Not a conspiracy Krazy Keith. Arresting someone for murder just to smoke out the real killer is some funny shit KO though!!

Nancy Grace slipped pasted the Krazy one in the 25-54 demo in Wednesdays ratings.
All together now Krazy Keith Fans..."WE ARE #4"

Look out CNBC KO is coming to get you....hehehehehe...lol.

Class? Decency? You're right there JD!

O'Reilly had Dennis Kucinich on the other night. Hey maybe Olby will have Newt on!

How silly of me!

Bill cover the Ramsey story for 45 mins. What happened to those Fox employees he is so worried about?

Just as a side note: MSNBC is about to lose its satellite radio outlet, when XM Radio drops the network's audio feed in early September, apparently to use the bandwidth for its new "Oprah & Friends" radio channel. XM still will simulcast Fox News, CNN and Headline News on its service.

The XM411 website had a thread on this today, including a few volleys back and forth about Keith, and even a link to Olbermannwatch.com (obviously not by one of Keith's supporters):

I would still like KO fans to explain why he's afraid to have anyone on his show that would disagree with him.O'Reilly dose so dose Hannity so why can't Olberman.

I know why..because he would loss it and storm off the set the first time he was challenge on one of his goofball claims.

just over at the amazon site

O'Reilly's book out 9-26-06. Ranked:3,972

Olby's book out 9-11-06....9-11? of all days to pick. Ranked:223,073

But it's a close 223,073

With his dismal ratings, I would think that Keith would be feeling the heat ... but I believe that honor will go to Dan Abrams. Top to bottom, MSNBC is one sorry cable news channel as rated by the only people that count -- viewers.

I would still like KO fans to explain why he's afraid to have anyone on his show that would disagree with him.O'Reilly dose so dose Hannity so why can't Olberman.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

If you think you are always right and those that disagree are morons that you must personally attack on a nightly basis because you are Krazy why have opposing views expressed to bore your minuscule audience. After all KO is not in this for ratings.

If you think you are always right and those that disagree are morons that you must personally attack on a nightly basis because you are Krazy why have opposing views expressed to bore your minuscule audience. After all KO is not in this for ratings.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

I believe that after all this time in 4th place..He can't be doing this for ratings.

I burst out laughing during the "Worst Person in the World" segemt. He taunted O'Reilly by saying (and I'm paraphrasing here; I don't have the exact quote.) "Unlike yours, this program is a news program. Yours is, well, I have no idea what yours is."

This came on the same program where hed led with the Ramsey story, had a "funny" story about the planets, and a highly promoted interview with Samuel L. Jackson. The only "news" he talked about was the NSA story.

NBC is Keith's tabloid each day
It's "the news show of record" they say
Meltdown is a joke
NBC's master "stroke"
For ratings Keith pimps JonBenet

It's not just Lefties that watch Olbermann. It's also the Sleeper Jihadi cells of Hizb'Allah and Al-Qaeda. Since Al Jazeera and Al-Mansur isn't available, Olbermann will have to do!

It seems that Olbermann's journalistic stylings rubbed off on Katy Tur.

How sad is it when she can't write two paragraphs without KTLA having to slap a "The Associated Press contributed to this report."

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:DiSGpeL5gv4J:ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-boxerdead,0,2301415.story%3Fcoll%3Dktla-newsspecial3-1+%22katharine+tur%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

Where is KfK?

12:43, that is hilarious, considering her whole little blurb only consists of FIVE SENTENCES! If the AP contributed to it, how much did she actually write?

I was watching O'Reilly tonight, as I do most nights, and flipped to Sportcenter... I mean Countdown... and was amazed by knucklehead's reasoning for putting Bill as his Worst Person. Especially because Bill took a segment to talk about how news programs erroneously reported information that wasn't confirmed, and turned out to be false, all yesterday because they wanted to carry the story.

Bill's argument - "Don't report the story until you're sure of the facts."

Obey's argument - "Report what you want to be true, then click your heels together, and maybe it will become true."

Other than that, his rant about Bill was humorous... inaccurate, self aggrandizing, egotistical, condescending, and utter nonsense... but it did keep my attention for the moment.

Incidentally... why does his set keep changing?

I thought he might be doing shows directly from the tub... I'm just waiting for a close up on a shower head to confirm.

Redd, the set keep changing because increasingly KO can't be troubled to drive (well, ride in a taxi) an extra 10 miles to the Secaucus studios, so he does the show in NY more and more.

Or maybe he is so disliked there now, its a good idea for him to stay away as much as possible.

Knuckleheads, Keith has been reporting from Los Angeles all week.

Sheesh, if you're gonna complain at least pay attention...

12:43, that is hilarious, considering her whole little blurb only consists of FIVE SENTENCES! If the AP contributed to it, how much did she actually write?

Posted by: Missy at August 18, 2006 12:48 AM
____________________________________________________

Missy, I thought the exact same thing when I saw found that link! LOL, I think she wrote "K-A-T-H-A-R-I-N-E T-U-R" and that's about it. Heck, that's 12 whole letters (yeah, but it's not fair since the A, T, and R repeat), what do you expect?

Keith has depth perception and cannot drive anyway since 1982. Unlike Bull O he takes public transportation.

So he's in LA-LA-Land... I thought I heard that... but here's the follow up questions--

He does this a lot... what's going on with him in LA?

The NY studio (or more correctly, NJ... next to the outlet malls) is without a doubt, one of MSNBC's nicest... so why does his LA studio have to look like he's shooting it in a closet?

Does his presence in LA make that dump of a city better or worse? I know it's hard to think of him improving... well, anything... but it's also hard to think of LA getting much worse.

