Well, J$

It is about time an intercept of this line of communication came through. I am sure it took time to reverse the Soros encryption code, last used by the Japanese in WW2 just before Pearl Harbor.

Olbermann has been crowing about his massive ratings victory of late in the 25-54 demographic, as well as proclaiming to be "giddy" over his total numbers. Let's have a look, shall we?

LATEST NUMBERS!!!!!!!

The Scoreboard: Friday, February 24
25-54 demographic (Keith's fave!):

8pm:
1. O'Reilly: 347,000 (guest host)
2. Grace: 205,000
3. Zahn: 165,000
4. Countdown: 127,000 (last place)

Total viewers:

8pm:

1. O'Reilly: 2,109,000
2. Grace: 714,000
3. Zahn: 531,000
4. Countdown: 369,000 (last place)

*************************************************
NOW EVERYBODY SING ALONG WITH THIS (YOU MUST FOLLOW THIS LINK!! WELL WORTH IT!! DON'T DEPRIVE YOURSELF!!)

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/happydays.htm

The same thing goes for that Democrat we put on to bash those idiot Republicans mindlessly opposed to gay adoption.

And the opposite position would be...what? I mean, the Democrat that was on said it was a joke. Keith said it was a joke. The caption on the graphic called it "mock legislation". He was making a statement with tongue firmly in cheek.

The only "opposing view" likely would have been someone who didn't get the joke and assumed he was being serious.

1. O'Reilly: 347,000 (guest host)
2. Grace: 205,000
3. Zahn: 165,000
4. Countdown: 127,000 (last place)

5. On the Money 101,000

Yeah, but he did manage to sneak by On the Money in the demo. Go Keith.

Quoting ratings numbers are supposed to do what exactly? We all know O'Reilly has a large number of people watching his show, so what? Is this seriously the end-all position that needs to be brought up in all topics? "Well, I don't have a comment on the policy, but lets bring up his ratings! That'll make me feel good!"

Well keep doing it, if it's your way of sticking it to Keith and it makes you feel better go right ahead.

When MSNBC cancells KO's show, I know who will hire him.
Al-Jazeera!

If not Al-Jazeera he could always go vists his Idol Fidel Castro and I'm sure he can get a job for the Cuban propaganda ministry!

JDogg66, you're the man.
You take the fight to these Left-wing traitors, I wish our politicians were like you!

JDogg - Has the balls to call all liberals the commies that they are.

That should seriously be your tagline. SRSLY.

TONIGHT! AN INSTANT JOHNNYDOLLAR CLASSIC!

John tonights blog gos straight to the hall of fame.

Jim,

Don't worry reruns of Deal or no Deal should be back on cnbc in about a week. Then tvnewser will have to show how Keith beat The Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts infomercial on channel 68! But it is funny, Tvnewser never posted cnbc numbers before that I can remember.

I guess the truth hurts Nonfactor!
You probably have a Che Guevera shirt!
Ohh that's outdated.
Probably that great freedom fighter that Michael Moore and Cindy Shithead admires: Hugo Chavez or Zarqawi!

JDogg for President!

Gotta love that nonfactor (again how original). Wow! Numbers don't really mean anything. Really they don't. Oh, but if it was the other way around....Yo non, Are you Michel Moore's cousin? Sorry personal attack. BAD PUCK!

Oh and one last thing Non

M.A.S.H. jumped the shark when Mike Farrel came on the show.

Why didn't you bother to mention that Olbermann said that he got the Insight mag story from the internet? Aren't there more websites on the 'internets' than Raw Story? I could swear I saw it somewhere else.

Sure, ratings mean something, but quoting them every chance you get instead of talking about the points brought up is just an easy way out.

For Example:

Say I'm an American Idol fan, and one of my friends is a Lost fan, and that friend gives me reasons why Lost is better than American Idol and why American Idol is bad. Sure, I could answer the points he brought up, but it's SOOO much easier to just quote ratings and say that American Idol is obviously superior because more people watch it. This in a sense is what KfK is doing.

I hope that put things in a bit more perspective, because hopefully we all agree that American Idol sucks, despite its ratings.

P.S. Michael Moore is my uncle's second cousin; we in the liberal world are all related to him, as you know.

Just out of curiousity do you disagree that Bill O'Reilly doesn't make personal attacks? Do you not think that doesn't qualify him for WPITW? Another simple question, does Olbermann routinely say that O'Reilly said something that he didn't?

I love when conservatives read an opinion they dislike they often call the person who posts that opinion a "marxist" or a "commie", or, often-times, to show their extreme intelligence, they will equate them with terrorists. Funny, I thought our troops were in a foriegn land dying so that Iraqis will have certain freedoms, including the freedom to speak their mind. Why is it that if don't follow "lock step" with staunch conservatives (like the vomit-spewing) folks who post on this site you're a terrorist? Alas... I guess we have to fight for free speech everywhere BUT here in the U.S.

Hey peppin_M,
I'm a Liberatarian Nationalist, not a conservative.
Conservatives are my fellow Right Wing Allies!

