Mrs. Olbermann claims she's a teacher
But her offspring is quite a creature
He's a lying cheap shot
Yes, that's what she taught
Attacks on women... another nice feature

I saw this interesting post on ICN:

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/06/27/june-numbers-countdown/#more-2458

>this was the 3rd month in a row that Countdown’s numbers dropped. Countdown has dropped 17% in the Demo and 19% in Total Viewers since April as the following two charts illustrate.

and

In addition, it seems pottymouth Keith is attacking people with dirty words again according to the Daily News:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/story/429891p-362344c.html

>"This thought occurred again Tuesday while listening to Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann, on ESPN-1050, hammer Peter Karmanos Jr., who owns the Stanley Cup champion Carolina Hurricanes.

Among other things, Patrick and Olbermann cited what they considered Karmanos' shabby treatment of fans when the team was known as the Hartford Whalers. Karmanos purchased the Whale in 1994 and moved the team to North Carolina three years later.

At one point in their critique, Patrick called Karmanos a "scumbag." Shortly after that tasteless reference, Olbermann called Karmanos a "douchebag." [still any doubt he wrote those e-mails? --ed]

"It's not our policy to take cheap shots or resort to name calling," said Rob Tobias, an ESPN spokesman. "And to that end, we will be handling this matter internally with both Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann."

SO THE OLBERMANN JUGGERNAUT LURCHES ONWARD! Real smart to make him the centerpiece of the MSLSD empire!

But Keith better watch out! Another Krazy old Koot might get his own propaganda show yet:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jack_cafferty_is_not_some_hairsprayed_programmed_anchorette_thats_for_sure_39333.asp#email

>Cafferty says "he considers himself an equal opportunity detractor, one not wedded to an ideology. 'I tend to be independent. I went from cheering George Bush on to thinking he's one of the great failures to ever occupy the White House.'"

He says he would love a program of his own "but wouldn't say whether he's in discussions with CNN management."

Now who says CNN is mismanaged? What they need is to follow MSLSD's lead and give left wing nutjobs their own shows! It's a race to the bottom, folks!

A big hat tip to TVNewser, who pointed out many of the above stories!

Gee, CNN has their own Howard "Netowrk" Beale in Jack Cafferty.

They pull him away from his mop and bucket for a minute or two for him to vent and suddenly he's the cat's meow? Didn't he already have a show?

Stick to janitor duties, Jack, it's much more secure position at TW.

Gee Wyatt, try reading it before you post it!

"Network"! a! Arghh!

The real reason with all the conservatives hyperventilating over the Times story is that the is really is just another distraction. They'd much rather be bashing the Times and questioning people's patriotism than talk about the mess they've created in Iraq. Any you know what? The tactic works and you'll see more and more of it.

How 'bout the SCOTUS decision on Gitmo? Should make for entertaining viewing tonight. No George, you can't do whatever you want.

Class? Who needs class? Not Krazy Keith, that's for sure.

'Bags' of garbage

ESPNers' foul radio rant is a disgrace
Maybe there's something in the stale air of a sportstalk radio studio that makes talkies say things they probably wouldn't blurt out on a checkout line at the supermarket.

Certainly not in front of their kids. Or their grandmother.

This thought occurred again Tuesday while listening to Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann, on ESPN-1050, hammer Peter Karmanos Jr., who owns the Stanley Cup champion Carolina Hurricanes.
Among other things, Patrick and Olbermann cited what they considered Karmanos' shabby treatment of fans when the team was known as the Hartford Whalers. Karmanos purchased the Whale in 1994 and moved the team to North Carolina three years later.

At one point in their critique, Patrick called Karmanos a "scumbag." Shortly after that tasteless reference, Olbermann called Karmanos a "douchebag.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/story/429891p-362344c.html

hit_escape wrote:

>"The real reason with all the conservatives hyperventilating over the Times story is that the is really is just another distraction."

Hit_Escapist, that is exactly the thinking that got bill Keller in trouble. National security is more than a "distraction." It is the #1 priority of the Federal Government. When a program that successfully caught the Bali bomber is exposed for no good reason, people don't like it. You can pretend this is no big deal. You can pretend that it doesn't matter. Dismissing those who are concerned as falsely concerned is not a smart thing to do. It won't work for the NY Times, and it certainly won't work on here.

Among other things, Patrick and Olbermann cited what they considered Karmanos' shabby treatment of fans when the team was known as the Hartford Whalers. Karmanos purchased the Whale in 1994 and moved the team to North Carolina three years later.

Karmanos did treat the fans shabbily. He tried to hold up the city of Hartford for more money, then said unless they sold 11,000 season tickets the Whalers would have to move (11,000 season tickets in that market amounts to 1 season ticket for every 90 residents). Then he jacked up the average ticket price by $9 and, when the "Save The Whalers" campaign produced only 8,000 season ticket holders, announced that salaries would have to be cut.

In other words, he made $4.5 million while fielding a lame duck team on the ice for two years. And, while the Whalers fans were trying to complete this impossible feat, it was revealed that Karmanos had opened negotiations with Nashville to move the Whalers there while he was promising to keep the team in Hartford.

Karmanos is the worst kind of owner - the only difference between him and Art Modell is that Modell at least had the decency to be a scumbag in the open.

Anyone remember the KO rant on the NYT crossword using "scumbag" in one of their puzzles? I think he made them WPITW for it, or at least a nominee.

Then he goes on about BO using "we." Which KO did himself in both the story before and after this one. In fact, I counted 4 times he said "we" in tonight's episode when talking about himself. He also uses "us" quite a bit.
I guess it's only bad when BO does it.

Hmm. Hypocritical much, Keith?

And, where exactly was the lie that "bastard Bill O'Reilly" told? KO must be getting desperate for ratings again (must see how his are down for the month). In fact, weren't there multiple articles this week in the MSM mentioning KO's "feud" with O'Reilly?

