<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blog Updated</title>
	<atom:link href="http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated</link>
	<description>A Blog of Atheist Thought</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:03:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: rainbows4dinosaurs</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/comment-page-1#comment-96886</link>
		<dc:creator>rainbows4dinosaurs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1450#comment-96886</guid>
		<description>More comments on the Rasmussen poll:
http://tinyurl.com/c568c7</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More comments on the Rasmussen poll:<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c568c7" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/c568c7</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rainbows4dinosaurs</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/comment-page-1#comment-96884</link>
		<dc:creator>rainbows4dinosaurs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:24:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1450#comment-96884</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;the page the Wikipedia libs so closely guard – and have now: “currently protected [it] from editing until disputes have been resolved”—seems they’re now feeling the heat.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Riiiiight… so I wonder why it’s now under lock and key? ...why’s it now locked-down?&lt;/blockquote&gt;Why don&#039;t you try reading up on Wikipedia&#039;s standard procedure for settling disputes? Are you incapable of clicking the fracking link? IT&#039;S RIGHT THERE, CLICK ON IT. please.
&lt;blockquote&gt;Oh, so liberals do lie?&lt;/blockquote&gt;Is that supposed to be an answer? If I still gave a shit about calling people on their fallacies, I might say &#039;Tu Quoque.&#039; But since I don&#039;t, I&#039;ll just say: Yes, of course they do. Michael Moore comes to mind. At the very least, he lacks any journalistic or academic integrity. &lt;b&gt;And that is why I never stoop to your level and cite the likes of him.&lt;/b&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;Psssst. Here’s something you won’t here from Couric or Williams—it ain’t the conservatives who are now in freefall:&lt;/blockquote&gt;Yes, I saw that. Thanks. As always, there is a response:
http://tinyurl.com/cymgtq
&lt;blockquote&gt;And what’s with all those “New American Tea Party” sites that are poppin’ up everywhere?&lt;/blockquote&gt;Ohhh Nosss!! The rich are rising up! Seriously though, I totally get the sentiment, and in many ways I agree. But there is a very good reason lifetime fiscal libertarians like Paulson and Bernanke swallowed their proud ideologies and got this whole bailout thing rolling: &lt;b&gt;Systemic Risk has completely trumped Moral Hazard.&lt;/b&gt; It doesn&#039;t really matter who&#039;s president, because our hands are tied either way. 
&lt;blockquote&gt;Yeah, now get a more realistic take:&lt;/blockquote&gt;LOL!! From the man himself! Give me a break... I mean, AWESOME! I love this part: &lt;blockquote&gt; The Greenberg-Carville poll says everybody hates me “except” conservative Republicans. That’s not true, because I have a lot of liberal friends who love me. I have a lot of liberal friends who like me, who would love to get on this program now and then.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&quot;But... but... I do have liberal friends and they love me!&quot; Good lord, what a pathetic joke. Reminds me of that blackpeopleloveus site. 
&lt;blockquote&gt;my approval number of 33% is higher than Obama’s numbers are going to be when his presidency is over in 2012. And my approval number, 33%, that’s higher than Vice President Biden’s IQ. So this is fabulous news.&lt;/blockquote&gt;Zinnnnggg! Ha, whatever. I thought you weren&#039;t a fan of Ad Hominems? Oh wait,I guess we&#039;ve already established that your pompous moralizing is just a heap of BS. 
&lt;blockquote&gt;Yeah, you’re always the class act…&lt;/blockquote&gt;Maybe I lack some personal class, but at least I have intellectual integrity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>the page the Wikipedia libs so closely guard – and have now: “currently protected [it] from editing until disputes have been resolved”—seems they’re now feeling the heat.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Riiiiight… so I wonder why it’s now under lock and key? &#8230;why’s it now locked-down?</p></blockquote>
<p>Why don&#8217;t you try reading up on Wikipedia&#8217;s standard procedure for settling disputes? Are you incapable of clicking the fracking link? IT&#8217;S RIGHT THERE, CLICK ON IT. please.</p>
<blockquote><p>Oh, so liberals do lie?</p></blockquote>