Hey for you Lefties out there here's my idol:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcelo_montecino/4008954/

Interesting.
A little bit of a check of last week's archives and a random check of older ones and I found that KO called Bush
President Bush 9 times
Mr. Bush 16 times
the president 91 times

Yep. He never calls him "President Bush" or 'president', ignoring the fact that he generally refers to men as 'Mr.' regardless of their title, or lack thereof. Such disrespect!
I was going to compare him to how many times O'Reilly calls Bush "President Bush" but after going back nearly a month until I found the first reference I got tired. Curious that BOR doesn't seem to discuss Bush that much.

Oh, BTW, I suppose you can back up your claim that Soros and Olby are in league. You know something like Abramoff's claim he met with Dubya, what, a dozen times?

I'm a Liberatarian Nationalist, not a conservative.
Conservatives are my fellow Right Wing Allies!

If you were an actual Libertarian you would a) know how to spell it and b) not have right wing allies (a libertarian, generally, is a centrist and does not ally with a majority party). A true libertarian would oppose the neo-con agenda, especially things like the Patriot Act.

oops, my bad. I forgot about the Nazi Libertarian party.

Just out of curiousity do you disagree that Bill O'Reilly doesn't make personal attacks? Do you not think that doesn't qualify him for WPITW? Another simple question, does Olbermann routinely say that O'Reilly said something that he didn't?

I don't think BOR attacks anyone without warrent. For example when he called Carter a dope, it was because the guy is protesting the president at a funeral. But compare a personal attack like that to say some of the stuff that comes out of the NY times or a left wing blog.

And yes during the Christmas story O'Reilly was covering Olby would constantly misquote or get the story wrong and dub BOR the WPITW all the time, I think O'Reilly won worse, worser and worst in one night. How many times did O'Reilly say it wasn't about the inclusion of Happy Holidays but the exclusion of Merry Christmas that was the problem? Yet because he sells "Hapy Holliday" orniments on his site he is the WPITW? Yea, spreading good cheer... what a monster.

To so called true Libertarian.
Libertarians are Right-Wing not so called Centerists.
Some Libertarians are isolationiss, others like me are Nationalists.
hey, I must be the 1st Nazi to support Isreal right.
The Difference between us on the Right and you diisciples of Karl Marx on the Left, is that we condem our monsters like Hitler.
You guys never condem Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol pot.
That is Left Wing Hypocrisy!
By the way i smoke pot conservatives don't.
That proves my Libertarianism.

Keith Olbermanns hour of hate featured yet another attack on Bill OReilly. At this point Olbermann exhibits the traits of a deranged stalker. One must be truly desperate to act in this fashion. Fortunately, in both relative and absolute terms, virtually no one is witnessing this disgraceful display .

ROFLOL! GJ, JD!

> disgraceful display .

LOL!

It's not disgraceful, it's hillarious! If you can't make fun of a pompous ass like O'Reilly who can you make fun of?!

I thought the serious side of last night's show was mercifully brief. But I did pick up also on the rapid-fire series of pokes at the White House.

First quote: "...the almost new fire every week for the Presidency as the election looms on the horizon." Yea, and who has a continued interest in fires every week?

Oh, the "defections" from the Republican party! Trace it to the ports deal. It's a "no-brainer" that Americans don't want a foreign country running our ports! Wait! Wasn't a British company running the ports and was just purchased by Dubai Ports World? Who runs ports for Korea, China, Australia, among other countries?

So, Mr. Harwood and he-who-must-not-be-named decided the ports debate was a "visceral" reaction. And the 45-day review might "break the fever." Someone should send the show aspirins and a get-well card...

Actually, some debate on port security might be a reassuring thing now, ya think? I do.

And Insight and the Cheney resignation speculation? "Let the bird shot fall where it may," says what's-his-name.

Let others right now chase down the factual faux pas of the news items. Right now, my argghhhh is the lack of perspective or context on any story on the show. Unless they want to come out and call the show "The Countdown Comedy Club" or something so we can actually know that this is a rehash of The Onion or something of its nature.

> Wait! Wasn't a British company running the ports

But people didn't KNOW that was the case.

DUH!

A few notes on Harassment:

"Harassment refers to a wide spectrum of offensive behavior. When the term is used in a legal sense it refers to behaviours that are found threatening or disturbing, and beyond those that are sanctioned by society. In societies which support free speech, only the more repetitive, persistent and untruthful types of speech qualify legally as harassment."

And on "Gaslighting":

Gaslighting is also a type of behaviour portrayed in the film Gaslight (mentioned above). It is a form of psychological abuse characterised by persistent denials of fact which, over time, have the effect of causing the victim to become anxious, confused and progressively less able to trust their memory of events. A variation of gaslighting, used as a form of harassment, is to subtly alter aspects of a victim's environment so as to cause discomfort. This technique is supposed to have been used by the Manson Family on their 'creepy crawler' burglarys, in which nothing was stolen but furniture in the house was rearranged."

Now, I submit that Olbermann is guilty of harassing many people, the foremost victim being Bill O'Reilly. I also sumbit that Olbermann is guilty of "gaslighting" his audience. Won't anyone DO SOMETHING?

Because no one cared. Why? Because the US controls security.

With the amount of scrutiny that has come from this port deal and the amount of publicity, I will make the arguement the the UAE will make damn sure they cover their end. Because this company is tied to their government, we don't have a situation like with Al Quaeda where there is no centralized leadership. They know that any terrorists attack against the US they can be traced to an infiltration through the ports they manage will mean there will be a large area of scorched earth, formerly known as the United Arab Emerates. We don't want that, and they definitely don't want that.