I love it when Jack Cafferty dips his wrinkled arthritic hand into his "mail bag" and pulls out responses that read like a Daily Kos thread. Sometime Wolf will say, "Jack, were all the responses hostile to the administration?" Jack will defensively say, "I am just reporting what I saw!" OK angry old fart!

Cafferty is a leftist cartoonier version of Abe Simpson. Old Jack is incoherent one minute, and offensive the next. It is just a matter of time before he lets loose on the air.

If Jack has written obscene e-mails, attacked women, bad-mouthed co-workers, and had sex with gullible fans only to dump them by e-mail, I would say he has a great shot at getting a key job at MSNBC in the spot after Olby.

Krazy Keith and his mate "three hole" Patrick
Is that why they call Dan "the hat trick"?
Keith destroyed his own show
So it’s off to radio
More obscenities to make us all sick

"It's not our policy to take cheap shots or resort to name calling," said Rob Tobias, an ESPN spokesman. "And to that end, we will be handling this matter internally with both Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann."

Cheap shots? Name calling? Not our Keith.

Olby will kill the ratings and degrade the content of any show he is involved with. Keith will destroy that lame radio show and will leave Patrick ratingless, friendless, and cowering under his desk.

Keith is misunderstood and is a man best suited for another time and place. Go back about 35 years and there he is, nestled between Truman Capote and Andy Warhol, giggling like schoolgirls and making fun of people. OK, who farted? Silly ducks! Tee heee heeee.

In a September 24, 2001, speech, Bush announced the establishment of a "foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks." He added, "It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions."

Oh yeah - it was a big secret.
Lot more at media matters here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606280010

The #3 slot started out with John Murtha, who got a retraction for an incorrectly reported statement. Note that Olbermann never bothered to report the embarrassing statement itself, only the retraction.

------
???????? Reachin here, aren't ya. The paper's correction, which Keith read, laid out exactly what the "statement" was - his citing of a poll as evidence of suffering US cred.

Prissy little fascist bitch.
What`s the matter beeyatch? Did the court put the kibosh on your blank check tribunal parties?
You worthless piece of shit.

Dogs that won't bark tonight on CD

Great news on the economy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13611277/

Palestinians claim they used chemical weapons:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-29T013909Z_01_L29258645_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-ROCKET.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

> The paper's correction, which Keith read, laid out exactly what the "statement" was

Anon, again you miss the point. KO didn't report the statement when it appeared to be accurate. He never WOULD have reported it as long as it appeared to be accurate. He ONLY reported it when it turned out to be wrong, and it wouldn't embarrass Murtha and he could use it as a club against someone on his enemies list.

Just as Keith never reported Dick Durbin's US troops as Nazis comparison. It was news all over the country, but KO protects his own.

"KO didn't report the statement when it appeared to be accurate... He ONLY reported it when it turned out to be wrong,"
---------------------------------------
But, certainly Bill O'Reilly ran the retraction after attacking Murtha for the comments...? Right? Oops. Guess not.

So whats worse.? Defending someone when they're unfairly attacked (like KO did for Murtha)... or attacking someone unfairly and not apologizing for it. (like O'Reilly did to Murtha... and the US soldiers killed at Malmedy... twice).

What's worse is protecting your ideological buddies by spiking stories that make them look bad. In other words, the daily agenda on The HOur of Spin.

"What's worse is protecting your ideological buddies by spiking stories that make them look bad."

You mean like you for attacking KO for reporting the retration.... but NOT reporting Bill O's failure to report the retraction.

You're a hypocrite johnny.

Keith is evidently obsessed with Rush Limbaugh's penis. Three erection "jokes" in one "news" story, Keith? Nice going, Butthead:

"Will he get the last laugh, or was that premature jocularity?"

"We‘re all trying to get our ratings up, but this is ridiculous."

"Viagra is generally dispensed in units of 30 pills. In Palm Beach County, Sheriff Palenzuela reported Limbaugh was found to have 29 pills on him."

> You mean like you for attacking KO for reporting the retration.... but NOT reporting Bill O's failure to report the retraction.

Leaving aside entirely your claim that Bill never reported the retraction (an assertion for which you have no evidence, other than the untrusty, proven unreliable word of Krazy Keith), let me try to explain this slowly, so even you can understand it:

This is not O'Reilly Watch. You want O'Reilly Watch, go get yourself a blog and write it. This is Olbermann Watch. It's about the distortions, hidden agenda, and lies of the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann.

Let me make it even easier for you to understand:

Olbermann Watch: about Keith Olbermann.
O'Reilly Watch: about Bill O'Reilly.

Clear now?

What's worse is protecting your ideological buddies by spiking stories that make them look bad."

"You mean like you for attacking KO for reporting the retration.... but NOT reporting Bill O's failure to report the retraction."

That's a good point

Johnny said, "This is not O'Reilly Watch. You want O'Reilly Watch, go get yourself a blog and write it. This is Olbermann Watch. It's about the distortions, hidden agenda, and lies of the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann."
-----------------------------------------

Johnny, let me put it simply for you... tough shit.

If you're going to spend your time pointing out what you precieve as Keith Olbermann's lies and hypocricies, you better damned well be prepared for others to point out your lies and hypocrices.

Be a baby and cry all you want. But don't expect to be able to spew hate without being called out for your bullshit.

Did anyone not see this response coming from Johnny Dollar?

"Olbermann Watch: about Keith Olbermann.
O'Reilly Watch: about Bill O'Reilly."

