Keith Olbermann has to be the most biased journalist currently on television. Does this moron actually believe he is unbiased??

I started noticing Keith's bias during the last few months of the 2004 election. It was so one-sided, it wa sickening.

And when Bush WON(!) the 2004 election, to the surprise of Keith Olbermann, this moonbat was still talking about Ohio 2 months after the election was over, trying to insinuate that there was some kind of voter fraud on the part of the republicans. But yet the non-partisan Olbermann(LOL) never reported on the DOCUMENTED fraud by liberal groups such ACORN and ACT. He never reported that liberals slashed the tired of several vans of GOP get-out-the-vote associates.

Keith Olbermann is more biased than actual self-admitted liberal contributors such as Paul Begala, James Carville, Ron Reagan etc.

Conspiracy theories abound with Countdown. At almost the same instant KO was "awarding" Michelle Malkin the silver as WPITW, she was appearing on The O'Reilly Factor...could this be an preemptive strike to discredit a guest who differs from David Brock and the Kos Krowd? Or, could it be setting up #86 on BO tomorrow (or Wednesday, depending on when Brock lets KO know what to say)? Hmmm...

You guys had me going there about Keith reporting on the Kennedy story, until I saw your claim that that summary would only occur in Bizarro world.

I can't believe he, or anyone else, could ignore the story. I'm sure even the Weather Channel covered it!

BTW, check out this quote in Variety, written by Brian Lowry (O'Reilly mentioned it tonight). This sums up the "race" at 8 p.m.:

"The cable nets' older profiles have also yielded absurd exchanges about demographic superiority, such as the boast that more young adults view MSNBC's Keith Olbermann than CNN's Paula Zahn. Whichever midget is taller, the truth remains that the vast majority of young adults have no interest in either."

The following is an actual conversation between a Tool Star operator and a customer.

operator: Tool Star, Trevor speaking, what is your emergency.

caller: Thank God you answered the phone! Um, please don't judge me but I've been driving around aimlessly ever since I got off work at 9 o'clock tonight and I'm really depressed.

operator: You did the right thing by calling us. What exactly are you depressed about, maam?

caller: I'm a man, dammit, not a woman!

operator: Sure you are, maam.

caller: How dare you! I don't deserve to be treated this way! Operator, creepy operator!

operator: Easy tiger, don't go Lawrence O'Donnell on me now. Look, for the sake of expediting this call, I'll...I'll call....I'll call you....I'll call you sir.

caller: Thank you. Ok, here it goes. You see, I have this cable tv show and I have the best possibele time slot, 8 o'clock at night. It's live, prime time tv, you know?

operator: Uh huh.

caller: Are you even listening to me?

operator: Absolutely. You said you wished you had your own cable tv show like Prime Time Live.

caller: No, no, no. I already have my own show. It's called Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

operator: It's called a ho down with a who now?

caller: Not ho down, countdown. It's called Countdown with Keith Olbermann. I am Keith Olbermann.

operator: If you say so.

caller: Haven't you heard of me?

operator: Sure I have, Ken.

caller: It's Keith, not Ken, ok?

operator: Allright, allright. Dude, you're worse than some guy I talked to earlier tonight. Some guy named Rich Kaplan or Rick Kaplan. I don't know, something like that. So, you're on cable tv, huh? Are you on Fox? Because I really like Fox. It would be great if you were on Fox.

caller: Fox? Ha, I wish. No I'm on MSNBC.

operator: Never heard of it. Are you sure you don't mean CNN or CNNHN?

caller: I'm pretty sure where it is I work, for crying out loud. But I've gotta admit, if Fox offered me a job, I'd drop everything and start tomorrow.

operator: What makes you think that Fox won't give you a job?

caller: Are you kidding? First of all, my ratings are horrible and, secondly, I have no one on my show who disagrees with me and Fox has this hang up about presenting both sides.

operator: You can't be serious.