From: Johnny Dollar
Date: February 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Tonight’s Attack Piece
To: Roger Ailes
CC: Jeff Christie, Arthur Coltrane, Ken Melman
BCC: R. M. Scaife

Rog Baby,

Did you see all the bad news Mr. Olbermann led off with? The stuff about FEMA, NSA, Iraq, ports…hmm, it sure does seems like a lot of stuff is going wrong for our Fearless Leader. And stuff is going wrong for President Bush, too. It’s truly a crime that Mr. Olbermann didn’t bring the best thing that happened this month, the fact that Bush united Sen. Schumer and Rep. King together. Finally accomplished that “I’m a uniter, not a divider.” stuff from the 2000 campaign. Yeah, I know they united against our Fearless Leader, but still, never thought I’d see that happening.

I still don’t understand why I have to waste time writing stuff about Mr. Olbermann. After all, if Billy has all these viewers, then why bother about the competition? Yeah, I know half of Billy’s viewers are over age 68 (Can’t believe Mr. Olbermann got wind of that info and put it on his show) and that our Fearless Leader has approval ratings so low that there are eating into our usually mindlessly loyal base, but it’s Billy we’re talking about. He’ll bounce back, right? Right?!? Please?

Another question I have is why do I have to attack these outfits like Media Matters in this style. Can’t I attack them on the facts? But if we’re worried about people listening to Mr. Olbermann, shouldn’t we show if Mr. Olbermann isn’t telling the truth, just like Media Matters and other sites show with Billy all the time, instead of falsely claiming there’s a connection between Mr. Olbermann and these sites. I know it’s so much easier to apply the Nazi leader Hermann Goering rule, the one revealed in the Gustave Gilbert interview, and I know Billy applies it so often, like when he likened Media Matters to “Fidel” in the Krugman “debate” on CNBC or when he calls those who dissent as people who “undermine the war on terror”. But if we’re going to conquer, um, I mean win the hearts and minds of the fools under age 68, don’t you think they’re going to catch on to this tactic and that we should have the courage to express our beliefs in honest debate?

I hope you’ll take this as constructive criticism and not give me a Fox “wish me well” task. I’m still recovering from that weekend retreat with David Drier.

Please tell Mr. Scaife I said “Hi”.

Obsequiously yours,
Johnny

Unoriginal, unfunny, and unhinged

Humor doesn't work here, prepare to be flamed.

Poor Media Matters. I hate it when a good, honest folk like them come under vicious attacks from Olbermann Watch.

Those who defend Media Matters are the same crew defending the changed,resurrected,almost saintly Tookie Williams. It takes Olberlogic.

Unoriginal, unfunny, and unhinged

I agree, J$ post was indeed that.

I heard Al-Jazeera International is going to have round table discussion show.
I heard keith Olbermann, Bill Maher and Paul Krugman will be on it.
Their 1st interview will be with that great revolutionary hero they admire: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi!

I'm a card carring member of the Libertarian Party. And I get along with conservatives. Disagrements? sure! But somehow at the end of the debate we are not at each others throats. Am I a centrist? NO! Look up centrist in the dictionary and you'll find John Kerry's picture. I have my own beliefs and some differ with my party. But in all I am mostly in agreement. Looney Leftests? not a chance! Swash,Truckie, Jill Perry, Dopey-wan (burger boy) Peppto-Bizmal. Hit and Run Smear Artists! Put the light on them for more then a minute and they turn into one of those psychos you see getting dragged out of a speech on campus or when they get older hanging out at a Borders Books sipping tea and hanging on every word Katrina Vandahoovan spews out. If we laid you people end to end, you're group still couldn't come to a conclusion! Nonfactor (again not original) one thing I would like to say he has been able to keep it away from the hit and run attacks, and I complement him. Now let me post this question. Let's forget numbers. For the month of Feb. How many conservatives/liberals appeared on the O'Reilly show? And on countdown. Could anybody tell me? Except for Pat Buchannon, who else on countdown? If they came out and said Countdown is a Liberal left leaning show that attacks conservatives. I would respect that, and have no problem. O'Reilly has a lot more liberals on but, he doesn't have wacko bomb throwers like the dopey Krugman, Huffington, or from the right, Savage. And O'Reilly lets Olby get off about 20 attacks before he says something. So to the smear attack artists. It ain't working. Put down the crack pipe! Thats all for now.

"For the month of Feb. How many conservatives/liberals appeared on the O'Reilly show? And on countdown. Could anybody tell me? Except for Pat Buchannon, who else on countdown?"

Unless it's Dana Milbank, who gets attacked from both sides, the first guest on Countdown is often someone from the very conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board.

If they came out and said Countdown is a Liberal left leaning show that attacks conservatives. I would respect that, and have no problem.
------
Just to make sure I understand, puck, so if there was a Conservative right-leaning show (or network) that attacks liberals but claimed that it was "fair and balanced" then you would have a problem with it?

"Humor doesn't work here, prepare to be flamed."

The humor will always get lost on those that think humor consists of flying planes into the NYT building or poisoning justices. I fully expect the attacks. The Truth hurts sometimes.