<p>Is that supposed to be an answer? If I still gave a shit about calling people on their fallacies, I might say &#8216;Tu Quoque.&#8217; But since I don&#8217;t, I&#8217;ll just say: Yes, of course they do. Michael Moore comes to mind. At the very least, he lacks any journalistic or academic integrity. <b>And that is why I never stoop to your level and cite the likes of him.</b></p>
<blockquote><p>Psssst. Here’s something you won’t here from Couric or Williams—it ain’t the conservatives who are now in freefall:</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, I saw that. Thanks. As always, there is a response:<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/cymgtq" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/cymgtq</a></p>
<blockquote><p>And what’s with all those “New American Tea Party” sites that are poppin’ up everywhere?</p></blockquote>
<p>Ohhh Nosss!! The rich are rising up! Seriously though, I totally get the sentiment, and in many ways I agree. But there is a very good reason lifetime fiscal libertarians like Paulson and Bernanke swallowed their proud ideologies and got this whole bailout thing rolling: <b>Systemic Risk has completely trumped Moral Hazard.</b> It doesn&#8217;t really matter who&#8217;s president, because our hands are tied either way. </p>
<blockquote><p>Yeah, now get a more realistic take:</p></blockquote>
<p>LOL!! From the man himself! Give me a break&#8230; I mean, AWESOME! I love this part:<br />
<blockquote> The Greenberg-Carville poll says everybody hates me “except” conservative Republicans. That’s not true, because I have a lot of liberal friends who love me. I have a lot of liberal friends who like me, who would love to get on this program now and then.</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8220;But&#8230; but&#8230; I do have liberal friends and they love me!&#8221; Good lord, what a pathetic joke. Reminds me of that blackpeopleloveus site. </p>
<blockquote><p>my approval number of 33% is higher than Obama’s numbers are going to be when his presidency is over in 2012. And my approval number, 33%, that’s higher than Vice President Biden’s IQ. So this is fabulous news.</p></blockquote>
<p>Zinnnnggg! Ha, whatever. I thought you weren&#8217;t a fan of Ad Hominems? Oh wait,I guess we&#8217;ve already established that your pompous moralizing is just a heap of BS. </p>
<blockquote><p>Yeah, you’re always the class act…</p></blockquote>
<p>Maybe I lack some personal class, but at least I have intellectual integrity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spanders</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/comment-page-1#comment-96880</link>
		<dc:creator>spanders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1450#comment-96880</guid>
		<description>Hi Dave,
My opinion is that WordPress is a better platform than B2Evolution for blogging. Take a look at www.freakgirl.com&#039;s blog. You&#039;ll see that she added in some functionality such as recent comments (box on the top right), social bookmarking icons (which is a good idea) and some other stuff. You may want to ask her which extensions she&#039;d recommend. I&#039;m not sure if you started a Facebook page yet, but you can tie in the RSS feed from this blog to Facebook. Just a couple of quick thoughts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Dave,<br />
My opinion is that WordPress is a better platform than B2Evolution for blogging. Take a look at <a href="http://www.freakgirl.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.freakgirl.com</a>&#8217;s blog. You&#8217;ll see that she added in some functionality such as recent comments (box on the top right), social bookmarking icons (which is a good idea) and some other stuff. You may want to ask her which extensions she&#8217;d recommend. I&#8217;m not sure if you started a Facebook page yet, but you can tie in the RSS feed from this blog to Facebook. Just a couple of quick thoughts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jcc</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/comment-page-1#comment-96803</link>
		<dc:creator>jcc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:50:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1450#comment-96803</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Limbaugh’s Audience Size? It’s Largely Up in the Air (WaPo)&lt;/blockquote&gt;Yeah, now get a more realistic take:&lt;blockquote&gt;The Washington Post ran a story, &quot;What are Limbaugh&#039;s Real Numbers?&quot; and they talk to people who say, &quot;It&#039;s really impossible to know.&quot;  The hell it is!  Do you think Campbell&#039;s doesn&#039;t know how many cans of soup it sells?  It&#039;s our business.  We know what our ratings are.  We don&#039;t lie.  And they&#039;re up.  