So he's in LA-LA-Land... I thought I heard that... but here's the follow up questions--

He does this a lot... what's going on with him in LA?

The NY studio (or more correctly, NJ... next to the outlet malls) is without a doubt, one of MSNBC's nicest... so why does his LA studio have to look like he's shooting it in a closet?

Does his presence in LA make that dump of a city better or worse? I know it's hard to think of him improving... well, anything... but it's also hard to think of LA getting much worse.

Olbermann's presence anywhere means a place is rapidly in decline.

Anon: "Knuckleheads, Keith has been reporting from Los Angeles all week."

I would not call it "reporting from Los Angeles," as Keith does no "reporting" at all. His show is a compilation of hearsay and fictional conspiracy gleaned from the internet. Meltdown's script does not change whether Keith is in LA, Secaucus, or under his desk in his underground bunker with Eva Braun's sixteen year old great grand daughter.

Does anyone know exactly how many jobs Keith has been fired from?I found his criticism of O'Reilly's work record especially amusing.

Keith claims to have only been fired from one job, in Boston, however, many employers (read: ALL of them) just failed to renew his contract come contract renewal time. You do the math.

How soon before Krazy Keith is hosting "Amazing Home Vidoes" or appearing in an infomercial for the Ginsu knife?

. . . or hawking the newest formulation for ManTan in a Bottle?

Olberman is so stoopid he can't even figure out that the best way to dis somebody on TV is simply to not give them publicity. That is what Mr. Bill Orieley HAS figured out.

HA! You idiot Krazy Keeth. You do nothing but give your competition more play. I wonder how many viewers of the no spin factor are directly from Olberdummy advertising for it.

STOOOOOPID.

Anyone that tan is definitely gay.

I hate myself. Someone shoot me.

Does anyone know exactly how many jobs Keith has been fired from?

WCVB-TV boston
ESPN
MSNBC
Fox Sports Net

all were either firings, non contact renewals or olbermann being a dick to his co-workers and bosses (ESPN).

That is HILARIOUS!

Krazy Keith definitly does hate himself and wish to be dead. Hopefully, the copious amounts of mantan will give him melanoma and his filthy skin will fall off.

Kudos, "Krazy Keith"

"Does anyone know exactly how many jobs Keith has been fired from?"

Infinity times infinity infinity times. And they were all for being a big DICK. That stupid DICK is a DICKHEADED DICK.

HA

Hey, don't call me an Olberman. I'm a Dick and I'm offended by you equating me with Olberman.

HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

Sweeeet. This is getting good.

Let's all call Olberman instead of that, call him "Olberdick"

This is sweet.

I hope this teaches you a lesson Krazy Keith (I mean the real one, not the poster). You can't sit there and conduct felatio to the whole Islamic world everyday and not get BUSTED HARD!

You shit.

AWESOME!!!! Shithead is getting it in the ass!!!!

F-U-Keith
F-U-Keith
F-U-Keith

Comon, everyone!

loads of intelligence here today. when the hell is cox getting back.

loads of intelligence here today. when the hell is cox getting back.

Cocks IS BACK!!!!! SWEEEEEEEET!

Now he will chase off all these trolls so we can all sit around and talk intelligently about Olberdick all day! AWESOME!

Loads of intelligence here today. when the hell is cox getting back.

We need cocks!

Who thinks Olberman is full of it?

Please! Cox! We're desperate to talk about what a wonderful human being this prick Oberdick is, but there are too many potty-mouths and it makes us feel less intelligent when we point out how much we love Olberdick.

"Who thinks Olberman is full of it?"

I definitely do. I know he is. Full of shit, frankly.

SWEEEEEEEET!!!!

Another dog that didn't even whimper.... Did anyone notice the orange glow failed to say ANYTHING about the Fox News reporters that were taken hostage?!! I can't believe no one mentioned that! What a prick.

Let's see him talk about the fox cartoon news network when those guys show up as headless trunks in a river! That will shut that stupid fuck up.

I burst out laughing during the "Worst Person in the World" segemt. He taunted O'Reilly by saying (and I'm paraphrasing here; I don't have the exact quote.) "Unlike yours, this program is a news program. Yours is, well, I have no idea what yours is."

This came on the same program where hed led with the Ramsey story, had a "funny" story about the planets, and a highly promoted interview with Samuel L. Jackson. The only "news" he talked about was the NSA story.

OH SNAP!!! Say that again. I can't hear this kind of stuff enough. Keith's "news show" is little more than a cartoon of what comie fucking liberals wish would happen!

Finally someone on here gets it!

Perhaps you should read the article on the top of this page more closely, particularly the last paragraph, Hawkeye (ironic name!).

Oh shit! I didn't see that. Sorry. But my other point, that when those guys show up as mangled corpses, Keith is going to be on the hot seat.

I'm almost creaming waiting for it to happen! Not that I want them guys killed, but Keith is going to look like such a shit!

Tonight on Countdown

KO: New Reports have surfaced suggesting that president Bush, then govener of texas, assigned future members of his staff to arrange the murder of jonBenet Ramsey, so that he could use the story in some dispicable way to distract the american people from his future NSA spy program and itbeing shot down by the most intelligent and nonpartisan federal judge in the history of this country. Can these reports be true? could a president, even one with a such a history of diverting attention from bad news as this president has, be capable of this. We bring in now, new Senior Countdown Criminal Consultant, Osama Bin Laden.

Do you think those terrorist will kill the reporters? I hope not. But terrorists are scum and it can't help that these guys are for the only news channel that tells the fucking truth.

What would you think the odds are.

