Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    August 29, 2006
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - AUGUST 29, 2006

    "COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

    Guest Host: Alison Stewart

    Topics/Guests:

    • HURRICANE KATRINA ANNIVERSARY; WAR POLITICS: E.J. Dionne, Washington Post

    His show attracts loonies and cranks,
    but Keith Olbermann mainly shoots blanks.
    Is he off for the week?
    If he is, no critique.
    And for this relief, truly much thanks!


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (147) | | View blog reactions

    147 Comments

    August '06 Weekday Ranker

    August 2006: 7/31/06 - 8/25/06
    Ranked On: HH HH P2+ A25-54
    NETWORK PROGRAM NAME DAYS TIME COV AA% AA (000) AA (000) AA (000)

    1. FOXN THE OREILLY FACTOR MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.8 1645 2,073 494

    2. FOXN HANNITY & COLMES MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.5 1341 1,696 508

    3. FOXN ON THE RECORD W/GRETA MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.3 1191 1,499 492

    4. FOXN SPECIAL REPORTW/BRIT HUME MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.2 1108 1,366 364

    5. FOXN THE FOX REPORT W/S.SMITH MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.2 1055 1,288 381

    6. FOXN THE OREILLY FACTOR (RPT) MTWTF.. 11:00P -12:00A 1.0 936 1,192 421

    7. FOXN THE BIG STORY W/J GIBSON MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.1 950 1,128 293

    8. CNN LARRY KING LIVE MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.0 928 1,092 297

    9. FOXN YOUR WORLD W/NEIL CAVUTO MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.0 895 1,027 267

    10. FOXN FOX NEWS LIVE MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.0 901 1,017 301

    11. FOXN STUDIO B W/S.SMITH MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.0 886 1,008 276

    12. FOXN FOX AND FRIENDS MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 1.0 870 980 393

    13. FOXN DAYSIDE MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.9 838 947 291

    14. CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360 MTWTF.. 10:00P -12:00A 0.8 740 872 339

    15. CNN LOU DOBBS TONIGHT MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.8 721 835 238

    16. CNN PAULA ZAHN NOW MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.7 663 783 255

    17. CNN SITUATION ROOM MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.7 603 691 205

    18. FOXN FOX & FRIENDS FIRST MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.7 598 637 296

    19. CNN CNN LIVE MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.6 556 606 201

    20. CNN LIVE FROM ... MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.6 538 595 179

    21. CNN CNNI YOUR WORLD TODAY MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.5 498 555 163

    22. CNN AMERICAN MORNING MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.5 492 536 202

    23. HLN NANCY GRACE MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.4 372 438 154

    24. MSNB COUNTDOWN W/ K. OLBERMANN MTWTF.. 06:00A -11:00P 0.4 357 426 163

    And TVNewser, which posted an entire article about it when Olbermann finished second in a select demographic and third in total viewers, is silent.

    But Keith is up 12% with the five percenters that are 60% more likely to wear paper hats at work 100% of the time and live with mommy and daddy.....
    ....and he is still a last place BOTTOM FEEDER!!!

    johnny, yout limericks are getting better!

    s/b "your"

    Is it true - Olby's going to broadcast from Ground Zero on 9/11? No, it can't be - he's going on location to cover a story! Granted, it's a cheap cab ride to lower Manhattan, but he's going to leave Secaucus for something other than a baseball game or a jailbait date. Who'da thunk it?

    Will he be out of the bathtub by then?

    I don't get it. This show is no worse than most cable "news" shows. Why such hatred of this host? And why is it so personal?

    Wow Lacy, you must have never once read the daily analyses so eloquently put forth on this site.

    I notice they mention "infamous and deplorable" a lot.

    Maybe if he didn't attack others, others would not attack him in return.

    I tuned in to see what Keith was going to talk about. Got a partial dose of another substitute. Wow, she's pretty boring.

    Dead last. Shrewd, Dan, shrewd.

    Olbermann is the Terrell Owens of television personalities-- only without the talent:

    1)Changes employers a lot;
    2) Works when he feels like it;
    3) Backstabs and undermines his co-workers and/or teammates and burns bridges wherever he goes;
    4) Blames others for problems he creates;


    BTW- What's the deal with Olby working so sporadically? Isn't that a privilege that's usually reserved for those who have enjoyed a lot of success (Johnny Carson, Jay Leno)? Orange Boy is in last place and continues to struggle even after a pull out the stops media tour to try to bring favorable pub to the mentally ill host of Meltdown. Olby must have made a deal with the devil.

    Come on Lacy, this guy is a left wing nut. Maybe you are attracted to the orange glow.

    Olbermann should not go to ground zero on 9/11, just as vampires should not go out in the sun, hemophiliacs should not donate blood, and retarded last-place cable news hosts with abnormal depth perception should not play in traffic.

    By the way, am I the only one who is confused by Keith's inability to drive? The handicapped can drive. People with only one eye can drive. Retards can drive. Keith can't drive but he can read a teleprompter? What is wrong with that bizarre goon?

    I still don't get it. And the closest thing to an explanation that anyone could offer is "He did it first." I see I've stumbled upon a site for 12 year olds. Are there any grown ups on the net?

    If anyone wants to know of a heroics of a reporter, it's Jennifer Griffin of Fox News. She was just on Greta's program, and told of what she and others went through when meeting with the various factions in Gaza to try to get Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig released. She stressed that MANY other people were involved and did not at all lead us to believe that what she did was what actually got them released. In other words, she was very humble about her role, but I was incredibly impressed at the lengths to which she went to help secure the release of her co-workers.

    Sorry to post this on this forum, but she went WAY above the call of duty as a reporter. She really risked her live meeting with these jihadis.

    Sadly, I doubt whether the media will pick up on this story, because they have to get back to report on Keith and his stellar (fourth or fifth place) ratings and his one-sided "feud" with O'Reilly.

    Lacy,

    We get it. You love Keith, and that is your right. Please allow us to despise the lying leftist hack as he defames innocent men and women whilst developing conspiracy theories that would embarass Oliver Stone. We don't come to your websites and bother you.

    NICK

    I have a special request. Please animate Olbermann hitting his head on a subway door!

    Lacy,

    Olby has not had anybody on his "news program" that even slightly disagrees with him in a long time. He is afraid that he could not make sense or would stutter or something. Libs have no answers to conservatives except fighting and name calling.