And O'Reilly lets Olby get off about 20 attacks before he says something.
-------
Just to be clear, so it's your claim that Olby finds 20 mistakes/lies/etc. that O'Reilly says before O'Reilly can find only one? Wouldn't that imply that Olby is a better journalist, or am I reading you wrong?

And O'Reilly lets Olby get off about 20 attacks before he says something.
-------
Just to be clear, so it's your claim that Olby finds 20 mistakes/lies/etc. that O'Reilly says before O'Reilly can find only one? Wouldn't that imply that Olby is a better journalist, or am I reading you wrong?

No one is defending Ann Coulter. Thanks Truth.

Puck, the Left fears us Libertarians more than Conservatives.
And Hell no we're not Centrists.
Centrism is just a disguise.
It's Marxism with a human face!

"No one is defending Ann Coulter. Thanks Truth."

I'm glad no one is defending the indefensible. However, the matter at hand was humor, and with the latest extreme makeover of Arthur, I mean Ann as not simply a verbal bombthrower but as a humorist, thus the reference is made.

When Keith Olbermann is billed as a commentator and pundit as opposed to "news anchor", I'll have no problem with his "humor".

Too, Countdown would immediately be perceived in an accurate light if MSNBC hired Ann Coulter as Keith's "co-news-anchor...

this is pathetic. What a sad little website going against a show you don't like.
This johnny dollar schmuck has to debunk a show he thinks sucks. Ultra-pussy KfK show how bad he is on-line, probably right after he listens to the spineless Rush, closeted Michael Medved or the pussy of all pussies Tom Leykis.
Well, little boys, there is a cure for watching Keith Olbermann: It's called changing the channel. Go watch shows like 7th Heaven, or, Kfk, why not spank your monkey to Mail Call?
Sad sad sad...

C --

Having a Coulter / Olbermann co-hosted show is brilliant. Therefore, Kaplan and Olby will have nothing to do with it. A show like that might generate ratings.

"When Keith Olbermann is billed as a commentator and pundit as opposed to "news anchor", I'll have no problem with his "humor"."

It is billed as "News, Olbermann style".Some like it, some don't, but it is honest.

"Too, Countdown would immediately be perceived in an accurate light if MSNBC hired Ann Coulter as Keith's "co-news-anchor..."

Coulter was fired from MSNBC when she told a disabled Vietnam veteran, "people like you caused us to lose that war." I doubt MSNBC would make the same mistake twice.

"Well, little boys, there is a cure for watching Keith Olbermann: It's called changing the channel. Go watch shows like 7th Heaven, or, Kfk, why not spank your monkey to Mail Call?
Sad sad sad..."

I never cease to be amazed at the logic of folks who 'tune-in' a blog-site that is dedicated to a particular topic, in order to tell folks there to 'change the channel' (talk about something else...)

Darlin', YOU change the channel... Why So Sad....No one has taken control of your mouse...

Anonymous,

Nope, they've done much worse. They've hired an utter political partisan who uses a television show as a personal WMD against those he dislikes and billed hiim as a "news anchor".

Coulter nor O'Reilly have THAT billing...

Who bills himself as "America's Anchorman"??? Why, Rush Limbaugh!

Anonymous writes:

Who bills himself as "America's Anchorman"??? Why, Rush Limbaugh!"

Perfect solution.... Olbermann bills himself...MSNBC keeps quiet...sane people roll their eyes...

A true libertarian is liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones. Therefore, he winds up being a centrist.
Answer the following questions:
1) Should a person be allowed to watch whatever they want on TV?
2) Should gays be allowed to adopt children?
3) Does a women have the right to an abortion?
4) Should a person be allowed to marry whomever they want, despite race, etc.?
5) Should a person be allowed to smoke dope if they want?
If you answered "NO" to any of these questions, you are not a libertarian.
Further:
1) Do you think the gov't shouldn't subsidize big business and farmers?
2) Do you believe that the current tax system is unfair and that a flat tax (or such) is better?
3) Do you think taxes should be lowered?
4) Do you think that the gov't spends too much on social programs?
5) Do you believe that people, not government, know best how to handle their retirement money?
If you answered "NO" to any of these questions you are not a libertarian.
A libertarian is all about choice. We don't want the gov't telling us how to live our lives either socially or economically. As such, we are closer to the Dems right now than these neo-cons who want to run our lives.
BTW, I'll happily condemn any one, like Stalin, etc. who won't allow us to live our lives like we want. Of course, he and the others mentioned weren't communists or socialists, but both communism and socialism automatically have an air of totalatarianism, thus it is antithetic to libertarianism.

True_libertarian,

Why would libertarians be closer to the Democrats right now as opposed to neo-cons "who want to run our lives"...

As analysed via your own list, the most latest Democrat candidate for president, John Kerry, is against gay marriage, against the legalization of drugs, and was for restrictions on content of programs presented on public airwaves. So is the chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean.

Hillary Clinton, the likely Democrat presidential candidate in the next election, concurs.

As to the economic issues you listed, all three come down pro or con in opposition to libertarian stances.

And if you'll analysis your list more closely, you'll see that most of the things that you dislike, that are realities here and now, were fostered by Democrats.