I bet Keith gets cancelled almost immediately if they get killed. He would be radioactive, having said all that stuff about fox.

screw the FOX crew ... who gives a shit ... couple more dead propagandists is all.

My guess is they get chopped and so does keith.

Every cloud has a silver lining!

I can hear the KO show the next day:

Today a couple shitty propagandists got killed by president Bush, who wanted to get my show cancelled.

Good bye and good luck to me.

i wasn't refering to your writeup on countdown jdollar. it was well done as usual. i was refering to the anon poster who seems to be talking to himself.

"screw the FOX crew ... who gives a shit ... couple more dead propagandists is all."

Yeah, I'm a stupid liberal and I care about people about the same as stem cells, because they are the same and all deserve to die!

this is getting stupid. I'm outta here.

Yeah, I'm an idiot and if I can't talk smart about Olberman, I'll just go off and suck his cox.

I bet Keith gets cancelled almost immediately if they get killed. He would be radioactive, having said all that stuff about fox.

My guess is they get chopped and so does keith.

I'm almost creaming waiting for it to happen! Not that I want them guys killed, but Keith is going to look like such a shit!

---------

the oblywatch fantasy circle-jerk continues ...

What you see here is each network's 'share', by hour for his latest nightly ratings (all viewers), of the cable news viewing audience, according to TVNewser, by hour. It was a simple excel calculation. Here goes: first group is the actual numbers, the second group is the 'share' of the sum of all numbers by hour.
You can see that for MSNBC, Keith has the lowest 'share' of any show on MSNBC (except for Prison TV). The hour before him gets a 17.4 share, then MSNBC's precipitous drop for Keith's show to an 11.6, then a jump up for Jolly Joe's Happy Hour 18.1 share.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11
FNC 1313 1421 1208 2119 1768 1844 1224
CNN 796 903 816 870 817 933 840
MSNBC 598 409 529 492 667 398 423
HLN 283 246 286 613 342 360 259
CNBC 219 228 203 139 98 146 47
Totals 3209 3207 3042 4233 3692 3681 2793

FNC % 40.9% 44.3% 39.7% 50.1% 47.9% 50.1% 43.8%
CNN% 24.8% 28.2% 26.8% 20.6% 22.1% 25.3% 30.1%
MSNBC% 18.6% 12.8% 17.4% 11.6% 18.1% 10.8% 15.1%
HLN% 8.8% 7.7% 9.4% 14.5% 9.3% 9.8% 9.3%
CNBC% 6.8% 7.1% 6.7% 3.3% 2.7% 4.0% 1.7%

"i wasn't refering to your writeup on countdown jdollar. it was well done as usual."

Well done? Try brilliant you fuck. I don't sit around thinking up a comedy sketch about oberdick all day just so you can dis me. Did you see how I predicted that he would say the ruling was stunning, and then, amazingly, he did! I was like "Oh shit...score one for middle management."

Sweeeeeeet!

Most people in the world are smart. Hence, if a show has higher ratings, it means it is a smarter show. The only way to get ratings is by putting on real news and then not "spinning" it, or doing stunts, or acting like a prick as Olberman does, because people know when they are being maniputlated and turn it off.

Most people in the world are smart. Hence, if a show has higher ratings, it means it is a smarter show.

just another ignorant dumbshit republican.
the number one show in the world is BayWatch RERUNS.
the number one show in america is american idol.

Olberman's problem is that he is trying to get ratings by spewing the same limp-dicked pro-terrorist garbage that comes from every other single show in the media. That is why Fox gets the ratings. They are the only outlet for the 1% of America that isn't freaking bedwettign liberal lossers, while the other 15 stations all try and divide up the 99% of Americans that are limp wristed nanny-staters. So Fox kicks their asses.

Simple math

I laugh when I hear you people say that Sean Hannity has a person to contradict him on his show. Colmes is not competition for Hannity, I'm sorry. Colmes is either agreeing with Hannity, or when they "argue," Hannity almost always manages to win. Funny how that works.

na-na-na-nana-na-na-nana....OLBER-MANN...na-na-na-nana-na-na-nana...OLBERMANN...na-na-na-nana-na-na-nana...OLBERMANN...OLBERMANN...OLBERMANN.

"I'm almost creaming waiting for it to happen! Not that I want them guys killed, but Keith is going to look like such a shit!"

So you're a real weirdo and, although you claim the opposite, you really would like to see someone get killed so that Keith Olberman will look like an idiot. You're disgusting.

Olberman's problem is that he is trying to get ratings by spewing the same limp-dicked pro-terrorist garbage that comes from every other single show in the media. That is why Fox gets the ratings. They are the only outlet for the 1% of America that isn't freaking bedwettign liberal lossers, while the other 15 stations all try and divide up the 99% of Americans that are limp wristed nanny-staters. So Fox kicks their asses.

i wish I could meet you person so i could kick your bitch ass.

"Colmes is either agreeing with Hannity,"

Why don't you list the issues where Colmes agrees with Hannity and takes the conservative position. That should be easy to do unless, of course, you just make stuff up as you go along.

"or when they "argue," Hannity almost always manages to win."

That could be because he's correct, and Colmes is wrong, no?

"That could be because he's correct, and Colmes is wrong, no?"

Yes, because he is a liberal and so must be stupid. You probably do think that Hannity is always right. Just the other day I heard him say the the economy has been doing well for the last three years. I almost started laughing when I heard that. Next Hannity's going to say that Al Qaeda and Saddam were connected in relation to 9/11. If Hannity had Al Franken on his show, I think Hannity's brain would explode, seeing as how he wouldn't be able to lie for a prolonged period of time.

"That could be because he's correct, and Colmes is wrong, no?"