"Leaving aside entirely your claim that Bill never reported the retraction (an assertion for which you have no evidence, other than the untrusty, proven unreliable word of Krazy Keith),"

I thought the whole point of your site was to document falsehood and spin from Keith? If this is the case it shouldn't be to hard for you to find evidence that Bill Retracted his statement. Therebye proving keith to be incorrect. The reason you haven't went after keith on this is because you know good and damn well Bill hasn't retracted his statement. You just don't care because he is a Republican talking head.

"let me try to explain this slowly, so even you can understand it:"

Johnny shut up, your an idiot and a coward.

"This is not O'Reilly Watch. You want O'Reilly Watch, go get yourself a blog and write it. This is Olbermann Watch. It's about the distortions, hidden agenda, and lies of the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann."

Whose biggest crime in your eyes is that he is a liberal. It has nothing to do with any of his tactics. How do I know this? because when presented evidence of the same tactics By O'Reilly you refuse to denounce it. But instead start Screaming " This is Olbermann watch! Don't talk about anyhting else, I am only interested in when Keith practices bad jouurnalism because he is a liberal. I don't care if someone elses practices it! I hate Keith! not people who practice questionale journalism!"

"Clear now?"

Crystal.

Oh by the way, I know you are afraid this question but perhaps you could settle an argument for me. A friend of mine is betting that if I ask you enough whether you think Bill O'Reilly is a Republican you will answer it. I have claimed that there is no way in hell you will ever answer that question, because, while you have detailed knowledge of guests on the factor, and talk about the show a fare amount and seem to be quite knowledgeable about it's content, you won't, answer because that would admit that bias exists in the news other than from KO and you couldn't stand that, because Liberal talking heads offend you far more than conservative ones.

Did anyone not see this response coming from Johnny Dollar?

"Olbermann Watch: about Keith Olbermann.
O'Reilly Watch: about Bill O'Reilly."

"Leaving aside entirely your claim that Bill never reported the retraction (an assertion for which you have no evidence, other than the untrusty, proven unreliable word of Krazy Keith),"

I thought the whole point of your site was to document falsehood and spin from Keith? If this is the case it shouldn't be to hard for you to find evidence that Bill Retracted his statement. Therebye proving keith to be incorrect. The reason you haven't went after keith on this is because you know good and damn well Bill hasn't retracted his statement. You just don't care because he is a Republican talking head.

"let me try to explain this slowly, so even you can understand it:"

Johnny shut up, your an idiot and a coward.

"This is not O'Reilly Watch. You want O'Reilly Watch, go get yourself a blog and write it. This is Olbermann Watch. It's about the distortions, hidden agenda, and lies of the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann."

Whose biggest crime in your eyes is that he is a liberal. It has nothing to do with any of his tactics. How do I know this? because when presented evidence of the same tactics By O'Reilly you refuse to denounce it. But instead start Screaming " This is Olbermann watch! Don't talk about anyhting else, I am only interested in when Keith practices bad jouurnalism because he is a liberal. I don't care if someone elses practices it! I hate Keith! not people who practice questionale journalism!"

"Clear now?"

Crystal.

Oh by the way, I know you are afraid this question but perhaps you could settle an argument for me. A friend of mine is betting that if I ask you enough whether you think Bill O'Reilly is a Republican you will answer it. I have claimed that there is no way in hell you will ever answer that question, because, while you have detailed knowledge of guests on the factor, and talk about the show a fare amount and seem to be quite knowledgeable about it's content, you won't, answer because that would admit that bias exists in the news other than from KO and you couldn't stand that, because Liberal talking heads offend you far more than conservative ones.

Did anyone not see this response coming from Johnny Dollar?

"Olbermann Watch: about Keith Olbermann.
O'Reilly Watch: about Bill O'Reilly."

"Leaving aside entirely your claim that Bill never reported the retraction (an assertion for which you have no evidence, other than the untrusty, proven unreliable word of Krazy Keith),"

I thought the whole point of your site was to document falsehood and spin from Keith? If this is the case it shouldn't be to hard for you to find evidence that Bill Retracted his statement. Therebye proving keith to be incorrect. The reason you haven't went after keith on this is because you know good and damn well Bill hasn't retracted his statement. You just don't care because he is a Republican talking head.

"let me try to explain this slowly, so even you can understand it:"

Johnny shut up, your an idiot and a coward.

"This is not O'Reilly Watch. You want O'Reilly Watch, go get yourself a blog and write it. This is Olbermann Watch. It's about the distortions, hidden agenda, and lies of the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann."

Whose biggest crime in your eyes is that he is a liberal. It has nothing to do with any of his tactics. How do I know this? because when presented evidence of the same tactics By O'Reilly you refuse to denounce it. But instead start Screaming " This is Olbermann watch! Don't talk about anyhting else, I am only interested in when Keith practices bad jouurnalism because he is a liberal. I don't care if someone elses practices it! I hate Keith! not people who practice questionale journalism!"

"Clear now?"

Crystal.

Oh by the way, I know you are afraid this question but perhaps you could settle an argument for me. A friend of mine is betting that if I ask you enough whether you think Bill O'Reilly is a Republican you will answer it. I have claimed that there is no way in hell you will ever answer that question, because, while you have detailed knowledge of guests on the factor, and talk about the show a fare amount and seem to be quite knowledgeable about it's content, you won't, answer because that would admit that bias exists in the news other than from KO and you couldn't stand that, because Liberal talking heads offend you far more than conservative ones.

> I thought the whole point of your site was to document falsehood and spin from Keith? If this is the case it shouldn't be to hard for you to find evidence that Bill Retracted his statement

I don't address this question for one simple reason: I don't know if Bill ran a retraction or not. And neither do you. The difference between us is that I try to avoid making definitive statements about stuff when I don't know the facts. You don't. And neither does Keith.

"I don't address this question for one simple reason: I don't know if Bill ran a retraction or not. And neither do you."

Actually, I do. I read Bill's transcripts from his last two shows. Then I read his radio transcipts. Nothing in there even mentioning Murtha.