    If Keith goes to ground zero, we need a volunteer to stand behind him on-camera with a sign reading "olbermannwatch.com."

    RSG - something of a response! Thank you. And while I agree that KO leans left and cherry picks his info, I see the same thing almost everywhere. At Newshounds, where they hate everything fox, you don't see entire threads dedicated to the pathetic personal shots that are fired here. There's far more debate about content and far less of this prepubescent school-yard nonsense. Limiricks, for God's sake! Where's the thread dedicated to fart jokes?

    Lacy,

    Head on over to you beloved "Newshounds" website and ignore us then! You have a love of Olbermann beyond the norm, methinks.

    I agree with Lacy!

    It doesn't make much sense to do a media tour and then be gone more than he's there. Of course, that's Olbermann's way of sticking it to his employer. Lame shows and no shows are Olbermann's MO.

    Lacy,

    Don't spend too much time at the loony Bush bashing or FOX hate sites, like Daily Kos. It can lead to brain damage. FOX has more liberal employees than I can even stand.

    Just one correction - I don't really love the guy. I don't even like him much. While it IS refreshing to feel the breeze from the left on cable "news" once in awhile, I am no Olby fan. But this site...I dunno. I feel like I've walked in on my little brother with his magazine and sock.

    Posting was a lady named Lacy
    Her prose far less than racy
    Great lengths she'd go
    To display love for KO
    To me she just seemed spacey.

    HOW DARE YOU TELL PEOPLE ABOUT MY MAGAZINE AND SOCK ROUTINE LACY!

    Ten bucks says "Lacy" is a sock puppet for Olby and a dude to boot!

    Actually, KfK, Johnny D does frequent the hounds. The story is that he ran into one of them at a conference and put the moves on her. It was in public, and he took the rejection rather badly. He's been obsessed ever since then. I'm not saying it's TRUE, mind you...

    Lacy,

    You are certainly justified in asking that question. I can't speak for everyone here, but my main problems with Keith are: 1. He attacks others in the media without cause, and 2. He allows no opposing viewpoints to be discussed on his program.

    Also, the print media just ADORES him, and write about him (and his one-sided "feud" with Bill O'Reilly) constantly. For the life of me, I cannot see how they can write SO MUCH about a guy with such low ratings who NEVER reports a story from location. When they write about Anderson Cooper, it's usually because he's somewhere in peril covering a story of significance. And many other reporters put themselves in harm's way to bring us the story, yet they are ignored by the MSM. So I think this site is set up to counter some of that in some way.

    Again, I think many of us are just fed up with the media doting on Keith so much, and Keith himself going after others, that maybe we just come here to vent. But please note that there have been some crazies that have come here as of late, so I can't speak for them.

    Lacy,

    Good for JD! I hope he got some hippy poontang at the wacko conference. I know that's why I go. I pretend to love trees and moonbeams and whales and jihadists. I almost always score. A word of caution, however -- one must double bag oneself lest the crabbies, herpes, warts, hep c and hiv of the lefty hooch infect one's member.

    I heard Lacy is into bestiality. I am not saying it's true, of course . . .

    Missy, your point is well taken and well made. Perhaps the media attention is because he is the exception on the cable stations. Fox has an entire network, and MSNBC has Tucker and Joe. (I can't get a hit on Chris, I think he swings both ways.) But I agree with you on the no opposing voice thing. I'd like to see civil debate, not the shouting matches that those things often turn into. And I understand the need to vent with like-minded people. I hope you get your infestation taken care of. (And before anyone says it, that includes me.) Have fun!

    Did Odormann finally get out of his solid fifth place by beating Donnie whatever on CNBC?

    The orange one is gone once again
    You say that he's coming back when?
    He's a really big star
    His attendance sub par
    The seldom seen host Oafermann

    It's Donnie Douche Tom -- remember the name.

    NICK

    Subway door vs. Olbermann's head. Get to work. You are lazily posting the same clips over and over. This is not a leftist paradise where we rest on our laurels.

    If he reports from ground zero will he refer to it as the sight of an "alleged" terror attack?

    Anyway I'm sure he'll find some way to turn it into an attack on O'Reilly.

    Still obsessing over a show you claim nobody watches? ;)

    sknabt,

    you don't need to watch but a few seconds every once in a while and it starts to induce vomiting.

    Lacy,

    I used to be a fan of Olbermann. While I disagreed with content, I found his writing style very good. But then he changed, Countdown changed, and it's just not the same. Instead of having a sharp, witty style, it turned into a heap of personal attacks against everyone he mentioned (for instance, I dislike Tom Cruise, and I take it that Olbermann does too. But does this mean we have to hear about him several times a week?)

    The personal attacks against Olbermann were something I never agreed with. So the man goes to therapy, I don't care. So his physique is less than perfect, if that were a crime, I'd be guilty as charged.

    This summer though, rumors that had been around for quite some time took on a life of their own. From what this www.forthisreliefmuchthanks.com site says, Olbermann has no room to attack others as he's no better than anyone. I don't know the facts behind that site, and I'd say take it with a grain of salt, but it's the point that it seems Olbermann is guilty of the sins he blasts others for committing. If it's all true, the values he trumpets are ones he sees no need to apply to his own life.

    About Olbermann's politics, I don't agree with him. Not at all. I can respect differences in opinion, that's not the problem. I can listen to a show where the POV is decidedly different than my own. But it's when the opposite point of view is not represented in any way, or worse, is ridiculed, that I start having problems. I'm sure there are intelligent people from the oppositive POV that would come on Olbermann's show and talk. I don't like loud, screaming debates (a la Crossfire). But a one on one is a far cry from a yell-fest.

    There's a difference in being a professional journalist with a political view and a one-side-only anchor with an apparent grudge against his competitors. This "feud" with O'Reilly is nonsense. O'Reilly has more important issues to cover than to lower himself to Olbermann's level. If Olbermann thinks O'Reilly is a piece of crap, fine, let the public decide for themselves. I don't care how tongue-in-cheek the "Worst Person in the World" segment is supposed to be, I find it stupid and lame. Who made Olbermann God? Who designated him the one to pass judgment on others? Can you imagine the reaction if someone named him Worst Person? He'd be squawking to any blogger he could about the unjust treatment he was getting.

    It's sad that someone with a decent amount of talent can't produce good work. Instead, it seems he won't be happy until he alienates the last person on earth.

    CBK, very good points!