Yes, because he is a liberal and so must be stupid. You probably do think that Hannity is always right. Just the other day I heard him say the the economy has been doing well for the last three years. I almost started laughing when I heard that. Next Hannity's going to say that Al Qaeda and Saddam were connected in relation to 9/11. If Hannity had Al Franken on his show, I think Hannity's brain would explode, seeing as how he wouldn't be able to lie for a prolonged period of time.

Olbermann to Jim Warren, Washington bureau chief for the Chicago Tribune, August 18:
"Can Ken Starr ignore the apparent breadth of the sympathetic response to the President’s speech? I mean, facially, it finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler, including the glasses. If he now pursues the President of the United States, who, however flawed his apology was, came out and invoked God, family, his daughter, a political conspiracy and everything but the kitchen sink, would not there be some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?"

The next night, August 19, Olbermann told his viewers:
"For months since I have looked at videotape of Kenneth Starr’s face I have thought he looks like somebody famous from history, but who? Not long ago it dawned on me and yesterday, in a question to one of my guests, I mentioned it, that facially Ken Starr reminded me of Heinrich Himmler, including the glasses, the infamous Nazi. We got a number of calls from people who were offended by that remark, who thought I was comparing Starr to Himmler and insulting Starr or who thought I was comparing Starr to Himmler and demeaning the terrible importance of the Holocaust. And to those people who were offended I sincerely and humbly apologize. I meant only what I said. Facially, the two men look vaguely alike. But I am primarily of German descent, so I carry with me an inherited shame and guilt about this. So despite the innocence of the intent of my remark there, I should have been much more sensitive about invoking that name in this context and for having not been so I am very sorry."

OK, we'll try it again, more slowly so you can understand...

Why don't you list the issues where Colmes agrees with Hannity and takes the conservative position?

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/images4/obermancap.jpg

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_Rth2EuZENeoAAY6jzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=127idvpav/EXP=1156015094/**http%3a//www.thebestlinks.com/images/8/8d/Himmler.jpg

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_Rq64EuZETE0BPtWjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=127s042mg/EXP=1156015160/**http%3a//blogs.oc.edu/news/archives/Ken_Starr_web.jpg

The Orange Boy's patholological antipathy towards conservatives has now grown to the point where he is unable to bring himself to apologize for invoking Nazi imagery against his vastly superior competition, even as he hypocritically chides others for invoking Nazi references against opponents. At least KK had not descended so far into mental derangement back in 1998 (as he now has) that he was unable to offer an apology to Ken Starr for comparing him to a Nazi.

12:41 p.m., I could actually see the MSM reporting such a story!

Oh yeah, the physical resemblance between Himmler and Starr is unmistakable. . well except for the cleft chin that Himmler has that Starr doesn't. Oh and Himmler's ears are markedly smaller than Starr's. . you know, the eyebrows don't match up either-- Himmler's are bushier. And the mustache--Himmler has one, Starr doesn't. Hmmm what else? Well, really the shape of the face isn't anywhere close either-- Starr has more of a round face and Himmler has a longer more angular face. And the nose of Himmler is stong and pronounced while Starr has a more bulbous nose.

Why go the trouble to note the dissimilarity in appearance between these two? Because Olbermann CLAIMED that the only reason he linked Himmler and Starr was because of their physical similarity when it's obvious they aren't similar looking at all. So why did Olbermann try to link Himmler and Starr? Because Olbermann is a twisted sick a--hole who tells others they are the Worst Person in the World when he himself easily oudistances all those to whom he has bestowed this "honor".

INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS DOUBT IRAN URANIUM CLAIMS
Cheney receiving suspect briefings

The Bush administration continues to bypass standard intelligence channels and use what some believe to be propaganda tactics to create a compelling case for war with Iran, US foreign experts and former US intelligence say. One former senior intelligence official is particularly concerned by private briefings that Vice President Dick Cheney is getting from former Office of Special Plans (OSP) Director, Abram Shulsky. "Vice President Cheney is relying on personal briefings from Shulsky for current intelligence on Iran," said this intelligence official.

Shulsky, a leading Neoconservative and member for the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), headed the shadowy and secretive Department of Defense's OSP in the lead-up to the Iraq war -- helping to locate intelligence that would support the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq. Several foreign policy experts, who wish to remain anonymous, have expressed serious concern that much like the OSP, the ID is manipulating, cherry picking, and perhaps even -- as some suspect -- cooking up intelligence to lead the U.S. into another conflict, this time with Iran. In the build-up to the Iraq war, Cheney relied on intelligence almost exclusively from the OSP, which leveled allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was later debunked, but no OSP or DOD officials were held accountable for what many believe was a "deliberate effort" to mislead the nation into war.

>That could be because he's correct, and Colmes >is wrong, no?

Actually I would have to disagree with the above statement and by Colmes do you mean the
"liberal to be named later," hand chosen by Sean Hannity to be his opponent?

Hmm, I wonder if that has something to do with Sean's victories? Hmm, you think maybe Colmes was picked for his conciliatory seemingly conflict avoidant personality? I mean he is a "very moderate" guy to quote Colmes on himself. Maybe that is how he became Sean Hannity's "Favorite Liberal."

Hard to say. but gosh from my end the show looks rigged. and even it is not, the majority of liberals I know, or whose column’s I read, seem to complain about the show being imbalanced so at the very least can conclude that that we liberals feel another liberal would make the show more balanced. Colmes doesn't represent us well. While were on the subject why is it always conservatives who defend Colmes?