That would be exactly zero apologies or retractions.

Go read them for yourself. It's not hard. And THEN talk to me about who didn't report what and your obvious hypocricy.

And whats more, Johnny...

Simply focusing in on Olbermann and his show... not looking to see what other news media, shows, talking heads are saying about the very same stories (i.e., OReilly reporting the allegations, but NOT the retractio) is irresponsible.

By doing that you miss out on something called CONTEXT. A pretty important part of accurate reporting. I'm just glad you're not a journalist. Just some guy with a keyboard, an axe to grind and a lot of lonely, time on his hands.

James:

I hate to stoop to your level, but you're an f***ing idiot!!!!!!!!

> Just some guy with a keyboard, an axe to grind and a lot of lonely, time on his hands.

Yeah, just like Keith, I have a keyboard, an axe to grind, and a lot of lonely time on my hands. But I don't have a bunch of emailers I can proposition and then unceremoniously dump.

John Paul said "I hate to stoop to your level, but you're an f***ing idiot!!!!!!!!"

Please... when have I EVER attacked someone with name calling? Look back in the archives of this website. I've never done it. You can't debate me factually, so you attack me with insults.

John Paul said, "you're an f***ing idiot!!!!!!!!"

A six year old can swear.

(nice job at paying proper respect to the man who's name it appears your using, too. Pope's love dropping the F-bomb)

Johnny said, "Yeah, just like Keith, I have a keyboard, an axe to grind, and a lot of lonely time on my hands."

Actually, no... Keith has a primetime TV show... and you don't.

Johnny also said, "But I don't have a bunch of emailers I can proposition and then unceremoniously dump."

And this has exactly what to do with his show??? Ahhh, yes. NOTHING. Remember, this site is about the liberal bias of his show. You don't want to stray away from your mission statement, do you?

Well, then he shouldn't be emailing his latest conquest during the show and sending her secret messages WHILE HE'S ON THE AIR TALKING TO THE CAMERA! Maybe then it wouldn't be about his show, would it?

"Well, then he shouldn't be emailing his latest conquest during the show and sending her secret messages WHILE HE'S ON THE AIR TALKING TO THE CAMERA! "

So, emailing someone while on the air means you have a liberal bias?

Come on... at least he's not abusing himself with a bathing instrument while harrasing an underling on the phone like some commentators.

I saw an unflattering picture of the MAN. To correct the above, here is another:

The liberals on the Supreme Court want all the terrorists seized on the battlefield to come into the USA for prosecution. Well, that seems pretty damn stupid to me.

I have read that the Prez has a contingency plan. After all, that idiot Kennedy (the justice idiot Kennedy, not the drunk idiot killer Kennedy or the drunk idiot druggie DUI Kennedy) was bound to vote ideologically. He could give two shits about the Constitution. What the contingency plan is remains to be seen , but transfer to where they were captured would be nice. Just send the wonderful jihadists back to Afghanistan to face the music there! When that happens, expect the jihadi pricks to fight like crazy to stay in Guantanamo.

Anyway, cheer for now liberal wackos! Your country has temporarily been undermined by wacky leftists with a pro-terror agenda. The main word in that sentence is "temporarily."

"Your country has temporarily been undermined by wacky leftists"
------------------------------------
You mean the US Supreme Court which is made up of more conservative appointments that liberal? Get your facts straight. Even the conservative SCOTUS saw Bush's plan was idiotic.

James, you are such a stupid turd.

Roberts had to recuse himself as he ruled on this exact subject (in the Government's favor) in the past.

The three other conservative justices voted in the Government's favor (Scalia, Thomas and Alito)

The remaining hacks decided to invent reasons to undermine our Military. If you think Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens are "Conservative," then you are truly disturbed. Anyway, congrats! Your side won! Whoopeee!

Let's bring all the jihadists to a town near you and let them have Moussaui-style billion dollar trials with slip and fall defense lawyers funded by jihadist sympathizers! Wonderful idea! Heck, why don't we just bring all of those maniacs over here and let you guard them, feed them, clothe them, provide the money it will cost to try them, and after they make a mockery of the system, you can handle the endless appeals as they busily make weapons in their cells to kill innocent guards. Remember the jihadis who stuck a knife through a guard's eye into his brain just for the sake of hurting an infidel? Well, these guys are just as bad or worse.

Now please tell us in your best blleding-heart fashion how these terrorists are people too and even though they might behead people they deserve due process etc. Please, go right ahead.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are generally thought of as the Court's conservative wing.

Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are generally thought of as the Court's liberal wing.

Justice Kennedy is considered a MODERATE CONSERVATIVE, and a swing vote who can determine the outcome of close cases.
------------------------------------
A previous poster said, "Roberts had to recuse himself as he ruled on this exact subject (in the Government's favor) in the past. "
---------------------------
Just an FYI... even IF Roberts voted, Bush's team still would have lost 5-4.

Gosh... just shot your theory right to hell, didn't I?

And just to follow on that... 7 of the current justices were Republican appointees. Only two were democratic.

"I don't address this question for one simple reason: I don't know if Bill ran a retraction or not. And neither do you. The difference between us is that I try to avoid making definitive statements about stuff when I don't know the facts. You don't. And neither does Keith"

Knowing how much shit I would take if in error, I did a search on google to see if I could find a retraction - I found nothing. Then I meandered over to Bill's website to see if I could find one - I couldn't. At this point Given the fact that no retraction could be found I concluded it dosen't exist. In fairness I suppose there could be one tucked away underneath Bill's bed but until someone comes forth with it I feel like I am on pretty safe ground.

Also I don't buy that you didn't know whether there was a retraction, your mission is to disprove Keith, If you could have caught him on something that simple you would have.