    It would be interesting if MSNBC had Keith arrive at the Ground Zero site from New Jersey via subway. I think the PATH train doors are an inch or so lower than the ones on the regular New York City subway lines...

    Olbermann did some wonderful reporting from Ground Zero. Honestly. It was almost poetic the way he spoke of the unity of New Yorkers and Americans. Not one comment could be called spiteful or negative. There used to be a transcript of his work but I can't find it anymore.

    Apologies.

    I found a link to his work:

    Keith Olbermann's Letter From New York
    http://web.archive.org/web/20020204225330/http://www.kfwb.com/news/local/olbermann.html

    Not sure why some of the posters here make such a big deal of Fox's numbers. If they continue to hemmorage viewers at this rate, they'll be last place in a five years. Fox lost 28 percent of their viewers in the last year.

    Primetime:

    .................FNC CNN MSNBC
    .......Aug. '06: 1,511 902 371
    .......Aug. '05: 2,093 748 349
    ....% change: -28% +21% +6%


    Anyway.....
    After watching Bush's interview with Brian Williams, I have to ask, is Bush dumb or dumbest president ever?

    There is nothing to be gained from reading this sycophantic drivel. The most pathetic element of this entire site is in it's shear stupidity.

    There is no discussion with discourse or debate. There is nothing factual being stated. There is no argumentative viewpoint supported by facts. All prose contained herein on this site and in this blog is petty name calling. Pathetic.

    I would hate to think that any of you believe yourselves to be Christians or upstanding representatives of the Christian community. Jesus, were he not emphatically dead, would have nothing to do with you, your non-causes, or your tactics. All you do is call people names. Your only impetus is immature and empty.

    You are pathetically consumed by hatred. You dislike something, so you have nothing better to do with your time than to obsess over it and make pithy comments about it? How stupid. How irresponsible. How lazy.

    Try doing Jesus a favor, can you handle that? Go do something productive and humanitarian with your time. Try some altruism.

    Sarah: I don't recall anyone purporting to represent Jesus or Christianity on this site. The website has a simple purpose: to debunk the fraudulence that is Keith Olbermann and Countdown. I do not think the forum is really open to debate when it is clear that Keith is a partisan hack who spins his show as neutral. He is also a flat out liar when it comes to (in particular) Bill O'Reilly and ratings. I'm not sure who has engaged in name calling since the evidence that he is a liar (that's not name calling - it's fact) is irrefutable. We (if I may speak for the site's patrons) appreciate your interest in furthering the discourse. However, you have added next to nothing except distortion.

    Your purpose is to "debunk the fraudulence that is Keith Olbermann and Countdown".
    There are a number of issues this statement poses. The first being argument and counterargument presented in the form of discourse based on facts. I have yet to see a single stand-alone example of such. And by "single stand-alone example of such" I mean lacking in any name calling, pejorative tone or comments, or references to defecation or lewd sexual practices. There is no intellectual argument being put up on any topic of discussion here.

    Using the proper form of citation prove to me that "He is also a flat out liar when it comes to (in particular) Bill O'Reilly". I don't care about ratings, as I don't own a network and thus don't stand to benefit from advertising revenue. By using "proper citations" I mean quote Keith quoting Bill, and then show the original Bill quotes in context and correctly cite sources for all such material.

    Evidence that is not actually stated (not vague generalities) as a quote with a cited source is not "irrefutable." "Irrefutable" which Merriam Webster defines as "impossible to refute : INCONTROVERTIBLE." Refute, according to the prior source to mean:"to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous" and "to deny the truth or accuracy of."

    Vague generalities can always be refuted. Stand on some facts. The opinions you lean on are flimsy at best and always collapse on themselves. That, btw, was an extended metaphor.

    Personally, I'm not a Christian, but I've seen a lot of this right-wing partisan hackery cloaking itself with Jesus. The implication being that neither you nor anyone else who posts comments to the rambling one-sided prejudicial evidence-lacking shear-opinion uninformed editorialism of this website distinguishes themselves by any combination of words from the hypocrites who purport to speak for Jesus. You all are indistinct from them. That is to say, you have no distinguishable features. You do not stand out from the crowd, you don't stand on evidence. You stand on the same flimsy uninformed and generic viewpoint; spewing vageries with no evidentiary or factual basis and then having the silly gall to call them "irrefutable."

    I refute you, dear. And maybe instead of shackling together some entirely opinion-based empty counter statement full of uncited vageries — maybe you should find Jesus, do something constructive.

    I know Bill O'Reilly has never been to the moon, but I don't waste my time watching his show to then waste more of my time to call him names.

    So, a highly edited clip taken out of it's full context. Hey, this is part of the discourse, or was that the informed debate?

    The sad part is the lack of ingenuity, the lack of cunning, the lack of clever argumentation.

    And so, I stand by my original statement:

    There is nothing to be gained from reading this sycophantic drivel. The most pathetic element of this entire site is in it's shear stupidity.

    There is no discussion with discourse or debate. There is nothing factual being stated. There is no argumentative viewpoint supported by facts. All prose contained herein on this site and in this blog is petty name calling. Pathetic.

    I would hate to think that any of you believe yourselves to be Christians or upstanding representatives of the Christian community. Jesus, were he not emphatically dead, would have nothing to do with you, your non-causes, or your tactics. All you do is call people names. Your only impetus is immature and empty.

    You are pathetically consumed by hatred. You dislike something, so you have nothing better to do with your time than to obsess over it and make pithy comments about it? How stupid. How irresponsible. How lazy.

    Try doing Jesus a favor, can you handle that? Go do something productive and humanitarian with your time. Try some altruism.

    "I don't care about ratings, as I don't own a network and thus don't stand to benefit from advertising revenue"

    Sarah: So the only things you care about are those from which you stand to benefit financially. Ok, I guess that's alright. Rather self-centered, maybe

    "Personally, I'm not a Christian"

    What does that mean? As opposed to a professional Christian, perhaps?

    Are you functionally illiterate?

    He said, she said:

    Edward said: "He is also a flat out liar when it comes to (in particular) Bill O'Reilly and ratings."
    Using the pronoun "He" to refer to Keith Olbermann.


    Sarah said: "Using the proper form of citation prove to me that "He is also a flat out liar when it comes to (in particular) Bill O'Reilly". I don't care about ratings..."

    My point being that Edward has called Keith a liar without specifically stating a contended fact in the form of a quote with a reference. My challenge is for Edward to prove to me that Keith has said something that can be proven to be untrue about O'Reilly complete with quotes and citations.