So called true Libertarian,
Libertarians are opposed to the UN, World Bank and NATO. Are you?
Closer to the Dems, what world are you living in?
trhe Dems with a few exceptions are Marxist.
They have been hijack by the Hypocritical Socialist Billionaare George Soros.
The Dems want to subvert US soveirnty to the UN.
The Dems love high taxes and a regulated economy.
The Dems defend islamo fascism and marxists like Hugo Chavez and Castro.
the Dems support our outdated Social Security system, instead of letting me control my money.
The Dems also impose lifestyle sin taxes on Beer and cigarettes.
Something the government has no right in.
Dems are also against drug legalization, so is the GOP by the way.
So a true libertarian is closer to the G.O.P.
the Modern Democratic party is Marxism with a Human face!

The Truth:

John Harwood may be from the WSJ, but heis no conservative.

Cecelia, a man (or woman) is measured by his actions not by his words.
Do you really believe that the three you mentioned are STRONGLY opposed to the social issues I listed. No, they are not and I would be lying if I claimed otherwise.
It is a question of relativity. The Dems are not relatively opposed to libertarian ideology, the neo-cons are. THEY are the party that brings us anti-flag burning, anti-gay legislation, the Patriot Act, illegal spying on citizens, bans on public airwaves, government propaganda in the form of paid commentaries by supposed journalists, intential lying and deceit, and, least of all, propaganda in the form of at least one news network.
On the econ side, THEY are the ones who routinely support tax breaks and subsidies for big businesses, farmers, etc., and run up enormous budgets. Yet despite all this time in power where they control every branch of the gov't, where is the tax relief they offered? There has been some, mainly for the rich, but the real answer is "Nowhere, it's just smoke and mirrors."

"Nope, they've done much worse. They've hired an utter political partisan who uses a television show as a personal WMD against those he dislikes and billed hiim as a "news anchor".

Coulter nor O'Reilly have THAT billing..."

So that's the criteria, eh? Guess you really hate the Faux News Channel.

But you think this is "much worse" than attacking a disabled Vietnam vet by telling him people like him lost the Vietnam War? This speaks volumes...

From the National Libertarian Party's web site:

"What is a Libertarian?

Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.

Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?

Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.

In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle. "

http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

The Truth,

Yes, I think it's much worst to bill someone as being a "news anchor" with all the implied professionalism and studied impartiality of the title.... than it is to hire a commentator known for shooting her mouth off and billing her as.... a commentator known for shooting her mouth off....

MSNBC did that with Michael Savage too....and then also acted shocked when he really was a commentator known for shooting his mouth off...

But at least neither those two political partisan commentators was billed as a "news anchor"....right....

I wonder if Lance Armstrong feels good about MSNBC billing Keith as a news anchor. As Bloggermann, Olbermann wrote a piece saying that Armstrong was most likely lying about not having taken steroids. The proof? Armstrong had once reneged in a pledge not to cross a picket line....

Michael and Ann are still not news anchors.

The Truth writes:

"In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle. "'

So?

The truth writes:

"So that's the criteria, eh? Guess you really hate the Faux News Channel."

Not really. I've never watched it enough to hate it.

Why? Are you suggesting its news anchor act like Olbermann?

The point, Cecelia, is that Libertarians are Centrists, which was what brought this whole thing up.

True Libertarian,

So it's "centrist" to disavow ANY government safety net for the poor, as well as disavowing ANY government protections against hiring practices based upon race, religion and national origin?

If you say so, ture_libertarian...

But in your last post you weren't arguing that libertarians were merely centrists.... you argued that they resembled the Democrat Party more than the Republican Party.

Based on the criteria that YOU listed, please explain that remark. Especially in the light of the stated policies of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

3:28 PM, Cecelia.

> If they came out and said Countdown is a Liberal left leaning show that attacks conservatives.
> I would respect that, and have no problem.

I wish Faux News would admit they have a strong conservative bias, but they are "Fair and Balanced"!

ROFLMAO!!!

> Put down the crack pipe!

Take your own advice.

> Wouldn't that imply that Olby is a better journalist, or am I reading you wrong?

Neither of them are journalists. They are commentators...

> When Keith Olbermann is billed as a commentator and pundit as opposed to "news anchor"

Feel free to point to where MSNBC has billed Olbermann as a news anchor.

> Countdown would immediately be perceived in an accurate light if MSNBC hired Ann Coulter as
> Keith's "co-news-anchor...

Hardly. That would take Michael Moore, not Olbermann.

> is that Libertarians are Centrists

ROFLMAO!!!

Not a chance.

"The Truth writes:

"In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle. "'

So?"

Actually, no, I didn't write that. I clearly quoted the National Libertarian Party's web site since there was debate regarding Libertarians. Please forward your pithy inquiries to them.

"The Truth,

Yes, I think it's much worst to bill someone as being a "news anchor" with all the implied professionalism and studied impartiality of the title.... than it is to hire a commentator known for shooting her mouth off and billing her as.... a commentator known for shooting her mouth off....

MSNBC did that with Michael Savage too....and then also acted shocked when he really was a commentator known for shooting his mouth off..."

Not so amazingly, my original comment is still relevant. This speaks volumes...

"The truth writes:

"So that's the criteria, eh? Guess you really hate the Faux News Channel."

Not really. I've never watched it enough to hate it.

Why? Are you suggesting its news anchor act like Olbermann?"

Despite what will be inevitable attempts to prevent you for obtaining true enlightenment, please watch the film "Outfoxed". You can get it at Best Buy.