However this isn't about whether or not there is a retraction anyway. This is about the fact that it isn't Keith's tactics that offend you. If they did you would denounce them when practiced by anyone. No, you are offended that Keith is a liberal doing what he does.

> I feel like I am on pretty safe ground.

Good for you. You don't watch Bill's show, you don't listen to him on the radio, but you're on "safe ground" because Google didn't turn anything up. You are now qualified to host an hour of spin on MSNBC. You have exactly the thorough research abilities that such a program demands. In fact, with all that, you probably have more than Keith does!

> If you could have caught him on something that simple you would have.

Damn right I would have. But I can't. Because I haven't read every O'REilly transcript for the past three days, which is the research that would be required to do so. I don't feel that I'm on "safe ground" because a Google search didn't turn anything up. I prefer to stick with facts.

> it isn't Keith's tactics that offend you. If they did you would denounce them when practiced by anyone.

Thank you Kreskin. You have now moved from leaping to impossible conclusions based on a Google search to reading my mind. You have no idea why something offends me. Or did you learn this from another Google search?

Genius James typed:

>"Justice Kennedy is considered a MODERATE CONSERVATIVE"

According to whom? For God's sake, he voted for the KELO DECISION, the worst decision I have seen by these clowns in years. No conservative, moderate conservative, or libertarian believes the Government has the right to seize private property and give it to another private enterprise. That decision was a "touchstone" decision. It clearly defined who was a liberal and who wasn't. By the way, it is better to discuss these justices in terms of their interest in upholding the Constitution. The five clowns I mentioned love to re-write the Constitution via foreign law and "emanations and penumbras." By disregarding the Constitution, these morons essentially turn the Supreme Court into a political body, hence they can just decide how they want to rule and fill in the blanks. Bad for you, bad for me.

As for the fact that Souter, Stevens and Kennedy were appointed by Republicans, so what? That doesn't make them Conservative. The fact that they turned out to be liberal juustices (i.e. constitution-optional jurists) proves that they were poorly-chosen by those Presidents.

See these cases for Kennedy's conservative views. Again, I - along with the majority of educated people who pay attention - consider him a moderate-conservative

Anyway, here are the court cases...

Stenberg v. Carhart,
Bush v. Gore,
United States v. Lopez,
McConnell v. FEC,
Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger

Notice the Bush v. Gore decision which appointed Bush to his first term. I think that vote for the conservative mainstream is a bigger vote than the Kelo vote.

Again, can't dispute that the ultimate court in the land voted against the President.

Or, is the Supreme Court a member of the liberal media conspiracy, too. Conservatives lost this one. Accept it and move on.

Johnny wrote, "Because I haven't read every O'REilly transcript for the past three days,"
--------------------------

Don't worry, Johnny! I did for you! In fact, I went four days back, both on his TV and radio show. No apology from Bill-O to Murtha.

No thanks neccessary. I'm happy to do the research you never bother with!

YEAH sure you did. You read nonexistent transcripts of his radio show. And apparently instant transcripts of his last several tv shows. Wow, that's pretty convincing. I really believe that.

Johnny,

Great site!! I love seeing all the Olbyloons

in such a lather. Keep up the good work!

"ood for you. You don't watch Bill's show, you don't listen to him on the radio, but you're on "safe ground" because Google didn't turn anything up. You are now qualified to host an hour of spin on MSNBC."

I guess due to your reading problem you missed where I meandered over to Bill's site and read through the transcripts.

here I will post what I wrote again.

>> found nothing. Then I meandered over to Bill's >> website to see if I could find one - I couldn't

Hey maybe the retraction is with the weapons of Mass destruction? Anyone think it is in Syria?

"hank you Kreskin. You have now moved from leaping to impossible conclusions based on a Google search to reading my mind. You have no idea why something offends me. Or did you learn this from another Google search?"

No I "leaped" to this conclusion based on the fact that you won't denounce Bill O'Reilly for slamming Murtha incorrctly. Which implies that slamming people incorrectly dosen't bother you. I leaped to this conclusion based on the fact that in three months of reading through you silly site I have yet to see you ever denounce a conservative talking head once, for using tactics simliar to Keith. Which implies it dosen't offend you when a conservative does it. Not enought to write about it anyway.

But hey here is a simple test - a great opportunity to prove me wrong if you will. Denounce a Republican talking head for using some of the tactics you claim Keith uses. Anyone, How about O'Reilly for the Murtha issue?

P.S. are you ever going to answer the question I have asked you like 6 times?

> I meandered over to Bill's site and read through the transcripts.

You know what's funny about that? I think you're lying. I don't think he has transcripts of his last four radio and tv shows there. That makes me think you're a liar.

But I could be wrong. So give us the links to these eight transcripts. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html

http://www.billoreilly.com/

Let me know if you find a retraction in there. Heck, if anyone can find it let me know. I'm also looking for Jimmy Hoffa, If anyone can find him please let me know.

"You know what's funny about that? I think you're lying. I don't think he has transcripts of his last four radio and tv shows there. That makes me think you're a liar."

You know what's funny about that I feel the same way about you. But again ir dosen't matter, you still wouldn't denounce Bill for not making a retraction, If Bill were to say " I will never make a retraction!" You wouldn't denounce it. or if Bill O'Reilly mentioned that he won peabody when he didn't, you wouldn't denounce that or If he claimed new blood in the on going war against christmas by showing a year old clip from the Daily show, you wouldn't denounce that either would you?

Now Why is that John? I am really curious to know. It wouldn't be because you are nothing more than a Republican propagandist would it?

P.S. are you ever going to answer the question I have asked you like 7 times? I'm beginning to think you are scared. Let me refresh your memory in case you have forgotten.

Do you believe that Bill Oreilly is a conservative?

I will get my spanish dictionary out for the next post. maybe if I ask the question in another language you will respond.