Lying Traitorous Dunce Upset With Populace for Noticing Unconstitutional Crimes

WASHINGTON -- During a short press conference at Camp David today, President Bush responded to a recent ruling that a NSA domestic surveillance program was unconstitutional. Bush said that he "strongly disagreed" with the decision and implied that the judge's decision would prevent investigators from listening to some terrorist communications. Bush became more agitated after condemning the judge's ruling saying, "If Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they're calling."

"hand chosen by Sean Hannity to be his opponent?"

Sean Hannity hired him? And here I thought it was Roger Ailes. More spin crap from the deluded.

"I mean he is a "very moderate" guy"

He's also a very liberal guy, to quote Colmes himself. So I'll try for a third time. If Colmes is such a moderate, if he agrees with Hannity so often, then do one simple thing:

List the key issues where Colmes agrees with Hannity and takes the conservative position.

If you can't, then keep in mind that at Olbermann Watch we don't suffer frauds gladly, and bugger off.

"Why don't you list the issues where Colmes agrees with Hannity and takes the conservative position."

You caught me. I don't have any examples. The guy above helped me tremendously.
But now, let's try again more slowly, so that you can understand. Hannity claimed that the economy has done well under the Bush Administration. Please, explain that to me. Because from what I can tell, due to rising gas prices, people don't have as much money to spend on other things now. From my understanding of economics, the gas prices will lead to a reduction in spending power for anyone who drives. This then causes the demand for everything else to go down. Then, the suppliers aren't able to supply as much. Layoffs occur in the companies that can no longer afford workers; usually the unskilled positions go. The economy lags even further due to the fact that more people can no longer afford to buy as much due to their unemployment... and repeat. Say that gas prices went down though, and people were able to buy more cars. Then all of a sudden certain industries do much better and are able to hire more workers. Demand for cars, trucks, SUV's goes up due to the lower gas prices. the recession ends and economic recovery occurs. Amazing thought right? However, as long as most of America has a dependence on oil and significant advances in renewable sources of energy are not invested in, and, coincidently, Halliburton and other big oil companies continue to have record profits (Congress even asked the oils bigs about this a while ago, but the prices continue to go up) this will not happen. Yay Bush and co.

I could actually see the MSM reporting such a story!
Posted by Missy at August 18, 2006 03:46 PM

"Hannity claimed that the economy has done well under the Bush Administration. Please, explain that to me."

Why do I give a crap what Hannity said? This is Olbermann Watch, and you keep bringing up Hannity. You're the one who insisted that he's so smart that he keeps beating Alan Colmes night after night. You think Hannity is so brilliant, YOU explain it. But do it somewhere other than Olbermann Watch.

Also, you got your answer about how the show is criticized as being unbalanced. "hmm.... let me just pull out that list of issues that Colmes and Hannity disagree about from under my desk here. Ohh wait, that doesn't exist." Answer the economy claim by Hannity; stop skirting the other point I made in my post. Ohh, something else to chew on. In a study conducted by FAIR, more Fox viewers believed that Al-Quada and Saddam hussein were connected and that WMD's had been found in Iraq. It was also found that Hannity had nothing to do with that statistic. ;)

"Why do I give a crap what Hannity said? This is Olbermann Watch, and you keep bringing up Hannity. You're the one who insisted that he's so smart that he keeps beating Alan Colmes night after night. You think Hannity is so brilliant, YOU explain it. But do it somewhere other than Olbermann Watch."

Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, "enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral." And that's not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades.

J$:

That's the typical Kossack/Olbermann lover modus operandi:

Never engage the topic at hand; instead, divert attention and attack a different and unrelated angle to hijack a thread away from a sure defeat.

"'Hannity claimed that the economy has done well under the Bush Administration. Please, explain that to me.'

Why do I give a crap what Hannity said? This is Olbermann Watch, and you keep bringing up Hannity. You're the one who insisted that he's so smart that he keeps beating Alan Colmes night after night. You think Hannity is so brilliant, YOU explain it. But do it somewhere other than Olbermann Watch."

Come on, answer my question about the economy. You know you can.

"Also, you got your answer about how the show is criticized as being unbalanced."

I did? Let's see what I asked:

> Why don't you list the issues where Colmes agrees with Hannity and takes the conservative position?

Now you claim I got my answer? Where the list? THERE ISN'T ANY. So all this crap about Colmes is this and Colmes is that is a bunch of lies. Take 'em somewhere else. This is Olbermann Watch, not Hannity Watch. Consider this a formal invitation to bugger off.

"Why do I give a crap what Hannity said? This is Olbermann Watch, and you keep bringing up Hannity. You're the one who insisted that he's so smart that he keeps beating Alan Colmes night after night. You think Hannity is so brilliant, YOU explain it. But do it somewhere other than Olbermann Watch."

Sign, Sign, everywhere a sign.
Blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind.
Do this, Don't do that!
Can't you read the sign?!

Yeah, I told you that, like the one guy said, it has been criticized as being unbalanced. I'd ask you for a list of things that Olberman says but I think you might actually have one, seeing as this is what you do here. And for those of you that care, he/she hasn't yet answered my question about the economy yet. I'm out man. 80 days 'till the country is saved from all the crap that's gone on the last 6 years.

Yeah, I told you that, like the one guy said, it has been criticized as being unbalanced. I'd ask you for a list of things that Olberman says but I think you might actually have one, seeing as this is what you do here. And for those of you that care, he/she hasn't yet answered my question about the economy yet. I'm out man. 80 days 'till the country is saved from all the crap that's gone on the last 6 years.

"Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me,"

"tens of thousands over the past several decades"

Ahhhh, anonymous sources, you, my friend, have been watching olbermann too long.

"That's the typical Kossack/Olbermann lover modus operandi:

Never engage the topic at hand; instead, divert attention and attack a different and unrelated angle to hijack a thread away from a sure defeat."