    You imply that I imply that I only care about financial gain having teased out the subject of my care (that being ratings) from the sentence. So, you have distorted what I said. What I said was that I don't care about ratings in the context that I am more interested in having lies that Keith Olbermann is purported to have perpetrated about Bill O'Reilly quoted and cited for me by Edward. I don't care to see ratings analysis, why would I? Bush doesn't care about poll numbers, ergo by association, Bushies don't care about poll numbers... ratings are just glorified poll numbers; so if your guy cares so little for them, why take up the cause yourselves? Guilt by association.

    We do live in a capitalist country, don't we?


    What I actually stated: "Personally, I'm not a Christian, but I've seen a lot of this right-wing partisan hackery cloaking itself with Jesus."

    What you quoted: "Personally, I'm not a Christian".

    Why not quote my entire statement? Perhaps because taking parts of a compound sentence out of context makes them easier to manipulate?

    I'm not a member of the particular religious persuasion that I see supposed members of manipulating the name, will, and intent of it's deity.

    Is Professional really the only diametric opposite of Personal? Or is that the only context that you could think of in which to frame a counterpoint?

    Are you functionally illiterate?

    He said, she said:

    Edward said: "He is also a flat out liar when it comes to (in particular) Bill O'Reilly and ratings."
    Using the pronoun "He" to refer to Keith Olbermann.


    Sarah said: "Using the proper form of citation prove to me that "He is also a flat out liar when it comes to (in particular) Bill O'Reilly". I don't care about ratings..."

    My point being that Edward has called Keith a liar without specifically stating a contended fact in the form of a quote with a reference. My challenge is for Edward to prove to me that Keith has said something that can be proven to be untrue about O'Reilly complete with quotes and citations.

    You imply that I imply that I only care about financial gain having teased out the subject of my care (that being ratings) from the sentence. So, you have distorted what I said. What I said was that I don't care about ratings in the context that I am more interested in having lies that Keith Olbermann is purported to have perpetrated about Bill O'Reilly quoted and cited for me by Edward. I don't care to see ratings analysis, why would I? Bush doesn't care about poll numbers, ergo by association, Bushies don't care about poll numbers... ratings are just glorified poll numbers; so if your guy cares so little for them, why take up the cause yourselves? Guilt by association.

    We do live in a capitalist country, don't we?


    What I actually stated: "Personally, I'm not a Christian, but I've seen a lot of this right-wing partisan hackery cloaking itself with Jesus."

    What you quoted: "Personally, I'm not a Christian".

    Why not quote my entire statement? Perhaps because taking parts of a compound sentence out of context makes them easier to manipulate?

    I'm not a member of the particular religious persuasion that I see supposed members of manipulating the name, will, and intent of it's deity.

    Is Professional really the only diametric opposite of Personal? Or is that the only context that you could think of in which to frame a counterpoint?

    The biggest problem with Keith always boils down to:

    He personally attacks those on the right - over 100 times alone for O'Reilly by name. O'Reilly has never attacked Keith personally, OR by name. Yet the MSM always refers to them as having an ongoing feud, as if there is some kind of parity.

    Keith has never had an opposing viewpoint on his program. He has never invited anyone on his show to debate an issue. No one in the history of television has done this. O'Reilly prefers discussing the opposing view, and relishes debating all issues. And the liberal media considers this to be an innovative and original approach to news.

    I "heart" Mr. Wilson proclaims Krazy Keith!


    I lied....you lied...but in the end it doesn't matter because we liberals lie everyday of their lives!

    Define "personal attack". Commenting on the misdirection, lack of truth or factual basis of things that Bill O'Reilly says or does always with a direct quote and a point of reference, how is that a personal attack?

    Keith is the host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on MSNBC, he is not the host of the defunct CNN show "Crossfire." In fact, if you go to the msnbc website it states that: "“Countdown,” a unique newscast that counts down the day’s top stories with Keith’s particular wit and style, telecasts weeknights, 8-9 p.m. ET on MSNBC."

    MSNBC states that Countdown is a newscast; not a debate show. A newscast being: "A radio or television broadcast of the news." (yourdictionary.com). Countdown isn't Hardball, it isn't Crossfire. Crossfire, according to the entry on Wikipedia was "a current events debate television program that aired from 1982 to 2005 on CNN." Countdown is also not a facsimile of the O'Reilly Factor, and it isn't trying to be.

    That's like saying that Wheel of Fortune isn't Jeopardy. Sure, those are both gameshows, but they don't follow exactly the same format. Does it anger you that there isn't a leftwing diametric to the O'Reilly Factor? You keep trying to squeeze Countdown into the notion of opposites that you've created, but Countdown isn't a debate show as the O'Reilly Factor supposedly is, so there is no valid spot-on comparrison. Although, I suppose any such confusion might stem from the fact that foxnews's website refers to the Factor as a newscast. Heh, that's funny. Wikipedia calls the Factor a "television talk show on the Fox News Channel."

    Jim: "He has never invited anyone on his show to debate an issue. No one in the history of television has done this."

    Are you sure you want to stick by that statement? Particularly the "No one in the history of television has done this" portion? You are aware that television exists outside of the United States, yes? There are more than fifty countries under the control of monarchies and dictatorships. China comes to mind quickly. You still want to stand by the statement that: "No one in the history of television has done this."

    Oh, and citing proof (again quotes and references of third party non-partisan analysis) who are the liberal media?

    Oh, ok, Keith and others in Red China and USSR have behaved similarly on their TV shows. You got me!!

    on please Sarah Krazy Keith is a hack and the ratings reflect that.


    Krazy Keith and Malignant Matthews night after night did shows arresting and convicting Cheney and Rove.
    Using anonymous unnamed unidentified high ranking government officials along with partisan msnbc analysts they wove together this fairy. They blew it. MSNBC is a hack leftwing organization. Is it any wonder that umpteenth repeats of Doc-Block do better in the ratings than the primetime hacks!
    KK&MM have no shame.

    Yes and no. Did I correctly point out that you make untrue vague generalizations, yes. On the basis of your prejudicial nature did you readily connect Keith Olbermann to China... and the USSR? What's the USSR? Oh yeah, a defunct acronym. So, your point of world relevance is over 20 years old. Try updating your sources.

    You still make vague generalizations with no point of reference thereby rendering your opinion just that — an opinion.