"Note that Olbermann never bothered to report the embarrassing statement itself, only the retraction. As opposed to all the times KO falsely attributes quotes to, say, Bill O'Reilly, and never corrects his own mistakes."

You know the funny thing about this. I don't believe you. I think you are a liar. Would you mind publishing links to all the times Keith has made a mistake in regards to what Bill O'Reilly said and perhaps demonstrate why what he said is wrong. Please give me a link showing what Bill actually said, then conclude with links that demonstrate keith never retracted them.

hey if I'm wrong, what can I say? I'll apologize.

Johnny - I believe if you are going to challenge KO on Bill's retraction, it is your responsibility to find Bill's correction. It's not the hardest thing in the world to do - if bill has any journalistic standards, he will issue a retraction in the same forum (ie - tv show) in which the incorrect story ran. Simple. But you know what I don't expect that much from Bill, so show me where on radio or TV bill 'corrected' this story. Otherwise, I think any rational person knows there was no correction.

It's not the hardest thing in the world to look at 4 days of TV transcrips, ctrl F "murtha", and see what comes up.

awaiting your apology.

> I meandered over to Bill's site and read through the transcripts.

You know what's funny about that? I think you're lying. I don't think he has transcripts of his last four radio and tv shows there. That makes me think you're a liar.

But I could be wrong. So give us the links to these eight transcripts. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

Posted by: johnny dollar at June 29, 2006 09:00 PM
----
Prove he's a liar - toughguy.

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html

http://www.billoreilly.com/

Funny, I checked both of those sites and didn't find transcripts of any of this week's programs. So I guess, after saying I thought you might be a liar, I won't have to apologize.

>I believe if you are going to challenge KO on Bill's retraction, it is your responsibility to find Bill's correction.

Exactly so. But where did I challenge KO on Bill's retraction? I specifically did NOT address that point.

> It's not the hardest thing in the world to look at 4 days of TV transcrips

Especially when it's the JT form of transcripts, which are not transcripts at all.

> Would you mind publishing links to all the times Keith has made a mistake in regards to what Bill O'Reilly said and perhaps demonstrate why what he said is wrong.

Already done so. They're all right here, on this comprehensive site. Olbermann's false attacks, documented, proved, and settled beyond any doubt to a metaphysical certitude.

And as for JT's now proven false claim that he examined all the transcripts, see for yourself.

Now can we get back to the distortions and lies of the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann?

god bless -

Me: I believe if you are going to challenge KO on Bill's retraction, it is your responsibility to find Bill's correction.

You: Exactly so. But where did I challenge KO on Bill's retraction? I specifically did NOT address that point.

You again: "Leaving aside entirely your claim that Bill never reported the retraction (an assertion for which you have no evidence, other than the untrusty, proven unreliable word of Krazy Keith),"

KO says bill never never corrected. You called him "crazy" and demanded more evidence. You specifically DID address that, and challenged KO's claim that Bill never coorected, even with your litle "aside".

So - again - show me where bill corrected. Prolly be easier to just admit he didn't, cause i think you know there was never a correction.

> You called him "crazy" and demanded more evidence.

Well he is crazy, but I didn't demand more evidence. I said the evidence that he didn't was insufficient. Keith's word is worth about the square root of zero.

of course this is all moot now, as you'd know if you hadn't posted so precipitously. So again, let's get back to the lies of the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann!

There are partial transcripts of particular segments on the FNC site. On the BO.com site there are only summaries.

Not being an O'Reilly watcher, I can't tell what he did or didn't say. I also can't tell by reading a transcript, because they aren't complete. And the Miami Sun-Sentinel did not print the attraction until 6/28's morning paper, so there's no real point in checking before yesterday for a retraction from BO.

I don't actually see an accusation of KO being wrong about BO not giving a retraction in the synopsis. In fact, KO actually only asked (accusingly) if BO was going to give one. Never said he hadn't, as KO would have no idea what BO was doing on his show at the same time.

James wrote:

>I - along with the majority of educated people who pay attention - consider him a moderate-conservative

Nice try. If by "educated people" you mean college-aged kids, then you are probably right. If you mean adults who have been around to see Kennedy in action, then you are wrong. Sure, he has sided with the more conservative justices now and again, but he is not a consistent defender of the Constitution. Either you believe in the document or you don't. Kennedy thinks himself smarter than the founding fathers and in typical lib fashion picks and chooses when to be faithful to the Constitution.

Here is a New Yorker piece on Kennedy. It talks of his love of foreign law, an extremely leftist concept. You should keep in mind that the "Constitutionally sound" opinion is the only one that matters. These liberal justices often prefer to make up the law themselves.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050912fa_fact

>Over the past two years, [Kennedy] has become a leading proponent of one of the most cosmopolitan, and controversial, trends in constitutional law: using foreign and international law as an aid to interpreting the United States Constitution.

There is alot of foreign law out there. Cherry pick what you want and the Constitution becomes about as valuable as a roll of toilet paper. One day the justice sighting foreign law might choose the laws you don't like and then what? What if they choose Sharia law? That's foreign law, right?

gotta give that paint some time to dry so you can get out of that corner, huh. Fine. Subject changed, paint is drying, you may move on to more rantings.

Would it KILL you to admit o'reilly didn't correct? It would help your cred.

Scott, you are a clear-thinker. Obviously there are no transcripts on those sites, so our transcript-reading friend was not telling the truth.

> I don't actually see an accusation of KO being wrong about BO not giving a retraction in the synopsis.

Well, let's go to the KO transcript and see what he said:

Mr. O‘Reilly presumably stuck his fingers in his ears, or stuck something in them and went woo-woo-woo, I can‘t hear you, woo-woo-woo. And as to O‘Reilly, as his lying about Murtha suggests...