Hey so called True Libertarian,
Libertarians aren't centrists!
We do don't suscribe to the Democrats Marxist redistributionist ideology.

Answer this:

Libertarians are opposed to the UN, World Bank and NATO. Are you?
Closer to the Dems, what world are you living in?
trhe Dems with a few exceptions are Marxist.
They have been hijack by the Hypocritical Socialist Billionaare George Soros.
The Dems want to subvert US soveirnty to the UN.
The Dems love high taxes and a regulated economy.
The Dems defend islamo fascism and marxists like Hugo Chavez and Castro.
the Dems support our outdated Social Security system, instead of letting me control my money.
The Dems also impose lifestyle sin taxes on Beer and cigarettes.
Something the government has no right in.
Dems are also against drug legalization, so is the GOP by the way.
So a true libertarian is closer to the G.O.P.
the Modern Democratic party is Marxism with a Human face!

You can't your a socialist masquerading as a Libertarian.
Centrism, Marxism with a Human face!

A little bit of a check of last week's archives and a random check of older ones and I found that KO called Bush
President Bush 9 times
Mr. Bush 16 times
the president 91 times

Seeing as this totally confutes the moronic presumption of the last three posts on this blog....why has no one adressed it?

It's the veritable elephant in the room, and each of you is pretending its not here. What a gaggle of prodigies I've stumbled upon.

Help! I've been hijack by the Hypocritical Socialist Billionaare George Soros

Call CTU and get that raving liberal Jack Bauer on the case.

LOL, you gotta love a Nazi posting pro-Repug stuff. It really helps shine the light on who the neo-cons attract.
Note that he didn't bother to refute any of the points about why the libertarians would be against the neo-cons but instead ranted and raved a bunch of, well, lies. Seven, unless I miscounted. Seven statements that are completely untrue but, dang, they sound good even though they can't be proven.

SOP, throw_poo, that's why.

Radmod,
The reason Libertarians would support conservatives over Marxists Dems is becuase we don't believe in Socialism!
As for your Nazi charge, I condem Adolf Hitler who was a Socialist by the way and I'm a supporter of Israel.
You Lefties never condem Stalin, Mao or Castro!
Why is that?
everything I posted is true.
try to disprove it!

Radmod,
Marxism sucks!
It's for Hypocritical people like George Soros and George Clooney.
I've never met a poor Communist!

For all you lefties out there.
Al-Jazeera International is coming soon.
That's great place for the Lefties and their Islamo-Fascist Allies to discuss events!
Marx meets Mohammed, ahh how sweet!

Socialism and Islam sucks.
That's the bottom line!

Just little under a 1/2 hour until MSNBC begins the Keith ( Al-Jazeera Sympathizer) Olbermann Propaganda Show.
I wonder how much money Al-Qaeda and Hugo Chavez gives this Rat of a Traitor!

The reason Libertarians would support conservatives over Marxists Dems is becuase we don't believe in Socialism!
--
"we". You are not a Libertarian, you are a Nazi (you said so yourself), those are two different birds, call yourself whatever you like it doesn't change the fact you are not a Libertarian.

As for your Nazi charge, I condem Adolf Hitler who was a Socialist by the way and I'm a supporter of Israel.
You Lefties never condem Stalin, Mao or Castro!
---------
I'm not a lefty but can I still condemn Stalin, Mao and Castro? Please! (I just still haven't figured out who really was worse: Stalin or Hitler.)

everything I posted is true.
---
Yea, right.

try to disprove it!
-------
I always love this 'argument' and the fact that neo-cons and their supporters use it constantly. It's the refuge of those who can't actually argue their way out of a paper bag.
You know and I know that such statements can't be disproven except by disproving the 'proof' of the statement. (I know I put that badly, but supper's waiting and I gotta get to it.)
Since you do say it anyway this implies that you know that the statements you provide are false.

radmod,
I am not a NAZI.
I was called that and was being sarcasted.
I'm a Libertarian Nationalist!
My statements are facts.
The very reason you don't try to disprove them is because they're true!
The Democrats believe that the UN is a great instsitution.
it's a corrupt place run by Marxists and there so called Peace keepers are rapists!
There an investigation on that right now.
so Radmod what are you ideologicaly.
Let me a guess a Moderrate right!
in other words marxism with a Human Face!

I'm out, have to go watch O'Reilly and once in a while tune into the Al-Jazaeera USA show hosted by Keith( the Castoite) Olbermann for a good laugh!

Hey Curious George, time for your meds again. You know that when you foam at the mouth you need to take your meds...

Swashbumbler,
Go audition for a Pirate move you Allah loving Commie!

Georgie, you're a cartoon character - nothing more...

Swashbumbler what the hell are you.
A wanna be Pirate!

> So to the smear attack artists. It ain't working. Put down the crack pipe!

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning...

I am not a NAZI.
I was called that and was being sarcasted.
I'm a Libertarian Nationalist!
---------
Just a quick post and I have to get back to work.
Google "Libertarian Nationalist"
What do you get? Page after page about the
"Libertarian National Socialist (Nazi) Green Party".
If your claim is that you are a National Libertarian then you need to change your appelation.