caller: Oh yes, my ratings are pathetic.

operator: No, not that. You really don't have any opoosing views on your show?

caller: Oh, good Lord no! I mean, the very thought of two people debating a point makes me queasy. Plus, it adds nothing to the national discourse.

operator: ( Five minutes of laughter, followed by audio of operator telling colleagues previous remark of caller, followed by ten more minutes of laughter.)

operator: Whew! Wow, you have no idea how much I needed that laugh. Come on, tell me the real reason.

caller: But that is the real reason.

operator: Tell me the real reason or I'm going to start calling you maam again.

caller: Ok, ok. It's because I'm scared,
allright. Is that what you wanted to hear. I'm freaking terrified.

operator: What's there to be scared about? Aren't you confident enough in your convictions to have a debate on your show.

caller: Oh, hell no. Don't you think I'd have right wing jerks on if I thought I wouldn't embarass myself. ( Keith rasing voice )

operator: Don't get all Krazy on me, Keith.

caller: What did you just call me? Did you just call me Krazy? I HATE being called Krazy!

operator: Calm down, man. Look, I'm just trying to help a tool out, yo. Listen Keith, don't you think there's a link between your low ratings and having only yes men on your program. I mean, look at Fox News. They have all sides of the issues on their highly successful shows and they're the # 1 cable news netework by far.

caller: I'm begging you not to say that word again.

operator: Say what word?

caller: THAT word.

operator: You mean Fox.

caller: Ahhhhhheeeeeee! Yes, that word. Look, is there another operator that I could speak with.

operator: As a matter of fact there is. There's a couple of guys who work as a team and I know you're really going to like them. Their names are Robert Cox and Johnny Dollar.

caller: ( click sound of a phone hanging up )

Olbermann biased?! Treats Democratic scandals different than Republican ones?! WHAT?! I suppose you're going to tell me next that Tom Cruise might be a little nutty.

I'm a big "Countdown" fan and watch it every night, but of course it's biased. That's why it's sorta-kinda popular.

Some of us on the left believe that CNN is bland and Fox News is biased to the right. And if you want your Democratic scandals turned into Watergate and your GOP scandals entirely ignroed, give "Hannity & Colmes" a watch.

But that is the point. Hannity, O'reilly and the like don't make the false claim that they are impartial journalists delivering the news as Olbermann does. But it's nice to see that one of his followers even sees through his lies.

Yes, exactly. The difference between Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity:

Olbermann is a left-wing ideologue

Hannity is a right-wing ideologue

Olbermann is a propagandist

Hannity is not a propagandist

Olberman acts like a left-wing ideologue, but calls himself a journalist

Hannity is a right-wing ideologue and ADMITS HE IS

The reason why Olbermann is a propagandists is because he LIES. Although Hannity never claims to be fair, he certainly does not lie like Olbermann.

Each night it’s the same song and dance
The attacks, the lies, and the rants
His obsession with Bill
Is disturbing and shrill
Another season? He won’t stand a chance

One problem with your transcript, Patrick. KO can't drive. Something about a head injury. He would have to be sitting in the passenger seat of a car driven by David Brock or Markos, who drive his show anyway.

Other than that, pretty funny.

I thought his vision was only affected at speeds over 15 MPH. Perhaps he was on his motorized scooter.

I am fairly new to this site, and actually came across it by accident. That said, I'm very impressed with the site.

I don't make it a habit to watch Countdown. I liked Keith on ESPN, thought he was funny and provactive. But I found his attempts to bring his anti-establishment attitude to cable as forced and awkward. On the few occassions that I watched it, I usually have cringed at his Q&A.

Last night, I stumbled across the show during his insipid "worst person" segment. I almost spit up the ginger ale I was drinking. Who cares if Michele Maulkin knows when baseball season is? She used an example, a bad one at that imho, but why not engage her claim with something of substance?
Why does this bother me...because as a former sports commentator, KO is certainly aware that in many parts of this country baseball is a year-round sport. A good friend of mine is sending his son to Clemson because he thinks he has a chance to be professional, and he wants him playing year round. College teams in Florida play year round. Baseball has a Arizona Fall League that plays in the offseason. Baseball is played year round in the Caribbean.