So not only does the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann claim O'Reilly would not make a retraction, he also accused him of "lying about Murtha"...for quoting from a newspaper report! But of course, as my post at 11:06 pm demonstrates, this issue is really settled. No?

> Would it KILL you to admit o'reilly didn't correct? It would help your cred.

Jeez, are you people purposely dense? See this comment thread, post from me, 11:06 pm. Will it kill you to admit he DID?

There is alot of foreign law out there. Cherry pick what you want and the Constitution becomes about as valuable as a roll of toilet paper. One day the justice sighting foreign law might choose the laws you don't like and then what? What if they choose Sharia law? That's foreign law, right?
--------

KfK- that was one of the dumbest posts you have ever subjected these fair boards to. Oh, and if you are going to go all legalese on us, it is spelled "cite" Need a 'cite' for that claim? OK - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cite.

Learn the history of how, and why, and when, Justices 'consider' how other people do things, and i'll think you'll see the idiocy of your 'sharia' claim.

Ouch, Johhny.

Suddenly got quiet in here, didn't it?

Anonymous,

I am glad you are so confident that "citing" foreign law is done systematically by these justices. I disagree. It is arbitrary, and it leads to opinions that deviate from the Constitution itself. As for Sharia law being a stretch, here are the words of Justice Kennedy:

>Writing for the majority in a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct."

Now what makes you think someone couldn't cite foreign law that, oh I don't know, affirmed the need to level a stone wall upon homosexuals? Oh yes, it won't happen in the immediate future, but stray from the Constitution, cite foreign law, and we're off to the races. It sure seems swell when the law cited suits your immediate needs. Why you want to trust 9 unelected judges to decide what foreign laws are relevant is beyond me. Now you tell me the system behind citing foreign law.

We'll I'll be damned - looks like he did - tonight. So hume was able to get the correction on yesterday's show, as was KO, but bill, didn't report until after KO called him on it.

Am I wrong - did he correct last night? Was he on the air last night?

Congratulations to Mr. Bill O'Reilly. He did step up and apologize for the Murtha mistake.

He's definately one-up'd Olbermann on this one.

I won't say Olbermann calling him out had anything to do with O'Reilly's apology... there's no way to know that. But, the 'we're sorry' should have come yesterday. The new info came out early enough for it to make his show at at 8pm est.

But, he DID apologize. He even acknowledged they just picked up the story - which virtually ever news organization does now - they didn't investigate themselves.

Keith needs to be quiet about this one now.

Just to be clear, O'Reilly airs at 8:00 pm but tapes earlier in the day. So even though Brit Hume had the correction at 6:30 pm, Mr Bill may have already finished taping by then. In fact, because he was in DC that night, he HAD to finish taping before Brit Hume even began, because you can't do two programs simultaneously in the same studio.

It is arbitrary, and it leads to opinions that deviate from the Constitution itself.

KfK, the more you talk, the more you sound like a Constitutional Party member. Next you'll be talking about repealing the Voting Rights Act, abolishing the Federal Elections Commission and the Federal Reserve, and withdrawing from NATO because it serves no useful purpose...

Anonymous

Now you have shown us your true self. Whatever you do, don't engage in a debate. Just change the subject.

As I suspected, you are worthless and a waste of time. James is a superstar compared to you.

Anonymous is right to avoid the foreign law question. He has no answer. He would need to be inside a justice's head to determine the reason a specific foreign law is cited. You see, these justices are much smarter than the guys who wrote the constitution. I say we let 'em do whatever they want! Borrow law from Germany when it supports what you want, avoid law from Australia if it contradicts your pre-planned decision. Forget about Irish law -- too "Catholicky." You know, just write your opinion and grab some supporting law from the ether! Swell!

"And as for JT's now proven false claim that he examined all the transcripts, see for yourself."

I examined everything I saw on the website. I missed that one and I will take repsonsability for it. So there it is, Bill retracted attacking Murtha and deserves credit for it.

"Now can we get back to the distortions and lies of the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann?"

Nope I want to see you denounce a Republican talking head for using the same tactics as Keith. Bill O'Reilly has still done a pretty fair amount of questionable things. Like airing the new attack on christmas with Comedy Central's year old footage. Do you approve of him doing that?

My entire assertion, in this argument has been, and remains, that you will not denounce a Republican talking head no matter what he does - That your attack on Keith is not based on his methods but on the fact that he is liberal. I still have seen nothing to change that opinion.

per JT:

"Nope I want to see you denounce a Republican talking head for using the same tactics as Keith. Bill O'Reilly has still done a pretty fair amount of questionable things. Like airing the new attack on christmas with Comedy Central's year old footage. Do you approve of him doing that?"

FYI: O'Reilly is not a Republican, he is an independent.

Anyway, I didn't see this because I don't watch O'Reilly all that much. But I fail too see any problem with it. Question: why is year old footage not relevant to a year later discussion of a trend that spans many years?

"My entire assertion, in this argument has been, and remains, that you will not denounce a Republican talking head no matter what he does - That your attack on Keith is not based on his methods but on the fact that he is liberal."

Perhaps that is true for others here. It is definitely not true for me. My problem with Olbermann is that he is so obviously phony. Every single assertion he makes is sarcastic. Every single question he asks is patently leading - loaded with unfounded assumptions, sneeringly unfair characterizations, and strongly directed conclusions. The program is unflinchingly one sided. He never ever has anyone on the program to defend an opposing viewpoint. The methodology is clear: stand safely behind a wall and take low blow cheap shots with impunity.

Look - I personally don't like O'Reilly very much. He in fact really is a blowhard sometimes (to his credit, he does admit that on occasion). But I'll never forget the obviously feigned outrage Olbermann directed at O'Reilly in a continuous five minute heavily invective laced diatribe for getting his facts confused when stating that US troops did some bad things during WWII just as they have may done recently in Iraq.