Just like he did with my economy challenge. I said I don't have a list. Stop getting on about it. I've now moved on to something more important, like the economic state of America, which sucks. I've presented a challenge. Answer it.

low unemployment

solid gdp growth

healthy stock market

if not for gas prices, (which are still much higher in the rest of the world), we'd be doing pretty damn well.

Oh, so you lie about Alan Colmes, which is off-topic. When caught in a lie you don't admit you lied, but want to change the topic to Sean Hannity, which is off-topic. Then you want me to engage you in a discussion about the economy, which is off-topic. This is Olbermann Watch and all you want to talk about is one off-topic subject after another. And you've already revealed yourself to be a fraud, making up stuff and when you're caught you just change the subject.

If you're going to lie about someone, lie about Keith Olbermann. At least then you'd be on topic.

4:34 PM:

OK, I'll feed the troll:

If you think Conservatives are such, then why is it your side has supported thugs like Castro, Chavez,binLaden, post-1990 Saddam, the Mullahs in Iran, the Communists in Nicaragua, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin,Mao and Arafat?

This is Olbermann Watch and all you want to talk about is one off-topic subject after another.

"The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are."

>Sean Hannity hired him? And here I thought it was Roger Ailes. More spin crap from >he deluded.

Jesus this like the 12th argument I have had with you and I have to say this Check out HOOKED ON PHONICS YOU DUMB SHIT. that is not what I wrote. here I will cut and paste it for you.

"hand chosen by Sean Hannity to be his opponent?"

See! Would you like an audio version read by me as well? Please tell me where you see any mention of who hired who.

Hannity indicated his preference for Colmes (or the liberal to be named later)and then Colmes was hired.

>> He's also a very liberal guy, to quote Colmes himself.

He also has a conciliatory nature which is, I would guess, how he became Hannity’s ‘Favorite Liberal” Oh and think you can come up with a quote before the show? Maybe before he was cast as the liberal opposition?

>>So I'll try for a third time. If Colmes is such a moderate, if he agrees with Hannity so >>often, then do one simple thing: List the key issues where Colmes agrees with Hannity >> and takes the conservative position

Sorry Dippy Do. My contention has never been that he agrees with Hannity on core issues. Although I’m sure if I looked I could find some since he is a ‘self described “moderate” You are arguing with me and another guy. I know how you love to straw man arguments but you should really try responding to what I actually wrote.

>If you can't, then keep in mind that at >Olbermann Watch we don't suffer frauds gladly, >and bugger off.

I laughed pretty hard at this line of bullshit. you are the consummate fraud. but first, why should I have to produce this? my contention is that Colmes or the "liberal to be named later" is not someone LIBERAL's feel represent them. See the distinction? It’s kind of like how you would bitch and moan if I turned to John Dean to represent the conservative position. Got it? We’d like someone else.

So as much as you like defending your ‘Favorite liberal” We liked to see him go. Maybe in favor of someone who will go toe to toe with Hannity.

Now get the hell out of here with your nonsense. an area with no spin means no republican spin as well.

the whiny kids become conservatives? Uhhh, which side is it that always whines about things not being fair and right? WHich side always protests? Which side has the ACLU?

the above was posted by me.

that is anonymous 04:57 PM

glad to see you've come around jt

just jokin

If you think Conservatives are such, then why is it your side has supported thugs like

"As insecure children grow into insecure adults, their chief coping mechanism with the overwhelming uncertainly of life is to view the world in simplistic terms of 'us' versus 'them' and 'with us' or 'against us'. Because of their inherent insecurities, they lack the capacity to integrate people places and things which are different from themselves -- without resorting to the immature, albeit comforting, dualities first learned in childhood."

"a ‘self described “moderate”"

Who wrote a book about how liberal he is? Right.

"My contention has never been that he agrees with Hannity on core issues."

Oh really?

"Colmes is either agreeing with Hannity,"

OK, so what does he agree with Hannity on? I've asked three times for a list and YOU CAN'T PROVIDE ONE. Here we are at Olbermann Watch and all you want to talk about is Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, and you can't even tell the truth about them.

"Now get the hell out of here with your nonsense."

You really shouldn't be so authoritarian. In case you forgot, I am a contributor to this site. You are merely an off-topic troll who gets caught in lies and thinks name-calling and vulgar language can distract people from your embarrassment at being caught in the act. What will you do next to avoid admitting you lied? Here's a creative idea: post some cartoons!

In case you forgot, I am a contributor to this site. You are merely an off-topic troll

"As these 'grown children' move about the threatening world, they compensate for their insecurities by becoming both inwardly narcissistic and outwardly obsessed with rules and regulations. As a result, they have a grandiose sense of self-importance, inextricably coupled with an inflated sense of entitlement. As a result, they insist that those around them should -- and must -- recognize their 'special' traits, and as a result, defer to their imagined sense of self importance."

>Who wrote a book about how liberal he is? Right.

Again do you have something before he was cast "As the liberal to be named later"

>Oh really?
>>"Colmes is either agreeing with Hannity,"

Yes really. Mike wrote that. Not JT this is the second time you have atrribured things to me Ididn't write. this is a lie. admit you have lied.

>OK, so what does he agree with Hannity on? I've >asked three times for a list and YOU CAN'T >PROVIDE ONE.

Since this has not been my contention i don't feel the need to provide this. Please notice the post from JT.

>Here we are at Olbermann Watch and all you want >to talk about is Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, >and you can't even tell the truth about them.

I have told nothing but the truth about them, and I jumped in a thread to respond to YOUR post. Maybe you should try a little harder to stay on topic.