In other words, just because MLB doesn't happen to play on January 19, doesn't mena Malkin's point is irrelvant. KO's dismal of her point reeks of elitism while engaging in debate by distraction.

My $0.02.

Patrick,

It is true -- Olby can not drive a car. He suffered a severe brain injury when he walked into a subway door. He must have had a preexisting injury as well, as only a brain damaged person would walk into a subway door. Let's just say keith is "brain damage squared."

As for his vehicle of choice:

http://www.scooter411.com/lark/i/travelark.jpg

He keeps all his papers in the basket in front. When he falls out and gets run over, he usually only suffers bumps and bruises, easily hidden by orange paint.

"But that is the point. Hannity, O'reilly and the like don't make the false claim that they are impartial journalists delivering the news as Olbermann does. But it's nice to see that one of his followers even sees through his lies."

What planet are you on? O'Reilly constantly claims he's impartial. What about the "no-spin zone" which is nothing but constant spin. Hannity is nothing but a loud mouthed lying bomb thrower who has been given a forum by the right wing Fox "News". Thank God for Keith Olbermann. He's one of the only sane voices heard over the din of right wing neanderthals.

Calm down. No need to get so emotional. First, Oreilly has always maintained that he is a conservative independent. Furthermore, he reminds his viewers on a very consistant basis that his show is the editorial page/news analysis, not hard news which is what KK purports his show to be. BTW, can you give a specific example of what Sean Hannity has lied about. Just bc someone has a different point of view than you doesn't make them a liar. If you want to hear a loud mouth I suggest Hardball with Chris MAtthews. Would you be referring to the same "right wing" Fox news who's owner is holding a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton?

The week of May 1 - May 5 ratings for Krazy Keith (TOTAL VIEWERS)
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp

May 5 -- 309 LAST
May 4 -- 376 LAST
May 3 -- 484 LAST
May 2 -- 375 LAST
May 1 -- 467 LAST

In other words KEITH OLBERMANN LAST IN TOTAL VIEWERS FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK OF MAY 1 - MAY 5, ENDING THE WEEK WITH 309,000 VIEWERS, THE LOWEST RATING OF ALL MSNBC SHOWS FROM 7PM TO 10PM. Forget about Keith competing with normal shows on Fox, or abnormal shows on CNN. He did not beat the shows on his OWN NETWORK on May 5th in the worse time slots. PATHETIC!

There once was a show in last place
The host simply couldn't keep pace
Pimp-slapped by the rest
The pathetic little pest
Spewed hate from his orange-tinted face

A song for our orange faced friend and his bosses. Sing along at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/oompa.htm:

Oompa, Loompa, doom-pa-dee-do
I have a perfect puzzle for you
Oompa, Loompa, doom-pa-dee-dee
If you are wise, you'll listen to me

What do you get when your host is a brat
Pouting and shouting about this and that
Making up stories and hiding in shame
You know exactly who's to blame (BWA BWA)

THE EXEC-U-TIVE PRO-DU-CER

Oompa, Loompa, doom-pa-dee-do
I have another puzzle for you
Oompa, Loompa, doom-pa-da-dee
If you are wise, you'll listen to me

What do you get from Olby TV?
A pain in the neck and an IQ of three
Why don't you try simply reading a book?
Or can you just not bear to look?