My statements are facts.
The very reason you don't try to disprove them is because they're true!
--------
You know and I know they are not facts. They are supposition that cannot be proven or disproven. Why do you feel it's necessary to lie?
I can likewise say that the neo-cons are Fascist but I doubt you could disprove that without countering the proof that I brought to bear.
Simple logic.

so Radmod what are you ideologicaly.
Let me a guess a Moderrate right!
in other words marxism with a Human Face
--------
Actually I tend to show up a point or two away from center either left or right on most political quizzes. My favorite is the PEW which shows I am "disaffected" meaning I think everybody sucks, I just think the Repugs suck a lot more right now.
So to be fair, disprove that I am.
For your part, anyone who claims that Moderate right is "marxism with a Human Face" logically indicates the person is farther right, an extremist. The far right tends to hold such notable type as (gasp) Nazis.

BTW, dude, you really need to work on your spelling/grammar. While mine isn't perfect, by any means, it is functional. It hurts your cause if you can't communicate well.

The supposed email from Olbermann does not read at all like any of his other writings I have read, including emails.

Radmon,
The Neo-cons aren't fascist.
the believw in elections and democracy.
How's that Fascist?
Ironically they're of Tritskyite origin.
So are Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens Fascists.
Neo-cons are really Leftist not on the right.
They stand up for Human rights and the rights of women something that Leftists such as yourself hold dear.
All the staements I made are facts.
The Democrats believe in every statement I made.
They also believe whatever George Soros tells them too!
If i'm a Nazi then you're a Maoist!

So quoting show ratings is pointless and means you have nothing to say BUT quoting the lowest Presidential approval rating poll you can find is quality journalism?

True Libertarian,

It's amusing that you would start an argument with the statement I quote below and then later accuse the WH of resorting to "smoke and mirrors":

"Cecelia, a man (or woman) is measured by his actions not by his words.
Do you really believe that the three you mentioned [Kerry, Clinton, Dean] are STRONGLY opposed to the social issues [gay marriage, FCA regulation of content] I listed. No, they are not and I would be lying if I claimed otherwise."

TRUE libertarians are not comfortable with candidate compromise and subterfuge on issues they care about. Liberals and conversatives are content with such election strategy compromises.

The Democrat Party's most likely 2008 presidential candidates, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, have voted to extend the Patriot Act. Clinton voted to close debate in congress on the subject just today. I haven't found Kerry's vote yet. They are both are on the record as to being against gay marriage and both recently voted against an immediate pull-out of troops in Iraq (as did the majority of Dems).

Both likely candidates have stated that NSA wiretapping should be investigated, but have stopped short of demanding an immediate cessation of the program (too risky to be blamed if there's another attack...). In fact, TRUE libertarians have been on John Kerry's case before his run in 2004 because of his stance on forcing the sharing encryption codes with the U.S. govt. Too, remember when Hillary Clnton's desire for an internet "gate-keeper" enraged good libertarians everywhere.

As to propaganda, I don't know what's more telling about the validity of your claims to be a "libertarian" the fact that you refer to pundits and a writer as being "journalists" or that you fail to mention a very hot button issue for libertarians from way back. That the Clinton Administration got into trouble for making propagandistic policy infomericals designed to look like real news casts.

But the nail in the coffin of your claim to be a libertarian has to the use of liberal rhetoric of tax breaks for the rich. There ain't no libertarians who oppose THAT my friend, let alone libertarians who don't seem to know that the tax cuts effected everyone, including the middle class, the return naturally being higher based upon level of income. Talk about your smoke and mirrors! That's liberal-speak. Not libertarian.

The mention of flag buring is laughable considering the real-time, right now.... circumstances that libertarians live under, that are anathma to their ideology. The current income tax system, welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, eminent domain laws... all vigoriously protected from any sort of change by Democrats. Plus Democrat politicians would like to expand their power by nationalizing the health care industry. I'm not even going to go into environmental laws and Gore's wackiness on the subject that are sources of righteous indignation from hard-line property-rights libertarians.

Individual libertarians make their own distinctions as to which party is worst according to their own pet peeves, etc but they don't use the rhetoric you've used. They tend to argue a pox on both houses... You don't seem to be at all aware of their bells and whistles and what's ignited their outrage since before Clinton.

Start with some basics... read Reason Online, the Cato site, etc. I think you'll find that you are not a "true" libertarian. You're just a plain ole "New Democrat"....

First to slosh

I like you're many refrences to the crack pipe. Thats good I like that. And always remember what the first step in the twelve step program is.

And to the people who, well why don't you just come out and say FOX NEWS! I know pretty much know who is who on that channel so I have no problem. Damm most of the folks working there tell you who THEY ARE! By the way has anybody noticed the left's favorite Headline News Darling Rudi Baktiar is doing weekends on.....on....FOX NEWS! And as they say we report, YOU DECIDE! So I can sit and decide for myself if it's real or a snow job. I don't think I could get a fair and balanced assetment from a Lunitic Left fringe website that says Faux News we watch so you don't have to. Don't you agree?

Cecelia

To make my libertarian views BOILED DOWN I put that in so the lunatic fringe left could follow along. I want the democratcs out of my back pocket and the republicans out of my house. But I am way,way more afraid of the left in power. Problems with the right? somehow they get worked out. The left its more of a shove it down you're mouth agenda. But thats about as basic as you can get it. The hard right makes my head spin but you can talk with them. the hard left well thats another story. Just look at what posts up here. Or go to any Border's cafe.