>You really shouldn't be so authoritarian. In >case you forgot, I am a contributor to this >site. You are merely an off-topic troll who >gets caught in lies and thinks name-calling and >vulgar language

1) I responded to you in this thread. 2) You have not caught me in a lie. 3) I will talk to you in any manner I please. if you want to be treated with respect you will have to be respectful. As for being a regualr contributor I'm not impressed. Your writing has usually been pretty incoherent.

>What will you do next to avoid admitting you >lied? Here's a creative idea: post some >cartoons!

Don't like cartoons but thanks! maybe you could talk to your buddy nick about that. you guys can have a great big slumber party!

hey anon 5:24, are you by chance olbermann's theorapist?

JT, as long as people continue to use fake names, initials, and anonymous because they are too cowardly to reveal themselves, people can't tell if it's JT posting as anon, or Mike, or whoever. You adopted the argument that he agrees with Hannity, and tried to refine it by claiming you weren't talking about "core issues". THEN WHAT WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Let's have the list.

"defer to their imagined sense of self importance"

by the way, its not imagined, Jdollar is an administrator.

Tell me, what does that textbook your using say about creepy people who cling to psychoanalysis to solve all there problems instead of thinking for themselves.

"The judge in effect upheld the ruling of the FISA court which says that 'if you want to wiretap phones you need a warrant to do so'. The court was created by Congress in 1978 I think it was and the law of the land says, 'Get a warrant'. The actions of the administration have ignored the law of the land in that regard. So it's not a discussion in the abstract. It's not hypothetical. There are laws on the books against what the administration is doing."

"The problem is the lack of authority. You know, when Gonzales says, 'I've got something back in my safe, and if you could see it, you'd all agree with me', well, unless there's a federal statute in his safe, then it's not going to make a difference."

I hear penguin tastes like CHICKEN!!!!! Acts like 'em, too.

"One of the most important things that this judge did is to say, Look, I'm looking at whether you have authority to do this. And I can do that without looking at all of these secret documents you're referring to. You need to show me a statute. You need to show me part of the Constitution. If a court of appeals upholds this judge, it means that the president could well have committed a federal crime, not once but 30 times. And so that's the difficult implication."

>JT, as long as people continue to use fake >names, initials, and anonymous because they are >too cowardly to reveal themselves, people can't >tell if it's JT posting as anon, or Mike, or >whoever.

Well that's fine if you are OK with me attributing hawkeye guy's views to your own. i don't know what everyone else wrote on the matter. I was skimming through, read your post and responded.

>You adopted the argument that he agrees with >Hannity,

Where did I do this? The closest i think I may have come to this is calling Colmes a moderate. Actually I didn't even call him that. he called himself that and i posted it.

>and tried to refine it by claiming you >weren't >talking about "core issues". THEN WHAT WERE YOU >TALKING ABOUT? Let's have the list.

I pointed out that i think Colmes is a weak counterpoint to Hannity. I even suggested that this was intentional on the part of Fox news by their coming up with a show based on Sean Hannity and "a liberal to be named later"
I pointed out that fox hired the guy Hannity wanted. i pointed out that i think Colmes has a concilitory nature and that perhaps is the reason he is Hannity's "Favorite liberal." I also said I suppose if I looked hard enough that I could find issues a Core issue that Hannity and Colmes agree on but, stated that i felt no reason to di it because it is not the crux of my argument. the crux of my argument is that Liberals don't feel represented by Colmes anymore than I think you would feel represented by john Dean.

>JT, as long as people continue to use fake >names, initials, and anonymous because they are >too cowardly to reveal themselves, people can't >tell if it's JT posting as anon, or Mike, or >whoever.

Well that's fine if you are OK with me attributing hawkeye guy's views to your own. i don't know what everyone else wrote on the matter. I was skimming through, read your post and responded.

>You adopted the argument that he agrees with >Hannity,

Where did I do this? The closest i think I may have come to this is calling Colmes a moderate. Actually I didn't even call him that. he called himself that and i posted it.

>and tried to refine it by claiming you >weren't >talking about "core issues". THEN WHAT WERE YOU >TALKING ABOUT? Let's have the list.

I pointed out that i think Colmes is a weak counterpoint to Hannity. I even suggested that this was intentional on the part of Fox news by their coming up with a show based on Sean Hannity and "a liberal to be named later"
I pointed out that fox hired the guy Hannity wanted. i pointed out that i think Colmes has a concilitory nature and that perhaps is the reason he is Hannity's "Favorite liberal." I also said I suppose if I looked hard enough that I could find issues a Core issue that Hannity and Colmes agree on but, stated that i felt no reason to di it because it is not the crux of my argument. the crux of my argument is that Liberals don't feel represented by Colmes anymore than I think you would feel represented by john Dean.

JT, dont bring me into this

Tell me, what does that textbook your using say about creepy people who cling to psychoanalysis to solve all there problems instead of thinking for themselves.

"The typical conservative authoritarian, when confronted with new ideas or concepts he does not understand, will react in an almost robotic fashion, to belittle the institution or individual which delivers the very message which they cannot comprehend, or by which they feel themselves threatened. Attacking the messenger, if you will. As these individuals age, their robotic responses to anything threatening become more ingrained, as to be almost autonomic, if not pavlovian, in their nature. It's very similar to the behaviors exhibited by certain breeds of attack dogs who have been trained to respond automatically -- to any situation -- and certainly without much thought, insight, or employed intelligence."

JT: If you never claimed colmes agrees with Hannity and I am incorrect, then I apologize.

"calling Colmes a moderate. Actually I didn't even call him that. he called himself that and i posted it."