You'll get no...you'll get no...you'll get no commercials

Oompa, Loompa, doom-pa-dee-da
If you're not dopey, you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Unlike Olby the Oompa Loompa doom-pa-dee-do

He's the beady-eyed kook on cable
His guests from a moonbat stable
It's like a cartoon
An orange-tinted loon
Playing host that's mentally unstable

Bob,

You should try and do a month of an " Imus Watch ". After that it would be the same as reruns.
Besides promoting his " Little " ranch for kids with cancer,his trophy wife, his obnoxious son, his idiot brother and his freaking chips,salsa and green cleaning products , this ego maniac has the same crew of guests on a rotating basis. Mostly liberal politicians &journalists or : Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Harold Ford Jr.( is gaga over him ) Howard Fineman,Tim Russert, Bob Schiffer, Jeff Greenfield, Jonathan Alter, Jon Meacham, Andrea Mitchel, Frank Rich ad nauseam.

Rob Bartlett and the guy that does Jack Nicholson are the only things worth watching on that 3 hours of MSNBC early morning filler.

Fred, Imus may be a liberal, but he is pretty fair. Although he disagrees with the Iraq war, he does not think Bush lied about it. He is much more fairer than that moonbat moron Keith.

Fred,

Imus' favs also include John McCain, Rick Santorum and a number of other conservatives.

And if I recall, KO was on years ago and it didn't go well.

FOURTH AMENDMENT
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"As we pointed out at the time, Gen Hayden was asked about the standards for search and siezure. The constitution is clear: reasonableness. Keith Olbermann keeps referring to probable cause--that's not the standard for search and siezure, it's the standard for issuing a warrant." -Johnny Dollar

KO is right and you are wrong. You specifically argued that probable cause is the standard for getting a warrant. But you forgot to ask yourself: What is a warrant for? A warrant makes a search and seizure legal. You treat both sentences of the Fourth Amendment as if they are two different things. But both sentences are dependent on each other. The first sentence describes the goal and the second describes the measure.

There are limited and SPECIFIC exceptions to obtaining a warrant are described here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/ (list) and http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html#1 (valid searches without warrants)

Here are the exceptions were a warrant is NOT REQUIRED but probable cause IS REQUIRED.

Exerpts from the second link:

Stop and Frisk --Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause (my emphasis in italics) to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or has committed a misdemeanor in their presence.

Vehicular Searches --In the early days of the automobile the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles, holding in Carroll v. United States that vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The Court explained that the mobility of vehicles would allow them to be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant.

Vessel Searches --Not only is the warrant requirement inapplicable to brief stops of vessels, but also none of the safeguards applicable to stops of automobiles on less than probable cause are necessary predicates to stops of vessels.

Exceptions that don?t require neither a warrant nor probable cause include: Consent Searches, Border Searches, ?Open Fields,? ?Plain View,? Public Schools, Government Offices, Prisons, Regulation of Probation, and Drug Testing.

Even within the ?Stop and Frisk,? Vehicular Searches, and Vessel Searches chapters, there are situations where even probable cause is not required. But the pattern is clear. The legal arguments have always been clear regarding the Fouth Amendment: PROBABLE CAUSE IS REQUIRED TO GET WARRANTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. But there are exceptions that have been made by the judicial system.

Nevertheless there have been disputes about the relationship of the two clauses of the Fourth Amendment:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html#1

?Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment's two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are ''reasonable'' are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are ''reasonable'' searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause.?

Even the second argument says that an exception must be made to not require a warrant. Probable cause is still the rule or standard in both arguments.

Thank you for the legal briefing. But it all comes down to what the constitution says the standard for search is, since that's what was asked of the General. And the constitution says it's "reasonable". Probable cause is the standard for issuing a warrant. And since all searches do not require warrants, it is fallacious to say that the standard for a warrant is the same as the standard for a search. It obviously isn't.

The constitution's words are perfectly clear. Searches must be reasonable. Warrants must issue on probable cause. The General understood that. My law school evidence teacher understood that. Anyone who can read plain English understands that. But Olbermann got it wrong. Twice. And not by accident.

More rotten fruit in the Administration - here's hoping KO will cover it tonight:

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alfonso Jackson publicly admitted that he canceled a government contract with a business because the CEO was critical of President Bush.