    Also, as far as sarcasm is concerned in the realm of discourse and debate, it's cheap and it belittles your perspective. So, your response is pure hackery at best and an indication of willful indifference to meaningful discussion at most. At worst, of course, it's just ignorant.

    Sarah scribbled:

    "What I said was that I don't care about ratings in the context that I am more interested in having lies that Keith Olbermann is purported to have perpetrated about Bill O'Reilly quoted and cited for me by Edward."

    Now, call me paranoid, but I smell Olbyprose here -- convoluted and verbose for no reason, and annoying to boot. Sarah, are you Keith's sister or something?

    Sarah also says:

    "I'm not a member of the particular religious persuasion that I see supposed members of manipulating the name, will, and intent of it's deity."

    Are you trying to say you are not a Muslim? Wouldn't that be the particular religion most worthy of your anger? Don't tell me that sentence relates to another religion when Islamofascists are blowing up women and children for the dream of a Caliphate.

    If you are a Jew, Sarah, you better wake up and smell the Katyushas, otherwise you will end up strapped to one by one of the cuddly Islamofascists you and Keith so desire to understand and placate.

    Sarah also wrote:

    "The most pathetic element of this entire site is in it's shear stupidity. There is no discussion with discourse or debate."

    Sarah, read that sentence out loud. How does that sound? Pretty illogical to attack the entire site then cry about the lack of proper discourse, no? I know you have or are working on a degree of some sort and in the process you have learned a PLETHORA of Brobdingnagian, behemothic, cyclopean, and elephantine words in school. The height of bad taste is to crow-bar these words into mile-long sentences with no consideration of content.


    "My challenge is for Edward to prove to me that Keith has said something that can be proven to be untrue about O'Reilly complete with quotes and citations."

    That challenge has already been met. Repeatedly. On this website. Our archives are full of examples. Ask us something difficult.

    Lacy wrote:
    "Where's the thread dedicated to fart jokes?"

    I guess you missed Keith's TOP STORY the other night. The entire segment was dedicated to Presidential FART JOKES. Very mature.

    Krazy Keith? Malignant Matthews? You're trying to mask your non-point by alliteration. That's pathetic, to try and prop name-calling up with a whimsical literary device. How immature.

    And still with these continual references to ratings! That has got to be the most amusing hack argument that anyone who can't make a real point about a specific point of contention makes.

    Seriously, you're going to stand on ratings? Okay, well, a lot of people watch American Idol, a lot of people watch My Name is Earl. Apparently there were enough people watching Reba to keep it on the air for 5 years. Tangentially, lots and lots of people buy Britney Spears records, and Michael Jackson's records, and hey, how about that Celine Dion. Why is the number of viewers relevant to the purported argument that this site serves to prove the fraudulence of Keith Olbermann and Countdown? A lot of people do a lot of things; watching, listening, buying — it doesn't mean that what they are consuming is of any particular quality.

    Throwing quantity out there as your defense when the argument is about comparing quality is irrelevant and demonstrates a distinct ability to formulate a relevant point and defend it in an adult manner.

    Sarah wrote:
    "There is no discussion with discourse or debate. There is nothing factual being stated. There is no argumentative viewpoint supported by facts. All prose contained herein on this site and in this blog is petty name calling. Pathetic."

    Sarah, that's a perfect description of Countdown.

    There are only a handfull of people capable of appreciating just how great Countdown with Keith Olbermann really is. Simple!! Ratings aren't everything. You are right again Sarah!!

    Sarah wrote:
    "There is no discussion with discourse or debate. There is nothing factual being stated. There is no argumentative viewpoint supported by facts. All prose contained herein on this site and in this blog is petty name calling. Pathetic."

    Sarah, that's a perfect description of Countdown.

    Wow. He truly has you there Sarah. How many big words will it take to get out of this one?

    My BFA is from the U of M. Is that what you needed to know?

    So, one of the esteemed OW elite has stated that there are examples, while not actually providing an actual example or a link to such. I would pretend to be surprised, but that would be disingenuous. I rather like my candor intact.

    Lacy, honey, I don't recall ever having said that Keith Olbermann was entirely sophisticated, dignified, mature, etc. Could you refresh my memory, dear, and actually quote the prior comment of mine that you are referring specifically to?

    I get the feeling that like most of the other pro-OW posters here, you are willing to be a total hack and fall back on vague generalities of your own implication. That is so un-educated and undiginified, and downright ignorant.

    Maybe if our President was properly stored in the undisclosed location with Cheney, then there never would have been an AP story about our president and his proclivity for a certain kind of toilet humor. Surely, it's Keith Olbermann's fault that GWB enjoys a fart joke now and then? That would be the implication I get from the thin prate you've graced us with.

    Wow. He truly has you there Sarah. How many big words will it take to get out of this one?

    Well, considering that it took you 20 words to say: "yeah!" what would it matter? By taking twenty words to say "yeah" you have thereby proven my point that:

    "There is no discussion with discourse or debate. There is nothing factual being stated. There is no argumentative viewpoint supported by facts. All prose contained herein on this site and in this blog is petty name calling. Pathetic."


    Congratulations.

    I know that was five syllables; a polysyllabic latinate, but then, English is a derivative language.

    You got me again Sarah. And so beautifully put!!

    Sarah spewed:
    "Throwing quantity out there as your defense when the argument is about comparing quality is irrelevant and demonstrates a distinct ability to formulate a relevant point and defend it in an adult manner."

    Sarah, let me remind you that Countdown is MSNBC's "news show of record for the day"... not American Idol. All of the cable news networks have basically the same script of news to present each night, so the playing surface is even. Assuming that viewers don't purposely tune into bad quality news broadcasts, the ratings are an accurate way to judge news quality. I guess it could be argued that Countdown really isn't a "news show", but not according to NBC executives.

