Must See Keith Olbermann video on Terror Politics

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Winston
That's where the pseudo part comes in. I'd say he's a pseudo-Conservative as well, by the way. But a bon fide Swede for sure.

In more common vocabulary, a moderate.

[RGBVideo]

Great job, Winston!

Drunk pseudo-Liberals who should've passed out by now

Yes -- everyone who doesn't unilaterally support Bush is either a Liberal or a pseudo-Liberal to be made fun of. Bush, of course, must be supported because he's just like Reagan -- why, he has a cowboy hat and a mansion he calls his ranch! Surely this means he ought to be supported to the degree everyone's opinion who disagrees with he must be ignored and ridiculed.

I'm sure Reagan would've approved stuff like (a) government-funded prison camps like the one at Guantanamo where people around the world can be taken in at will, Geneva conventions don't apply, and where torture has been allowed 'just in case'; (b) free, open and unrestricted trade with totalitarian, communist nations like China where government can do whatever it wants to it's citizens; (c) increased federal authority of the executive branch to the degree where central government can wiretap and monitor citizens phone calls whenever it wants; (d) phrases like "Bring it on" and "we're staying on the course" when it comes to sudden, unexcepted American fatalities in a country what they're in theory supposed to help (like with the Marines in Lebanon, remember how Reagan upkept troop levels there after the sudden suicide strike just like Bush does in Iraq?).

Keep fighting the good fight against enemies who disagree with Bush -- for Reagan!

[Winston]

I never really understood why you're so obsessed with me.

Your rambling posts certainly do nothing to help resolve the matter.

[RGBVideo]

There you go again -- I can easily see from the time you spent before answering that you didn't read and think about what I posted. Why? Since you have labeled it's typer as "anti-Bush" some time ago and thus give your brains the freedom to start ridiculing anything I'm typing without even understanding it. It's a sad sight, someone attacking without even knowing what they're attacking against.

Great job proving exactly my point (altough I doubt you even now understand it) with the term "ramblings".

[Winston]

Originally posted by VJ
There you go again

[RGBVideo]

It was the greatest moment during the campaign. Carter had used the same "OMG he's a crazy reactionary and is gonna start a nuclear war!"-routine over and over again to prop up his support in the polls. It was a dirty trick, pure and simple: both a scare tactic and a personal attack, and it seemed to work, keeping him within the margin of error.

And then, in an honest clean public debate -- Reagan suddenly shattered the whole image, crushed that strawman Carter's strategic team had so expensively and so finely crafted during the whole campaign before. Six months of negative advertising made obsolete! Suddenly, literally within few seconds, a full 10% of the voting population realized there's no reason why they shouldn't be voting for Reagan. And then he won in nearly all the states, proving that the victory wasn't earned by support from regional special interests like the one won by his predecessor in 1976.