"After discussing the huge strides the agency has made in doing business with minority-owned companies, Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.

'He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years,' Jackson said of the prospective contractor. 'He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, "I have a problem with your president."

'I said, "What do you mean?" He said, "I don't like President Bush." I thought to myself, "Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary."

'He didn't get the contract,' Jackson continued. 'Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe.'"

EXCEPT - The Competition in Contracting Act does not allow excluding someone from getting a government contract because of their political views.

FRESH SCANDAL! COME AND GET IT!

FOURTH AMENDMENT
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

.............

`... it all comes down to what the constitution says the standard for search is ... And the constitution says it's "reasonable".

no, it says `to be secure ... AGAINST UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.` which is not the same as saying that the only allowable search is one based upon reasonable cause. it`s not reasonable cause, it`s probable cause, as is stated: `no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause`.
............

Probable cause is the standard for issuing a warrant.

correct.

..........

And since all searches do not require warrants

incorrect -- in the absence of consent, it is illegal to search without a warrant.

...........

it is fallacious to say that the standard for a warrant is the same as the standard for a search.

no, they are the same. you can`t have a search without a warrant, and you can`t have a warrant without probable cause. which is precisely what the amendment states.

I am sorry but you are very mistaken. There are, in fact, more perfectly legal searches that take place every day than searches that involve search warrants. I should know, I was a prosecutor for nearly 30 years.

> in the absence of consent, it is illegal to search without a warrant.

Once again you are very mistaken. Search incident to arrest, search during exigent circumstances, and a whole bunch more. And the legal test? Is the search "reasonable"!

By the way, what is "reasonable cause"? Where did you get that from, did you make it up? I suspect you don't have any actual training or experience in this area, based on that peculiar turn of phrase.

I keep coming back to Olby's distortion of what the General said. He was asked if the standard in the constitution for a search was probable cause. He said no, it's reasonableness. That IS what the constitution says. The General was right, Olbermann was (again) wrong.

i understand you were a prosecutor, but i am going by the written amendement. which mentions nothing about searches incident to arrest or exigent circumstances.

i got `reasonable` from your words: `... it all comes down to what the constitution says the standard for search is ... And the constitution says it`s `reasonable`.

..............

are you perhaps confusing ARREST warrant with SEARCH warrant?

in the absence of consent, and in the absence of arrest, are you asserting that the fourth amendment does not call for probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant? if so, what part of the following makes you think so? it seems pretty clear.

`no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause`

NO! NO! Warrants MUST have probable cause.

But the General wasn't asked what the standard is for issuing a warrant (which could be an arrest warrant as well, as you point out). He was asked if the constitution said the standard for a SEARCH is "probable cause". And he rightly cited what the constitution plainly says: the standard is no UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. It does NOT say no WARRANTLESS searches and seizures.

i understand you were a prosecutor, but i am going by the written amendement. which mentions nothing about searches incident to arrest or exigent circumstances.

i got `reasonable` from your words: `... it all comes down to what the constitution says the standard for search is ... And the constitution says it`s `reasonable`.

..............

are you perhaps confusing ARREST warrant with SEARCH warrant?

in the absence of consent, and in the absence of arrest, are you asserting that the fourth amendment does not call for probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant? if so, what part of the following makes you think so? it seems pretty clear.

`no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause`

NO! NO! Warrants MUST have probable cause.

OK.

...............

But the General wasn`t asked what the standard is for issuing a warrant (which could be an arrest warrant as well, as you point out). He was asked if the constitution said the standard for a SEARCH is `probable cause`. And he rightly cited what the constitution plainly says: the standard is no UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. It does NOT say no WARRANTLESS searches and seizures.

so you are asserting that:

`... to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause`

does not mean no searches without warrants?

