternate theory that runs countercurrent to accepted history, it is encumbent of A. H.I.M. to prove A. H.I.S. theory and not the other way around.

Many a better man/woman has attempted to define "nothingness". Let's see how A. H.E. does.

Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

Appreciate the Input Noel!

December 8, 2007 - 18:56 ET by candance

While I can't speak for everyone who posted on here, I personally have gone to reasonable lengths to offer evidence and counter-arguments for both Agent WHY and Montana Lyons, on this thread and on others.

They have flat-out ignored any post with links or comprehensive debate.

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

Noel,

December 8, 2007 - 19:10 ET by ThisnThat

Here's what WHY has said only on this particular post:

An excellent response was provided by Carl Kolchak, with links.

WHY also spouted:

And since you don't know me, you don't know that I don't already do many things to help bring this country back to the great nation it was before Bu$h & Co. stole it [check your facts: Bu$h lost in 2000 and 2004].

And I'm not 'bitchin' about any heroes. But don't claim that every person in uniform is a hero, either. And finally, remember that nobody in the Bu$h administration served their country before they began to take advantage of the great nation in which we live.

they (our troops) should be refusing the illegal orders to invade other countries like we expected the Germans to do in the 1930s.

It's not that these individual comments warrant expulsion. But, they are always unreferenced; they are argued indefinitely; and they are repeated from post to post and within posts. As I say, it gets tiresome, maintly because the perpetuators bring no evidence, no fresh arguments or insights, and they mainly try to get someone to try to refute their comments. Then, they change the topic slightly and go off on another tangent.

Noel, they do this repeatedly, and I simply grow weary of hearing the same tired drivel over and over again. Yes, I'm complaining -- but I have no patience for such antics.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

TnT I have an idea

December 8, 2007 - 19:15 ET by candance

Let's start a collection of the most common liberal tirades on NB and the threads in which we debunk their assertions.

Then, when yet another troll emerges with the same old stuff, we can simply put up a link to the applicable thread and tell them the evidence has already been proffered.

I have to get up early and fill young, impressionable minds with leftwing propaganda. Wish me luck! -Professor TP&C

free stinker has

December 8, 2007 - 19:27 ET by

done this for the Iraq war and AGW

"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff

Responding to Trolls

December 8, 2007 - 19:54 ET by ThisnThat

It's very, very hard to determine how to respond to these types of people. I have tried rational discussion with no affect; and with insults -- which actually has some affect, but I don't like to do that. It debases the whole conversation, and the conversation is what I like best about NB. The people here are very clever; very informed; know how to find material to back up their arguments; and share the same (or similar) concerns about the falseness and shenanigans (sp?) of our elected leaders and of the MSM.

Therefore, I prefer to have the tolls forced to behave, since it's obvious that they are not willing to argue and debate within the implied rules of NB'ers. I'm not talking about the official rules of the NB staff -- I'm talking about convention that has been established through all the discussions by the NB bloggers. For example, only the trolls are comfortable with lying. No one else is. So, why should we allow them to take indefensible positions, and totally disrupt others' conversations by defending those indefensible positions? Over and Over again? That's my main beef.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

TNT

December 8, 2007 - 19:21 ET by shawn228

"If this is the trend that NB is going to support, I will cease posting
any comments myself, and certainly seek alternative information
sources. Just my 2c.'"

The reason why NB is such a great website is because it allows many different points of view. If people decide to respond to these 2 liberals, you do not have to join in and have the choice to ignore them.

Well, Shawn

December 8, 2007 - 19:43 ET by ThisnThat

you are right, of course. Or, I could do what I'm doing -- pointing out that it seems that disruption is the main goal of these folks, not discussion. When it gets this bad, do you continue to tolerate it, or do you recognize it and treat it? Points of view isn't the topic, here. When people constantly post obvious falsehoods as truth, they are either:

Dumb as dirt, and therefore can't offer a view, or
Very clever, very disciplined individuals whose goal is disruption of the "points of view" discussion.

The result is the same -- a series of lousy posts. And I'm just saying that if it continues, it isn't worth my time. It may be the direction that NB wants to go in. If so, I'll be disappointed, because I sincerely believe that most NB'ers truly want a discussion. But if NB wants to continue in that direction, then I'll find other places to visit.

One final point -- I've only watched NB for a little more than a year, so I don't know what happened before that -- but I see this disruption more frequently now, so that's why I call it an emerging trend.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

TnT

December 8, 2007 - 20:00 ET by shawn228

You and I have been members on this site for a similar amount of time. You know you have to be a super uber troll to get kicked off. IE Debra or Tumbler.

I have more Liberal views than most on this site, but I love this site because of the acceptance of a different POV. Leon has always been Leon and that has not changed. I believe you see a more frequent trend the last few weeks because of Proffessor Truth. He has really ruffled some peoples feathers. Now with Agent WHY in the mix, they are getting lots of attention.

I'm sure the Powers at Be will step in when they feel the members have had enough.

Shawn,

December 8, 2007 - 20:17 ET by ThisnThat

I had heard about Tumbler; not IE Debra, and I don't know why they were evicted. But I thought it had something to do with their language more than anything else. Our current irritants, though, may be more insidious. They don't tend towards bad language, much. Instead, they are totally disruptive (in ways I have tried to explain). This makes their behaviour much harder to judge by the Powers that Be.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

TnT

December 8, 2007 - 20:18 ET by Noel Sheppard

TnT,

Not sure it's an emerging trend. We've been much more bombarded in the past. You must have missed Hater, rhayes, Mass Liberal, et al. We've had some truly offensive nutballs. PT and Agent WHY aren't even in their league.

It's a fine balancing act here. We very badly want more liberal members in order to increase the discourse. No fun talking to yourself.

At the same time, so many come here with an antagonistic agenda. Makes it tough. As a result, we try to give a lot of rope. After all, we don't want to be like liberal sites that ban someone at the drop of a conservative remark. :-) ns

TnT

December 8, 2007 - 19:39 ET by Noel Sheppard

TnT,

I see your point. As I mentioned, I ignore these folks once I conclude them worthless. But, I'll keep an eye out for these two. Fair enough? ns

Noel,

December 8, 2007 - 19:44 ET by ThisnThat

Fair enough for me. See my response to Shawn above for further thoughts on this.

___________________________________

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

ns -- I think mosr regulars

December 9, 2007 - 08:55 ET by Jack Bauer

ns -- I think mosr regulars have been there, done that, got the Professor T-shirt.

Me -- and I guess quite a few of us who've been here a while are just bored at offering a well-thought out, reasoned reponse to a poster who really has zero interest in such a response anyway.

That garbage about Pearl Harbor. I can see the temptation to respond instantly to such intellecual dishonesty, and grab-bag of conspiro-nut theories... but to what end. The guy isn't interested in discourse, just disruption.

And it's not even as if he or any of his ilk leven their flat bread with humor. They are all like attending a Socialist Worker plotting session. I know, I've attended.