It&#039;s January, February and March or February and March or January and February, I&#039;m not sure which, I&#039;ll have to double-check, but it&#039;s in the first quarter. It&#039;s up 32% over our baseline, up 32% over a year ago -- and our baseline&#039;s high.  That&#039;s a significant increase.  That&#039;s total audience. That&#039;s cume. That&#039;s not average quarter hour.  That doesn&#039;t break down demographics yet…. The Greenberg-Carville poll says everybody hates me &quot;except&quot; conservative Republicans.  That&#039;s not true, because I have a lot of liberal friends who love me.  I have a lot of liberal friends who like me, who would love to get on this program now and then.
http://tinyurl.com/cftw9h&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;Obama v. Limbaugh: Poll finds it’s no contest(Miami Herald)&lt;/blockquote&gt; And again, the more accurate, “other side:”&lt;blockquote&gt;But [McClatchy] has done a poll, they have done a national poll, and they have found that about a third of the American people have a highly favorable opinion of me.  Ladies and gentlemen, &lt;b&gt;that makes me one of the most popular Americans in the country&lt;/b&gt;.  Yeah, they&#039;re the ones that found me.  McClatchy is the one, you&#039;d have to say, that gave me my big break.  But if I have an approval rating above a third, that makes me higher than Congress, that makes me higher than lawyers, that puts me with a higher approval rate than Hollywood, and also, my approval number of 33% is higher than Obama&#039;s numbers are going to be when his presidency is over in 2012.  And my approval number, 33%, that&#039;s higher than Vice President Biden&#039;s IQ.  So this is fabulous news. 