Well now you are getting into constitutional interpretation. Searches with warrants are presumed to be legal, a protection they don't have when they are warrantless. But that doesn't mean that all searches without warrants are invalid. I've pointed out above some instances (like incident to arrest, exigent circumstances) where searches without warrants are perfectly legal.

But as fun and enjoyable as it is to get into interpretation and case law and precedent, that is NOT what the General was asked. He was asked about the standard as written in the constitution, and rightly answered that it was reasonableness. Olby may not like that answer, he may disagree with it, but it is reckless folly for him to assert--twice--that the General was wrong about what the words of the constitution say.

`He was asked about the standard as written in the constitution, and rightly answered that it was reasonableness.`

but he was asked specifically about the fourth amendment ...

............

Landay: `...the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to violate an American`s right against unreasonable searches and seizures...`

Gen. Hayden: `No, actually - the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That`s what it says.`

Landay: `The legal measure is probable cause, it says.`

Gen. Hayden: `The Amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure.`

Landay: `But does it not say `probable cause`?`

Gen. Hayden : `No. The Amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.`

Landay: `The legal standard is probable cause, General -- `

Gen. Hayden: `Just to be very clear ... and believe me, if there`s any Amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it`s the Fourth. Alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional standard is `reasonable`.

............

which means we`re back to my previous question. so you are asserting -- as did the general, apparently, that:

`... to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause`

does not mean no searches without warrants?

What you said is correct: it does NOT mean no searches without warrants. Obviously not, since warrantless searches happen every day (every hour, every minute) and they åre deemed legal and constitutional.

Searches with warrants are preferred, and searches without warrants have to be shown to be reasonable. But they can, and do, take place, and have been ruled legal.

"But it all comes down to what the constitution says the standard for search is, since that's what was asked of the General. And the constitution says it's "reasonable"." -Johnny Dollar

If what you say here is correct, then that means that warrants are not necessary if authorities can find another way finding a reason to search and seize. All they have to do is make sure it is not an unreasonable search.

"Probable cause is the standard for issuing a warrant. And since all searches do not require warrants, it is fallacious to say that the standard for a warrant is the same as the standard for a search. It obviously isn't." -Johnny Dollar

We both agree that the standard for a warrant is probable cause. My arguement is that probable cause is the reason for the search and seizure. Why? BECAUSE OBTAINING A WARRANT IS THE STANDARD! In typical cases authorties MUST obtain a warrant and saying that there was a reason NEVER cuts it in typical cases. In order to not need a warrant, AN EXCEPTION MUST BE DETERMINED (emergency, practicality, other necessities like the ones listed in the following link.)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Also if obtaining a warrant is not the standard, then it is also not necessary to define "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Authorities can seize anything and anyone they want.

`Obviously not, since warrantless searches happen every day (every hour, every minute) and they are deemed legal and constitutional.`

but not without probable cause, right?

--------------

if so, then what you are saying is that the fourth amendment was intended to guarantee that no search is conducted without probable cause, but it was not intended to guarantee that no search is conductd without a warrant that is based on probable cause. have i got that right?

No.

OK, so you are saying that the fourth amendment only goes so far as to guarantee no unreasonable search. is that right? and those are the general`s words as well. so have i got that right, then? (hey, if i did, then that means you can just answer yes ... and the last post you just answered no ... things are seldom that simple here at OW! : )

Kfk and Scott: Thank you for the info on Olby not being able to drive. I was oh so close to have him " riding his trike around aimlessly."

If defenders of Koolaid Keith would just take a deep breath and reflect on the fact that his show is extremely unique for all the wrong reasons, I'm sure that reason will prevail. It's kinda like this: The more serious the charge, the more serious the evidence better be. The more serious the charge, the more appropriate it is for the accused to have his day. But not in the movie that we're all subject to, " Krouching Keith, Hidden Axe to Grind." It's the worst movie since " Leonard P... " no, since " The Hunting of the President." Let's take Alan Colmes for example. He's a liberal on the 2nd most popular show on the #1 cable news network. He gives conservatives what fer on a regular basis. I agree with very little, but debating someone of his intellect makes you choose your words carefully. Hannity and Colmes is popular for a reason. Don't you think that liberals tune in to the show, hoping he'll kick some right-wing arse?
And the fact that he's 3/4 alien is not germaine to the discussion.