    Opie may more clearly understand his lot in life - his success in his profession - if we maybe use a baseball analogy
    If we use the ratings for August
    O'Reilly 2,073, 55.7 %
    Zahn - 783, 21.0 %
    Grace - 438, 11.8 %
    Opie - 426, 11.4 %
    Total Viewewes 3,720, 100%

    Then project out a baseball season of 162 games
    O'Reilly's team would win 55 % or 90 games
    Zahn's team would win 21 % = or 34 games
    Grace's team would win 11.8 % or 19 games
    Opie's team would win 11.4 % or 18 games

    1. Opie's team would be in dead last place, 72 wins behind the first place O'Reilly team
    2. Opie's team would be even worse than last year's team
    3. Opie's if a manager in baseball would be fired - never to return to baseball (or any sports venture).
    4. Opie, with his constant criticims of the first place O'Reilly team, his baby temper tantrums, and his overall obnoxious attitude would have the ball thrown at his head - would maybe be worse maybe hitting his infamous noiggin on a subway door
    5. Opie would be caught wiring obscene e-mails to other "fans"
    6. Opie would make up stories to the sportwriters at every night's press conference. His refrain would be how well his team is doing, and how poorly O'Reilly's team is doing. He would end every interview with "it was another bad night and more bad luck"
    6. The fans would scream for him to be fired, Opie would name them the worst fans of the day.
    7. Opie would eventually lose his 10th manager's job in 20 years - finishing in last place every year for 20 years.
    8. Opie would continually indicate it was Mister Bush's fault.
    9. Attendance would drop to 12 people
    10. Opie would be offered position of bat boy - where he would beg players for their autographs

    "there are examples, while not actually providing an actual example or a link to such."

    You are apparently under the impression that every time someone new comes to this site and tries to misrepresent what we do and smear our efforts, we are going to drop everything to attend to their ignorant suggestions. You ask for an "actual example", yet you won't bother to click on the archives links and read them for yourself.

    We just aren't going to repeat ourselves over and over every time some uninformed Olbypologist breezes onto the site and asks the same questions a dozen before them have asked. It's all there, for anyone who wants to look. You specifically mentioned Keith lying about O'Reilly. He's done so repeatedly. He puts words in O'Reilly's mouth that the man never said and then uses his made-up quotes to smear O'Reilly. There's the quote about election night 2004, the business about MSNBC and Judge Cashman, punting in college, the lie about Fox altering transcripts... that's just off the top of my head. And if you didn't restrict the question only to lies about O'Reilly, I could give you a dozen more.

    If you want to engage in a sensible, intelligent discussion here, don't breeze in, refuse to learn what this site is about by looking at the archives and show summaries, and demand answers to questions that have already been answered. Do a little reading. You will make much more sense if you don't speak from ignorance.

    You seem very proud of yourself Sarah! You truly are the Queen of the Olbermann-loving self-hating Jews. Do you know Babs Streisand?

    And are you going to tell me why you are more afraid of Christians than Muslims, or is that little quote of yours above indefensible?

    I "got you"? Okay, then go mow my lawn. I got you to prove my initial point in that you make terse vague generalizations and otherwise acting as a yes-man to anyone else who appears to come from the same side. Sycophancy.

    What I'd prefer is to get you to make a passable counterargument based on referenceable facts.

    I like to play the lotto, in spite of it's odds; which is an anecdote about character.

    Ratings aren't everything....hehehehehehehehehe...lol.

    Tell that to Dan the man Abrams....hehehehe...lol

    MSNBC=Laughingstock on the cable news biz!!!

    ">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/nypaco/5546184e.gif">

    Where's your lawn located, I'll be over.

    JD,

    I am afraid you need to assign someone the task of creating a list of Keith's lies for use against trolls like Sarah. They never leave without a slime trail, and they always refuse to explore the site properly. It would be so nice to post a list with page references for the pseudointellectual Olby-elites.

    I'm sure Sarah believes all of Olbermann's crap -- the "election fraud" in Ohio, the "Cheney was drunk when he shot his pal" story, the endless conspiracy theories around terror alerts. Arguing with her is like trying to convince a paranoid schizophrenic that she is hearing voices.

    To repeat myself:
    "There is nothing to be gained from reading this sycophantic drivel. The most pathetic element of this entire site is in it's shear stupidity.

    There is no discussion with discourse or debate. There is nothing factual being stated. There is no argumentative viewpoint supported by facts. All prose contained herein on this site and in this blog is petty name calling. Pathetic.

    I would hate to think that any of you believe yourselves to be Christians or upstanding representatives of the Christian community. Jesus, were he not emphatically dead, would have nothing to do with you, your non-causes, or your tactics. All you do is call people names. Your only impetus is immature and empty.

    You are pathetically consumed by hatred. You dislike something, so you have nothing better to do with your time than to obsess over it and make pithy comments about it? How stupid. How irresponsible. How lazy.

    Try doing Jesus a favor, can you handle that? Go do something productive and humanitarian with your time. Try some altruism."

    I have now been called: "Queen of the Olbermann-loving self-hating Jews." Do, you speak for all the Jews, or just the specific persuasion that you named? For whatever angry drivel it will be worth to you in your response, I'm an atheist. So, now instead of expressing some well reputed fact-based discourse, we'll be delving into Ann Coulter-style prattle.

    I don't hate Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. I have a distinct intolerance for discriminatory religious fundamentalists who misdirect, misrepresent, and misinform about the true intentions of their religious figures.

    I really think the fact that you're falling back on your ass in desperation to imply that I love terrorists is pathetic at best, but better a concrete example of your inability to have any sort of a reasoned or rational discourse with anyone outside the tiny little box in which you have fortified yourself.

    Johnny Dollar, hillarious. I could waste days of my time reading the limited number of posts here. In the end, the lack of quotations and citations would continue to prove my point. Your response to my response contained no quotes and no citations. Certainly you don't expect that without a source I believe that anything you ascribe as coming from the mouth of Keith Olbermann is actually accurate? Do you? My hope is that your standards are higher.

    Not fair I had to go to bed last night without knowing:
    > How many days since mission accomplished
    > What O'Reilly did to be Tuesday's worst man of the day
    > How the press has the Armitredge leak story wrong - how it was Rove - and when will Rove be indicted???
    > How many days Mister Bush has been on vacation ?
    > What Bister Bush screwed up on Tuesday - from Fineman, Liar Creepy Liar O'Donnell, John Dean, Milbanks, etc
    > Mr. Musto's hillarious 2 minutes about Hollywood
    > I have no idea if anyone was pulled over for another noise violation for listening to O'Reilly
    > and worstest of all- no update on Tom Cruise

    Sorry Mr. Abrams - but this is unacceptbale for me to go three business days now without this vital info

    " In the end, the lack of quotations and citations would continue to prove my point."

    You aren't going to bother reading the articles here because you know--without reading them--that they lack quotations. A classic case of OlbyLogic, in its most virulent form. Continue to refuse to read. That way you can type anything that comes into your little head about this site, without having to confine yourself to what is true. Hey, just like Keith Olbermann!