It was a remarkable display and remarkably transparent. So while O'Reilly may be a buffoon on ocassion, Olbermann is *always* dispicable... using personal attack, unsupported innuendo, and sneering sarcasim as the primary ingredients in every segment of the program.

His methods are infuriatingly unjust and lack even the slightest evidence of a truthful morality. That's why I personally attack him.

thanks,

-OM

per JT:

"Nope I want to see you denounce a Republican talking head for using the same tactics as Keith. Bill O'Reilly has still done a pretty fair amount of questionable things. Like airing the new attack on christmas with Comedy Central's year old footage. Do you approve of him doing that?"

FYI: O'Reilly is not a Republican, he is an independent.

Anyway, I didn't see this because I don't watch O'Reilly all that much. But I fail too see any problem with it. Question: why is year old footage not relevant to a year later discussion of a trend that spans many years?

"My entire assertion, in this argument has been, and remains, that you will not denounce a Republican talking head no matter what he does - That your attack on Keith is not based on his methods but on the fact that he is liberal."

Perhaps that is true for others here. It is definitely not true for me. My problem with Olbermann is that he is so obviously phony. Every single assertion he makes is sarcastic. Every single question he asks is patently leading - loaded with unfounded assumptions, sneeringly unfair characterizations, and strongly directed conclusions. The program is unflinchingly one sided. He never ever has anyone on the program to defend an opposing viewpoint. The methodology is clear: stand safely behind a wall and take low blow cheap shots with impunity.

Look - I personally don't like O'Reilly very much. He in fact really is a blowhard sometimes (to his credit, he does admit that on occasion). But I'll never forget the obviously feigned outrage Olbermann directed at O'Reilly in a continuous five minute heavily invective laced diatribe for getting his facts confused when stating that US troops did some bad things during WWII just as they have may done recently in Iraq.

It was a remarkable display and remarkably transparent. So while O'Reilly may be a buffoon on ocassion, Olbermann is *always* dispicable... using personal attack, unsupported innuendo, and sneering sarcasim as the primary ingredients in every segment of the program.

His methods are infuriatingly unjust and lack even the slightest evidence of a truthful morality. That's why I personally attack him.

thanks,

-OM

What kind of legitimate "newsman" refers to anouther journalist (several times a week) as "that bastard." The fake voice, the name calling, doctored photos. Three days of Rush uses Viagra jokes. All to get a laugh and a pat on the back from a few Liberal viewers and websites.

KO went on and on Wed. with, apparently, every job BO has left. KO has signed 14 contracts in 27 years. Think he wants to read a list of all the places he worked? He's a hypocrit.

Keith is not running a news program. Its a less funny version of the Daily Show, and a vehicle for KO to personally attack people with more viewers, listeners, or readers than him, or those he disagrees with.

It is almost impossible anymore to discuss KO without bringing up BO. It doesn't mean I'm a BO fan. I'm not. I watch BO less than I watch CD.

Olberboy is no newsman. He's a hack for the Left at best or for Jihadis at worst.

"FYI: O'Reilly is not a Republican, he is an independent"

He is now, that is true. He was Registered as a Republican From 1994 to 2000.

"Look - I personally don't like O'Reilly very much. He in fact really is a blowhard sometimes (to his credit, he does admit that on occasion)."

I agree with that. I would also throw in that I have seen him on occasion roast a conservative, and I watched him be very respectful and open to Wesley Clark the other day. But Bill has, just made up facts on his show. which is deplorable.

"Anyway, I didn't see this because I don't watch O'Reilly all that much. But I fail too see any problem with it. Question: why is year old footage not relevant to a year later discussion of a trend that spans many years?"

The problem with that is he passed it off as a new blow to the war on christmas as though it had just occured. On the radio Factor he claimed the video had aired the day before. If he came out front and said this is a video clip from last year demonstrating addittudes against christmas. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

"Perhaps that is true for others here. It is definitely not true for me. My problem with Olbermann is that he is so obviously phony"

I respect that, I have no problem with calling Olbermann on his shit and my attack on the factor is not to excuse anything Keith has done. I am trying to point out that over the years there has been been a dumbing down of the news media where it seems a lot of poor journalism is going on. Keith is the liberal symptom of the problem but O'Reilly has done similar things.

My problem with Johhny Dollar is that he refuses to critisize any of the behavior he sees from keith, when done by a conservative. instead he angrily responds with "This is Olbermannwatch" If it were Keith's methods that Johhny found deplorable wouldn't he be upset when anyone uses them? If someone demonstrates that a news figure other than KO had used a qustionable tactic shouldn't he respond with anger as well? I'm not saying he needs to document the errors of every media figure on the planet but come on, if I spend my life documenting the evils of Hitler and someone points out that Stalin Did similar things, wouldn't the correct response be to acknowledge that Stalin wasn't acting like a nice guy?

"But I'll never forget the obviously feigned outrage Olbermann directed at O'Reilly in a continuous five minute heavily invective laced diatribe for getting his facts confused when stating that US troops did some bad things during WWII just as they have may done recently in Iraq."

Well I have no idea whether his outrage was real or not, but I'll grant that it is silly. Veterans are obviously not on O'Reilly's hit list.

eauman I disagree with most of what I have seen you write on this site. To your credit though, I have always seen you remain civil in your debates. So Kudos. I will try to be more like you in that regard.

Johnny said, "O'Reilly airs at 8:00 pm but tapes earlier in the day. So even though Brit Hume had the correction at 6:30 pm, Mr Bill may have already finished taping by then. In fact, because he was in DC that night, he HAD to finish taping before Brit Hume even began, because you can't do two programs simultaneously in the same studio."
--------------------------------------------
All good points, Johnny. I hadn't thought of those, and I doubt anyone else had either.

Does OR ever go live? Or are all his shows taped?