But could this be the night that Agent Orange has a dissenting voice on his kinda not too popular show? The show ain't over yet!

Great segment about the big giant head!

Falafel boy`s ratings are right where they were just before 9/11, so just like water, he`s sought his level. It`ll be fun when retires he with a wimper in a few years.

Olbermann Rules!!

The ONLY conservative I've seen on Olbermoron''s show is Pat Buchanan. And when ever Pat is on, it's to criticize Bush, so in these instances, a conservative isn't challenging Keith, but agreeing with him.

I have never seen Scarborough on his show.

Oh my God! First, how can someone be arguing for Gen. Hayden when he specifically said that the words "probably cause" aren't mentioned in 4th Amendment of THE CONSTITUTION! And secondly, how can someone argue that warrants aren't necessary for searches and seizures when it specifically says so in the 4th Amendment?!

FOURTH AMENDMENT
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. and seizures, shall not be violated,

.........

doesn`t it seem like a warrant based upon probable cause *IS* the reasonable search this passage is guaranteeing?

This is a single sentence and it`s reasonable to think that all parts were intended to relate to one another. also law is often written such that the rights extended in the first part of a passage are excoriated and elucidated upon in the second.

i agree with you jd, that the passage is meant to protect against unreasonable searches, and thereby guarantee reasonable searches. and it does so by enumerating what exactly must be done:

- Warrants
- upon probable cause
- supported by Oath or affirmation
- and particularly describing the place to be searched,
- and the persons or things to be seized

don`t you think?

Is Nancy Grace who posted a comment about Keith, the one and the same TV poisonality NASTY GRACE? If it is, I wouldn't be so quick to point out faults with anyone's appearance, Nasty!!

What's wrong? Did Keith reject your advances or something? Oh I remember, he named you one of his Worst People in the World. How low can you go to belittle someone about their appearance? And by the way his appearance is just fine thank you very much.

Just a hypothethical. Patrick K. is driving, drunk and get pulled over by a cop. He does the sobriety thing (walk this line, touch your nose) and detirmins that Patrick K. is, in fact, toasted beyond all ability to drive. SO they decide to take him in to book him. The arresting officer pats Patrick down, empties his pockets, and bags his belongins.

There is no warrant issued before Patrick's person is searched for weapons, drugs, or anything thing else. It can be (and has been) argued that probable cause does not exist at a DUI to assume other drugs or weapons are present. But it happens, everyday, in every state. Is the search legal, even though it is warrantless? Yes. It the search reasonable? Absolutely. Constitutional? Definitely.

Scott --

"Is the search legal, even though it is warrantless?"

Absolutely not -- this is a Kennedy

"It the search reasonable?"

Obviously not, or it would have been done.

Ever notice that when you make a valid, reasonable argument at this site ... the local nutjobs stop replying to your postings? How conveeeeeeeeeenient. It`s so much easier just to scream `olbyloon`, intellectually cut and run, and then return to the deluded warmth of collective suckling at the Fox Populi misinformation teat.

Hey "relapse"

Projection = A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously rejected and attributed (projected) to others.

Read your post again, then read through the site.

IS this site pro or anti Olbermann? I can't tell. And who is the blogmaster?

The only serious purpose of this site is to prop up it's owner, Robert Cox, who is pimping to the rabid right wingers to build up his net. cred so he can call himself, and get himself recognised as an authority on something. Anything.

Exactly, my plan is to become the recognized authority on Keith Olbermann and from that lofty perch to dominate the media landscape and, ultimately, rule the world - and you are all pawns in my little game.