    Sarah,

    To me, Keith Olbermann is just mean-spirited. The Nazi salute was tasteless. The man does not live by his own code. Here is a link to his pronouncement that all Nazi imagery should not be used. Ever.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8085423/

    It's about 3/4 down the page.

    So, why did he do this:

    http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm

    By his own pronouncement, he should burst into tears apologizing profusely. Did he do this? Nope. He did this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann

    (look under the heading 'controversies').

    Suffice it to say that Mr. Olbermann simply stated that he was waving to a friend. He was jesting, of course, but could not bring himself to apologize for this sophomoric act. Even though the ADL sent him a letter regarding it.

    There you go! Citations and links.


    Which one of the Olbyloon labels does Sarah warrant? Wow, so many options.

    Why should I disbelieve that Keith was photographed between the "yoo-" and the "hoo!"? What would merit this disbelief I am supposed to be in the grip of?

    The fact of the matter is that I watch Countdown. I'm not a fan of the baseball, or the celebrity stuff. Although, as it pertains to the latter, I enjoy Keith's lack of Entertainment Tonight style enthusiasm.

    But the purpose of this site is still shear stupidity. Why not Joe Scarborough? Why not the Republican on CNN, what's his name... Lou Dobbs? Why Olbermann? If half the intent in this post is so strong to point out that Olbermann's ratings are so low, then why not passionately berate Joe Scarborough? He calls people names and says any number of questionable things at any given time? If you've proven that Keith Olbermann is as insignificant as you say he is, then why not let him fade into the oblivion that surely you predict he's headed to? Why dedicate such bile and un-checked non-fact to him?

    As for "articles". Johnny Dollar, pumpkin, it belittles your cause when your ability to correctly cite and use quotations is so woefully inadequate. Perhaps you should consider a college English course before posting anything else on the site with the quotations barely there and done incorrectly.

    "Articles" is also a strange word to attempt to ascribe to the vast expanses of type that occur on this site. An article being: "A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine." (yourdictionary.com).

    There isn't a single article on this entire site. The correct word to describe those vast expanses of text is editorial. There is not a single paragraph in any of those selctions that is presented from some purely journalist point of view, those are all editorial and opinion-based statements. There is nothing grounded in fact.

    Sarah: You sure write good!!

    Now, the other fact of the matter, is that through the course of these posts, you all have gone out of your way to prove my point that:"There is nothing to be gained from reading this sycophantic drivel. The most pathetic element of this entire site is in it's shear stupidity.

    There is no discussion with discourse or debate. There is nothing factual being stated. There is no argumentative viewpoint supported by facts. All prose contained herein on this site and in this blog is petty name calling. Pathetic.

    I would hate to think that any of you believe yourselves to be Christians or upstanding representatives of the Christian community. Jesus, were he not emphatically dead, would have nothing to do with you, your non-causes, or your tactics. All you do is call people names. Your only impetus is immature and empty.

    You are pathetically consumed by hatred. You dislike something, so you have nothing better to do with your time than to obsess over it and make pithy comments about it? How stupid. How irresponsible. How lazy.

    Try doing Jesus a favor, can you handle that? Go do something productive and humanitarian with your time. Try some altruism."

    Because I have been called or referred to as::
    Keith's sister
    Olbypologist
    Queen of the Olbermann-loving self-hating Jews
    troll
    A classic case of OlbyLogic
    just like Keith Olbermann
    Olbyloon

    Neologistic as your made-up words are, they still amount to name calling. If anyone here was capable of making an actual argument themselves with quotations and citations — by which I don't mean you quote someone and then state your non-fact-based opinion of the quotes — none of this immature prate would have appeared. But no one here, not even the esteemed OW elite can state an opinion and support it with facts with sources. Without facts with sources, opinions are meaningless.

    Sarah,

    You've had your questions answered. You don't like the answers. So you bitch about it. What else is there to say? Your an OlbyLoon. We don't expect anything more of you.

    I do think the idea of an FAQ for OlbyLoons is a good idea; that way we can simply point Loons like Sarah to the FAQ.

    If folks would like to help maybe you can add a few questions for the FAQ - types of questions/issues raised by the OlbyLoons.

    Thanks

    Aw come on Sarah we are just chewing the liberal fat waiting with baited breath until the Krazy Orange One returns.....we miss him.

    "Without facts with sources, opinions are meaningless"

    Then why do you continue to spew thousands upon thousands of words stating only your opinion?

    Kudos to Matticus Finch, who managed to raise to the challenge using sources and 314 less words than Johnny Dollar used to avoid the challange and insist no one had that kind of time.

    I take the Nazi salute incident to be the crown jewel of the OW empire. I don't think it was a great way for OW to lampoon someone. (Nor do I think the administrators of OW are too bright in putting a Hitler on the front page of this site to lampoon the lampooner.)

    In Olby's defense, there is a big difference in my mind between politicians using general nazi references in talking about legislation and U.S. foreign policy, which poisons the political atmosphere, and one tv talking head using a very specific reference against another one. Especially when BOR repeatedly and mistakenly accused U.S. troops of actually and illegally slaughtering actual nazis. I still don't know how BOR got away with that, except that his hotheaded insistance on totally wrong facts is so notorious and amusing that people laugh it off (cf. SNL).

    To put it another way, I think what Olberman objected to was people using nazi imagery in a serious way to suggest serious things about serious policy. I don't think he was condemning Charlie Chaplin's "The Dictator." I don't think he felt "Hogan's Hero's" needed to be removed from the air. But I understand that fundamentalists tend to understand the world...er...ah... in a simpler, cleaner way. So he should have expected s lot of the kind of response he gets here, and probably should have just let that one go by.

    Again, kudos to Sarah and to Matticus Finch for potentially raising the level of discourse here. Of course, by the time I hit post, there may be 10 more messages about "towelheads" and there being too many non-white, non-christian people in this country...but we'll see.

    Sarah
    1. Opie says he's not biased- Could you please name an opposing viewpoint - specifically a pro Bush view point. We can name 1,500 anti Mister Bush statements he has made, and another 1,500 from his "band of brothers, i.e. Schuster, Fineman, O'Donnell, & Co). Media matters quotes him almost daily. Move-on.org sponsored a promotion to jack up his ratings & get more viewers. Move On & Media Matter "centrists"???
    2. Name another journlist in the HISTORY of NBC News that has personally attacked a competitor (O'Reilly) 110 times on the air.
    3. Checkout Opie's resume - how many jobs did he (a) leave before contract up, (b) be fired from (c) be disciplined at (d) not have contract renewed becasue of horrible ratings (e) attack competitors on the air
    4. Based on the above alone - what in the world is he doing on a supposed major American network news broadcast.