And to whoever(does it make a difference) put up the post that KO gets O'Reilly on 20 mistakes? WOW! And 2 to 2.5 million still watch that show every night. Why doesn't everyone come flying over to watch The GREAT ONE. Always (LOL) telling the truth? And you're right, just to sit on the edge of my seat for a whole hour to see who will it be in the number one story. MIchel Musto or is could it be the wonderful talented laugh a minute Mo Rocca? Maybe I should ask this question. When was the last time Keith started off his show without a Bush Bash story. Funny all I've seen so far is one or two conservatives (lite) show up on Olby's show a week.If that! Bill has more libs in one night.

Why do conservatives like to pump up the idea of John Kerry or Hillary Clinton as a serious candidate for President? Democrats won't nominate Kerry again, and no woman can become President right now, bottom line.

Bill has liberals because he likes talking down to them, Keith has people who can actually talk about the issue with him.

Of course you're going to see more bashing on republicans - They control all branches of government! You don't think the ports deal is newsworthy? Or the CIA leak case? Or the Katrina video? give me a break, things are going bad for President Bush - it's going to be reported on.

Nonfactor,

So there are no Republicans, conservatives, WH officials, or Olbermann competitors (or their spokespersons) ...such as Nancy Grace... who "can actually talk about the issue with him." Even when it's conservative views, WH policies, or the personal history of an Olbermann target that is being discussed by Keith?.... Well, that's fascinating, einstein...

I wonder if all those other programs on those other cable channels know....

I find it funny the same persons who want Keith to inverview you listed are the same people who think Fox News is Fair and Balanced.

Nonfactor,

hahahahahaha! If Keith is making charges against Republicans, conservatives, Nancy Grace, etc.... what would their feelings about FNC matter anymore than how they felt about Barry Goldwater or National Review?

If you are making characterations about WH policiy then you need someone on who can speak for the WH and someone on who speaks for side against the WH. If you are reporting that Nancy Grace is a liar, how about asking her to defend herself or having a friend on who does that...

God you're an idiot!

The thing about the Katrina tapes is that nobody from the White House has said anything yet, which would make it kind of hard to get their view on the situation.

The format for Worst Person in the World is that facts are presented (in this case Nancy Grace obviously lied about the facts in the case of her fiancés murder) and Keith labels them "Worst Peron in the World."

Another one-line insult!

Nonfactor writes:

"Another one-line insult".... but you're here to refute it... Nonfactor...such as you're able...

Keith insulted Nancy Grace by labeling her a terrible person and had no one there to defend her. That's the point. And their feelings about FNC are moot... you idiot.

OH MY GOD, KEITH IS THE FIRST PERSON EVAR TO CALL SOMEONE TERRIBLE FOR DOING A TERRIBLE THING!!! THIS IS HORRIBLE HE SHOULD HAVE HAD SOMEONE TO DEFEND HER FOR LYING ABOUT HER DEAD BOYFRIEND!! WHAT A DISGRACE BY KEITH OLBERMANN, DUH YOU IDIOTZ!!!!!!11

Nonfactor loses it and writes:

"HE SHOULD HAVE HAD SOMEONE TO DEFEND HER FOR LYING ABOUT HER DEAD BOYFRIEND!! WHAT A DISGRACE BY KEITH OLBERMANN, DUH YOU IDIOTZ!!!!!!"

Exactly.

Wow, Congrats Cecelia, you got through a post without calling me a name, I'm impressed.

Maybe you don't understand the format that "Worst Person in the World" uses. It labels 3 people who, based on facts/police reports/etc., Countdown considers bad people. There isn't enough time to have all people have a representative come on the show and try and refute that they shouldn't be labeled so. Nobody is named "Worst Person in the World" based on rumor, if there was someone based on rumor I'd want Countdown to have them come on and refute it, but so far, that hasn't happened.

I understand many shows do something like this as well: Joe's Schmo, Tucker's segment at the end of his show, Bill O'Reilly's entire show, etc.

Nonfactor,

Much as this may surprise you there really are two sides to a story, and other newscasts aside from Olbermann's take this into consideration particularly when they are accusing someone of being ... how did you put it... among "bad people"...

To the Marxist Islamic loving scum.
I am not a Nazi, I'm a supporter of the Stae of Israel, you guys sympathize with the Islamo-Fascist.
By the way the Nazi's were leftists hense the name National Scoialist!
Hugo chavez the new leftist idol is a Nazi.
I believe in a free society, economic and social values for all that makes me a Libertarian.
However I believe in freedom only for my country and real allies.
All other nations shoild be destroyed or made vassal tribute states.
On social issues I am to the left of Andy Warhol and John Lennon.
On foreign policy, I am to the right of Genghis Khan, Julius Ceasar and Phillip II of Spain.
Real Imperialism by conquest and domination, unlike the Iraq charade is the solution to all of America's social ills.
So to Swashbucket, Non-Person and that other Commie, I am Nationalistic libertarian or Libertarian Nationalist.
Also I'm Hispanic so I,m not a Nazi.
But that what Moaists like you do, accuse any one right of center of being a Nazi.
However the Nazi's were Left wing Racist Socialists.
So the Nazi's are your ideological comrades.
Comrades!