I have insulted you?  Where praytell?  Denial?  Hyperbole?  Is that what you call factual debate now?  It seems if you push a liberal hard enough they do retreat to the same old diatribe "Mommy - he is being mean to me". I had thought better of you (and yes, even complemented you on that - until now).

In your opinion.  HOwever anyone with at least a modicum of common sense realizes he is nothing more than a sour shrill and basher.  Who cant even get his facts straight!  I guess to those who he is crying to (instead of about), he strikes a sympathetic cord.  But for any intelligent reasoning person, he is just a poor pathetic creature.  YOUR link proved it!  And of course discredited you.  How sad that you think commentary is news - but understandable - having heard nothing else from the MSM for your entire life probably.

And so bereft of facts, you resort to the same old tired and true - insult the messenger because you cant indoctrinate them.

Check your link again.  He said no such thing.  They did mention people like Hannity - for the slow learners or the ESL - he is not NEWS.  I fully understand why a moron like olberman would not understand.  I am a bit surprised when it was explained to you that you still fail to understand.  Denial on your part?  Hyperbole about losing a debate?

And you may want to point out where I have misquoted you.

Soiled diapers - and Clinton 2.0 (but then I do repeat myself) may be change, but then do you really want it?  If so, welcome to your crap.

I've learned that informing them of this doesn't seem to work as they are already in complete denial. In 4 years you'll finally be able to say "Aren't you glad you voted for "change"?" and they'll hopefully no longer be in denail. Of course some will, but atleast the majority of people will have learned that you can't expect something from someone you don't know anything about.

The future lies with the proles.

And placing a bet with Ladbrokes that the US big banks will stuff it up again... place a big enough bet and one would have financial security and never have to work again.

In every single post you have insulted me over and over again.  And in this latest post there MAY be one or two sentences where you DIDN'T insult me.

For example...

Why in the world would I care to "indoctrinate" you?  I was just here for the debate on the issues and you jumped in and started slinging the insults from post one.  Your ego might require that this be all about you, but it sure doesn't matter to me if you still think Fox News isn't outright propaganda.  Infotainment channels need ratings too. 

And to claim you've won any kind of "debate" when you haven't even been participating in one, is ludicrous.  So, for the record, hurling insults, misinterpreting your opponent's points entirely, and circling around self-defeating semantic distinctions is NOT debating. 

This is just a public forum thread.  One that you keep trying to turn into a flame war.  Not...gonna...happen. 

So, does this mean YOU'll now admit that the last 8 years of Bushco has been disasterous for this nation?  Or are YOU now in denial?  

Another....

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

You are an evil man.  "Really evil. Like so evil, that you would say it was EE-VEEL, like it's the FRU-ETS of the DEV-EEL."*

* from SO I MARRIED AN AXE MURDERER

And the World... nobody is better off for his/their tenure. 

I see.  Challenging your belief system is an insult - Said the Jabberwocky.  WHen pressed, you are resorting to the same old tired liberal dodges.  When you cant debate, label the debater as a hate monger (or insults - whatever floats your boat).

So accusing you (and you will note the context of the response was not YOU Excalpius, but the more generic YOU as in a dogma speaking) of trying to indoctrinate you is an insult?  I always thought that was an observation bereft of inflammatory code words.  I guess I have a lot to learn about newspeak.

And sadly most of the liberal leaning MSM (and I use the term lightly) cant seem to get them either.  But I do note (for the umpteenth time) your attempt to change the subject.  My challenge stands - unmet BTW.  SHow me where Fox NEWS is a mouth piece for anyone.  Not Commentary (you know, the part where they spout their opinions often sans facts for veracity).

Again with the insults.  I ask again to show me any.  As for claiming to "WIN", that is of course relative.  relative to your backing down and refusing to discuss the issues without trying to change them to strawmen.  If you so desire, you are more than welcome to continue with the debate/discussion, but you are the one throwing up your hands and walking off without refuting the points raised.  What else would you call it when one of the participants in a debate walks off stage without answering the questions put before them?

I cannot actually declare myself the winner, only you can declare me so.  By not answering the questions put before you.  We are waiting for your response.

A matter of opinion.  I am sure we are worse off for having a few thousand Al Qaeda dead or interned.  I am sure we are worse off because mad men no longer provide a safe haven for terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.  I am sure we are worse off for giving 50 million men the right to decide their own destiny.

And that is just international and a quick list.  The domestic is a whole nother nut, but then I doubt that affects you.

I wouldn't say that, Cap'n: try Halliburton, and the rest of the 'no bid' , "outsourced" stuff I sincerely hope he sits in prison (along with Darth Cheney) for.

Ah, but it has... the huge financial cock-up yer brains (?) trust created has increased my rent, utilities costs and grocery bill.  Yup, I'd say Bushco has had a detrimental effect on me and mine... like Jafo said, if you have arseholes in power over there, we suffer the same piles.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan... the tens of thousands of dead because of his warmongering, Bush had no right to set himself up as the World's Policeman, Chief Judge, Jury and executioner.  And I don't buy that crap that the World is a safer place, despite Bush's claims that it is.  The terrorism continues elsewhere (Bali, Madrid, London, etc) and Al Qaeda won't go away because Bush wants it to and has killed thousands of its operatives. 

Al Qaeda isn't about the men killed but about the beliefs and ideology, and it won't be hounded into extinction by Bush.  It will relocate and regroup elsewhere (Northern Pakistan) and continue regardless, and the more Bush hounds Al Qaeda the more determined it will become, that's the nature of the beast, its ideology.  If anything, Bush made Al Qaeda what it became... more powerful and determined because it hates what Bush is/represents.

Frankly, the sooner Bush is gone the better... his term in office was a cock-up of monumental proportions and he should never have been president in the first place, now how, no way.

*where's my asbestos suit, the flames are gonna get mighty high around here now*

That has been proven not to be Bush - so you just hate America in general then?  Or is everything bad about America Bush's fault?  Regardless of who passed it or why?

Yes - the 3000 dead here dont matter.  The thousands dead in Israel dont matter.  The HUNDREDS of thousands dead in Kurdistan do not matter.  ALl that matters is that you have cheap gas - at whatever cost.

Perhaps if you and yours took care of your own country, you would not have to worry so much about everyone else's business.  But again that is being a mensch, and not a victim.  And too few of those left in the world.