Alan Colmes never described himself as "a moderate". He has consistently described himself as a liberal. Not that it makes one infinitesmal bit of difference because it's a total, complete distraction.l

"Liberals don't feel represented by Colmes"

Aww, that's too bad. What the crap do I care about how liberals feel about Alan Colmes? And how is John Dean, who is clearly a liberal Democrat, possibly an analogous issue. Here's a challenge for you JT. Tell me any issues where Alan Colmes disagrees with John Dean, since you're apparently trying to pass Dean off as some sort of Republican or conservative.

And what in the wide world of sports does it have to do with Olbermann? Take it somewhere else.

And what in the wide world of sports does it have to do with Olbermann? Take it somewhere else.

>>Alan Colmes never described himself as "a >>moderate". He has consistently described >>himself as a liberal. Not that it makes one

You are wrong. I don't have my source material in front of me now, but i will find it later Colmes has said "I am very moderate."

"Liberals don't feel represented by Colmes"

>Aww, that's too bad. What the crap do I care >about how liberals feel about Alan Colmes? And >how is John Dean, who is clearly a liberal >Democrat, possibly an analogous issue.

John Dean has said he still considers himself a conservative. Just because he disagrees with the NeoCon's it is still possible to have a viewpoint that swings right. but hey, suprise! you missed the point.

>And what in the wide world of sports does it >have to do with Olbermann? Take it somewhere >else.

look stupid, I responded to you! if you didn't want to talk about HANNITY/colmes then you shouldn't have gotten into the thread with Mike or whoever started this and I wouldn't have responded to you.

Actually, i apologize for calling you stupid.

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. The correct quote is Colmes said "I am quite moderate". He did not say I am A moderate, as opposed to A liberal, talking absolutely philosophy. I consider myself to be quite moderate: I try to avoid calling names, swearing at people, and the like. But I don't think I would qualify as A moderate.

I did the research for you on this:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/11/fritz-b-11-12.html

"John Dean has said he still considers himself a conservative."

Mental illness can have that effect on people.

" i apologize for calling you stupid."

Thank you, though you might have been right! You never know.

"The liberal, when confronted with a plain and simple truth, will overanalyze the truth until it can be spun into some form of diluted message that they themselves can comprehend. Examples include using psychoanalitical evaluations to create counterpoints to arguments in which their evaluations have no basis in the said argument. The hope being, that by using overbearing terminology, those delivering the simple truth will feel overmatched. The simple truth cannot be understood by the liberal, and must be massivly altered to fit their one track agenda, which is often that the establishment must change differing conditions, regardless of whether those conditions are already in good order. They fein intelligence in an attempt to impress, all the while becoming wrapt within their own twisted and everchanging logic.

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. The correct quote is Colmes said "I am quite moderate". He did not say I am A moderate, as opposed to A liberal, talking absolutely philosophy. I >consider myself to be quite moderate: I try to >avoid calling names, swearing at people, and t >like. But I don't think I would qualify as A >moderate.

Fair enough.

>> Mental illness can have that effect on people.

I diasagree, but that was witty.

"Keith has depth perception and cannot drive anyway since 1982. Unlike Bull O he takes public transportation.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 18, 2006 08:35 AM"

Truth is KO can be safe on public transportation because conservatives are rational, freedom of expression loving peoples. BO on the other hand would be at risk from mob mentality, leftist, fascists. Who despise freedom of expression in favor of repression and media monopoly.

Liberal=Fascist
Byrd= KKK
Kennedy= Dead Mary Jo Kepechne
Nagin= Racist (Chocolate City)

PS: If you dispute any of that a) your wrong
b)post some constructive facts (not opinion) about the Rumored Conservatives being the fascist, racists.

The KO Kooks & Krazies frequently change the subject when the heat gets too hot up under King Keith. They can't argue with facts so they just keep trying to change the subject repatedly. It's a major sign of desperation on their parts, but honestly, wouldn't you already have to be the very definition of desperate if you're a Keith fan to begin with? Even he calls them that--with good reason as evidenced here.

KIng Keith I like that. Very Fiting.

KIng Keith I like that. Very Fitting.

(AP) LONDON - Several martyr videos were reportedly discovered on at least six laptops owned by some of the 23 suspects being questioned in the foiled terror plot to bomb as many as 10 jetliners bound for the United States. The British Broadcasting Corp., citing an unofficial police source, said Friday that several videos of the type that suicide bombers sometimes leave had been found as part of the intense investigation into the alleged plot."

what are the odds this even gets metioned on Countdown tonight? certainly makes the threat seem more real than olbermann alluded to last week.

lies all lies says the Krazy one

Tonight's main topics: more on the JonBenet Ramsey liar, a creep who reminds me of Lee Harvey Oswald soon to be capped by Jack ruby; then the earth shattering report on the premiere of "Motherf****ing Snakes on a Motherf****ing Plane". Substantial stories all...

Jack Ruby.

"JT, as long as people continue to use fake names, initials, and anonymous because they are too cowardly to reveal themselves, people can't tell if it's JT posting as anon, or Mike, or whoever."

Pot calling the kettle black?

i love sucking cock
and all of us on this site
love gang banging bill O Reily

Reality based Humor from real scooter:

A Conservative and a Liberal are walking down the street and see a homeless guy. The Conservative gives the guy his business card and tells the man "call me about going to work", he then reaches into HIS pocket and hands the man $20.

This impresses the Liberal. And they continue walking along. They soon come across another homeless man. The Liberal says he'll help this guy out. So the Liberal gives the guy directions to the welfare office. Then he reaches into the Conservatives pocket, pulls out a $20, keeps $15 for amninistrative costs and gives the homeless guy $5.

Thats Liberalism.