The Rasmussen poll is out today and the daily tracking poll, the president&#039;s approval numbers at 56%.  &lt;b&gt;They are not climbing&lt;/b&gt;.  The presidential approval numbers and plus the presidential approval index, that&#039;s the difference between strongly approve and strongly disapprove, is now just plus six.  And those two lines, it started out, when he was inaugurated, at plus 30.  So he&#039;s gone from around plus 30, presidential approval index, to plus six.  He lost 24 points.  That&#039;s big.  Now, those two lines -- there&#039;s a graph here on the Rasmussen website -- when those two lines intersect and get to zero, it&#039;s going to be big problems.  http://tinyurl.com/dyts56&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;Like Jared said, SUCK IT!!&lt;/blockquote&gt;Yeah, you’re always the class act…</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Limbaugh’s Audience Size? It’s Largely Up in the Air (WaPo)</p></blockquote>
<p>Yeah, now get a more realistic take:<br />
<blockquote>The Washington Post ran a story, &#8220;What are Limbaugh&#8217;s Real Numbers?&#8221; and they talk to people who say, &#8220;It&#8217;s really impossible to know.&#8221;  The hell it is!  Do you think Campbell&#8217;s doesn&#8217;t know how many cans of soup it sells?  It&#8217;s our business.  We know what our ratings are.  We don&#8217;t lie.  And they&#8217;re up.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s January, February and March or February and March or January and February, I&#8217;m not sure which, I&#8217;ll have to double-check, but it&#8217;s in the first quarter. It&#8217;s up 32% over our baseline, up 32% over a year ago &#8212; and our baseline&#8217;s high.  That&#8217;s a significant increase.  That&#8217;s total audience. That&#8217;s cume. That&#8217;s not average quarter hour.  That doesn&#8217;t break down demographics yet…. The Greenberg-Carville poll says everybody hates me &#8220;except&#8221; conservative Republicans.  That&#8217;s not true, because I have a lot of liberal friends who love me.  I have a lot of liberal friends who like me, who would love to get on this program now and then.<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/cftw9h" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/cftw9h</a></p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Obama v. Limbaugh: Poll finds it’s no contest(Miami Herald)</p></blockquote>
<p> And again, the more accurate, “other side:”<br />
<blockquote>But [McClatchy] has done a poll, they have done a national poll, and they have found that about a third of the American people have a highly favorable opinion of me.  Ladies and gentlemen, <b>that makes me one of the most popular Americans in the country</b>.  Yeah, they&#8217;re the ones that found me.  McClatchy is the one, you&#8217;d have to say, that gave me my big break.  But if I have an approval rating above a third, that makes me higher than Congress, that makes me higher than lawyers, that puts me with a higher approval rate than Hollywood, and also, my approval number of 33% is higher than Obama&#8217;s numbers are going to be when his presidency is over in 2012.  And my approval number, 33%, that&#8217;s higher than Vice President Biden&#8217;s IQ.  So this is fabulous news. </p>
<p>The Rasmussen poll is out today and the daily tracking poll, the president&#8217;s approval numbers at 56%.  <b>They are not climbing</b>.  The presidential approval numbers and plus the presidential approval index, that&#8217;s the difference between strongly approve and strongly disapprove, is now just plus six.  And those two lines, it started out, when he was inaugurated, at plus 30.  So he&#8217;s gone from around plus 30, presidential approval index, to plus six.  He lost 24 points.  That&#8217;s big.  Now, those two lines &#8212; there&#8217;s a graph here on the Rasmussen website &#8212; when those two lines intersect and get to zero, it&#8217;s going to be big problems.  <a href="http://tinyurl.com/dyts56" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/dyts56</a></p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Like Jared said, SUCK IT!!</p></blockquote>
<p>Yeah, you’re always the class act…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jcc</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/comment-page-1#comment-96801</link>
		<dc:creator>jcc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1450#comment-96801</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Every single link I listed can be navigated to directly from the main Obama wiki&lt;/blockquote&gt;Uh, I’m talking about Uh-bama’s &lt;b&gt;main page&lt;/b&gt; – &lt;i&gt;the&lt;/i&gt; page the Wikipedia libs so closely guard – and have now: “currently protected [it] from editing until disputes have been resolved”—seems they’re now feeling the heat.&lt;blockquote&gt;There is no conspiracy, there’s only your ideologically-fueled paranoia.&lt;/blockquote&gt;Riiiiight… so I wonder why it’s now under lock and key?&lt;blockquote&gt;your continued defense of this WND article would seem to imply that you approve of Klein’s dishonest tactics&lt;/blockquote&gt;Are you disputing his claim that Wikipedia &lt;b&gt;hasn’t&lt;/b&gt; scrubbed that page from &lt;i&gt;anyone’s&lt;/i&gt; attempt to add unflattering information?  If so, why’s it now locked-down?&lt;blockquote&gt;Is lying only bad if liberals do it?&lt;/blockquote&gt;Oh, so liberals &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; lie?&lt;blockquote&gt;We’ll see who ‘fails’.&lt;/blockquote&gt;Psssst.  Here’s something you won’t here from Couric or Williams—it ain’t the conservatives who are now in freefall:
http://tinyurl.com/ae6kdj
And what’s with all those “New American Tea Party” sites that are poppin’ up everywhere?...and all those “Honk if &lt;i&gt;I’m&lt;/i&gt; paying your mortgage” bumper stickers?  Yeah, this “change” has been really pervasive—and permanent…</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Every single link I listed can be navigated to directly from the main Obama wiki</p></blockquote>
<p>Uh, I’m talking about Uh-bama’s <b>main page</b> – <i>the</i> page the Wikipedia libs so closely guard – and have now: “currently protected [it] from editing until disputes have been resolved”—seems they’re now feeling the heat.<br />
<blockquote>There is no conspiracy, there’s only your ideologically-fueled paranoia.</p></blockquote>
<p>Riiiiight… so I wonder why it’s now under lock and key?<br />
<blockquote>your continued defense of this WND article would seem to imply that you approve of Klein’s dishonest tactics</p></blockquote>
<p>Are you disputing his claim that Wikipedia <b>hasn’t</b> scrubbed that page from <i>anyone’s</i> attempt to add unflattering information?  If so, why’s it now locked-down?<br />
<blockquote>Is lying only bad if liberals do it?</p></blockquote>
<p>Oh, so liberals <i>do</i> lie?<br />
<blockquote>We’ll see who ‘fails’.</p></blockquote>
<p>Psssst.  Here’s something you won’t here from Couric or Williams—it ain’t the conservatives who are now in freefall:<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ae6kdj" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/ae6kdj</a><br />
And what’s with all those “New American Tea Party” sites that are poppin’ up everywhere?&#8230;and all those “Honk if <i>I’m</i> paying your mortgage” bumper stickers?  Yeah, this “change” has been really pervasive—and permanent…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rainbows4dinosaurs</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/comment-page-1#comment-96782</link>
		<dc:creator>rainbows4dinosaurs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1450#comment-96782</guid>
		<description>And here are a couple more fun links about the gasbag:
&lt;b&gt;Limbaugh&#039;s Audience Size? It&#039;s Largely Up in the Air&lt;/b&gt; (WaPo)
http://tinyurl.com/bftv8k

&lt;b&gt;Obama v. Limbaugh: Poll finds it&#039;s no contest&lt;/b&gt;(Miami Herald)
http://tinyurl.com/bfp6n2

MUhahahahaha!! Like Jared said, SUCK IT!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And here are a couple more fun links about the gasbag:<br />
<b>Limbaugh&#8217;s Audience Size? It&#8217;s Largely Up in the Air</b> (WaPo)<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/bftv8k" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/bftv8k</a></p>
<p><b>Obama v. Limbaugh: Poll finds it&#8217;s no contest</b>(Miami Herald)<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/bfp6n2" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/bfp6n2</a></p>
<p>MUhahahahaha!! Like Jared said, SUCK IT!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rainbows4dinosaurs</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/comment-page-1#comment-96781</link>
		<dc:creator>rainbows4dinosaurs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:05:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1450#comment-96781</guid>
		<description>Every single link I listed can be navigated to directly from the main Obama wiki. Again, you must not know how Wikipedia works. Check out the George W. wiki - works the exact same way. There is no conspiracy, there&#039;s only your ideologically-fueled paranoia. 

Tell me something, do you condone lying? Because your continued defense of this WND article would seem to imply that you approve of Klein&#039;s dishonest tactics. Is lying only bad if liberals do it?

And as far as Rush goes: If what&#039;s left of the conservative movement has really chosen to latch onto that gasbag as their guiding light, then I couldn&#039;t be happier. Keep following that know-nothing, please. We&#039;ll see who &#039;fails&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every single link I listed can be navigated to directly from the main Obama wiki. Again, you must not know how Wikipedia works. Check out the George W. wiki &#8211; works the exact same way. There is no conspiracy, there&#8217;s only your ideologically-fueled paranoia. </p>
<p>Tell me something, do you condone lying? Because your continued defense of this WND article would seem to imply that you approve of Klein&#8217;s dishonest tactics. Is lying only bad if liberals do it?</p>
<p>And as far as Rush goes: If what&#8217;s left of the conservative movement has really chosen to latch onto that gasbag as their guiding light, then I couldn&#8217;t be happier. Keep following that know-nothing, please. We&#8217;ll see who &#8216;fails&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jcc</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/comment-page-1#comment-96778</link>
		<dc:creator>jcc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1450#comment-96778</guid>
		<description>Ha ha &lt;b&gt;HA&lt;/b&gt;! rainbows4dinosaurs apparently couldn’t comprehend the simple, straightforward text in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the original WND link I posted that refers &lt;b&gt;specifically&lt;/b&gt; to the &lt;b&gt;Barack Uh-bama&lt;/b&gt; entry in Wikipedia –- the entry that it’s custodians jealously scrub of all unflattering comments as soon as they’re added -- &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; is the one which he conveniently omitted in his list above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama

But, considering that he characterized Limbaugh’s &lt;b&gt;huge&lt;/b&gt; commercial and personal success as an unmitigated “failure” in his little mind, I’m not the least bit surprised by this latest flailing.

His slippage is becoming consistent…</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha ha <b>HA</b>! rainbows4dinosaurs apparently couldn’t comprehend the simple, straightforward text in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the original WND link I posted that refers <b>specifically</b> to the <b>Barack Uh-bama</b> entry in Wikipedia –- the entry that it’s custodians jealously scrub of all unflattering comments as soon as they’re added &#8212; <i>and</i> is the one which he conveniently omitted in his list above:<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama</a></p>
<p>But, considering that he characterized Limbaugh’s <b>huge</b> commercial and personal success as an unmitigated “failure” in his little mind, I’m not the least bit surprised by this latest flailing.</p>
<p>His slippage is becoming consistent…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rainbows4dinosaurs</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/comment-page-1#comment-96768</link>
		<dc:creator>rainbows4dinosaurs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:44:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1450#comment-96768</guid>
		<description>Haha... jcc apparently doesn&#039;t know how to use Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Obama-Ayers_Controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_presidential_election_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

Oh and, I was actually calling Klein a dumb ass. But hey if the shoe fits...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Haha&#8230; jcc apparently doesn&#8217;t know how to use Wikipedia:<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Obama-Ayers_Controversy" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Obama-Ayers_Controversy</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_presidential_election_controversy" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers_presidential_election_controversy</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Barack_Obama</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories</a></p>
<p>Oh and, I was actually calling Klein a dumb ass. But hey if the shoe fits&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jcc</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2009/03/08/blog-updated/comment-page-1#comment-96753</link>
		<dc:creator>jcc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:25:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1450#comment-96753</guid>
		<description>rainbows4dinosaurs apparently either can&#039;t read or doesn&#039;t have the guts to find out for himself by visiting the current Uh-bama entry on Wikipedia: it still contains &lt;b&gt;NO&lt;/b&gt; mention of his association of domestic terrorist Ayers and &lt;b&gt;NO&lt;/b&gt; mention of the current legal challenges to his place of birth and eligibility for the presidency.&lt;blockquote&gt;Dumb ass.&lt;/blockquote&gt;You and neowolfe--two peas in a pod...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>rainbows4dinosaurs apparently either can&#8217;t read or doesn&#8217;t have the guts to find out for himself by visiting the current Uh-bama entry on Wikipedia: it still contains <b>NO</b> mention of his association of domestic terrorist Ayers and <b>NO</b> mention of the current legal challenges to his place of birth and eligibility for the presidency.<br />
<blockquote>Dumb ass.</p></blockquote>
<p>You and neowolfe&#8211;two peas in a pod&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