    Sarah said: Why should I disbelieve that Keith was photographed between the "yoo-" and the "hoo!"? What would merit this disbelief I am supposed to be in the grip of?

    Now you are just being silly. You had me fooled, I guess. You wanted citations and links, and I happily provided them. Now you move the goalposts by asking why should you just disbelieve it? Why, because just 15 seconds later he had a different explanation for it after the 'yoo hoo' joke fell flat. This one, however, included a reference that he did the salute because of something Bill O'Reilly said. I'll give you the undoctored video you so desire:

    http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/393

    So two different explanations, which to believe? We know that at least one of his accounts was a lie. How about believing neither and rely on the news accounts of the event? None said that he was waving to a friend. They said it was a Nazi salute. Period.

    Regardless of his intention, isn't an apology to all the people he offended in order, especially since he so gallantly stated that nobody should ever use Nazi imagery? Why doesn't Keith live up to the same code of conduct he demands from others?

    Looking forward to your response.

    Sarah, do yourself a favor and try to read Mr. Dollar's nightly recaps. He really he does a very fine job pointing out the fallacy in Olbermann's weak arguments, lies, and conspiracy theories which Olbermann tries to disguse as factual "news".

    I know you think Olbermann presents facts since apparently there is this mindset amongst liberals that sites like Daily Kos, Huffington Post and Democratic Underground are news sites, but they aren't. They are "editorial and opinion-based" sites. So why is it that you think our "editoral" and "opinion-based" critiques of Olbermann are wrong but what you read on those sites, and what Olbermann repeats verbataim on his newscast somehow are the Gospel-truth? Now there's another fine example of screwy Olby-logic if ever I saw it.

    Perhaps this is why you are reduced to making the same post in multiple threads and splitting grammatical hairs on the use of the word "article".

    But since you seem to have so much free time, I suggest to you that you begin your own sites to attack Lou Dobbs or Joe Scarborough since you seem to think there's a need for it out there for them.

    Dear dear Sarah,

    I know you think you are an atheist. Problem is, Islamofascists don't believe in atheists and will still identify you as a Jew. You continue to harp on the almighty and dangerous Jesus, while ignoring the gun-toting Allah in the corner. Please spare us you deluded dope. You have clearly been educated beyond your means and have blown a gasket.

    Most of the left's bizarre fear of Christians comes from the abortion debate. It is interesting to see how one issue has resulted in a mass hysteria against Christianity from left-wing zealots. Just wait 'till Sharia law hits, and you will have lots more to worry about than who likes Jesus, Sarah. I will leave it to you to determine why you insist on assuming everyone here is a Christian religious fundamentalist.

    Sarah, on Countdown's March 1, 2006 show, Keith took a cheap shot at direct competitor Nancy Grace and her MURDERED FIANCE. He actually gave props to the MURDERER! Yes, Krazy Keith named Nancy Grace "Worst Person In The World" for "padding" her resume with details about her fiance's murder. Despicable? Keith reports, viewers decide.

    Hey Sara,

    Does "BFA" stand for "Balloon Federation Of America" (http://www.bfa.net/)? If so, how high have you been?

    I love the pretentious way you tout your education at the "U of M"! Of course in your mind there is only one "U of M." However, here is a short list for you:

    University of Minnesota
    University of Manitoba
    University of Maryland
    University of Montana
    University of Memphis

    and of course the Ann Arbor liberal craphole that you are from. Do tell us the "fine art" in which you bachelored. We already know it could not have been in writing, logic or ethics. Perhaps you play an instrument or tap dance?

    pat you are not a christian, You don't believe in love thy neighbor, you believe in hate thy enemy.

    udos to Matticus Finch, who managed to raise to the challenge using sources and 314 less words than Johnny Dollar used to avoid the challange and insist no one had that kind of time.

    I take the Nazi salute incident to be the crown jewel of the OW empire. I don't think it was a great way for OW to lampoon someone. (Nor do I think the administrators of OW are too bright in putting a Hitler on the front page of this site to lampoon the lampooner.)

    In Olby's defense, there is a big difference in my mind between politicians using general nazi references in talking about legislation and U.S. foreign policy, which poisons the political atmosphere, and one tv talking head using a very specific reference against another one. Especially when BOR repeatedly and mistakenly accused U.S. troops of actually and illegally slaughtering actual nazis. I still don't know how BOR got away with that, except that his hotheaded insistance on totally wrong facts is so notorious and amusing that people laugh it off (cf. SNL).

    To put it another way, I think what Olberman objected to was people using nazi imagery in a serious way to suggest serious things about serious policy. I don't think he was condemning Charlie Chaplin's "The Dictator." I don't think he felt "Hogan's Hero's" needed to be removed from the air. But I understand that fundamentalists tend to understand the world...er...ah... in a simpler, cleaner way. So he should have expected s lot of the kind of response he gets here, and probably should have just let that one go by.

    Again, kudos to Sarah and to Matticus Finch for potentially raising the level of discourse here. Of course, by the time I hit post, there may be 10 more messages about "towelheads" and there being too many non-white, non-christian people in this country...but we'll see.

    I, for one, thought that Bill O'Reilly should apologize as well about his mistake. I've read all the transcripts from Bill O'Reilly's show regarding the Malmedy thing, and any fair-minded person would come away thinking that he had his facts wrong. If you need further analysis, I'll be happy to provide you with links regarding this. Here's one that might help:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenogne_massacre


    Keith Olbermann, on the other hand, stepped way over the line intentionally. And hey, I love "The Producers". It's great! If Keith Olbermann thinks he can get 'em rolling in the aisles like Charlie Chaplin (who was Jewish) and Mel Brooks (who was Jewish), and Fein and Ruddy, the creators of Hogan's Heroes (who were Jewish) then more power to him, but he claims to be a newsman in the mold of Edward R. Murrow.

    Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard, no doubt. But Keith Olbermann should never have done that. There's no getting around it.

    BTW, thanks for the compliment, Anon.

    The ultimate point is that you can quote whatever you want, I don't recall having stated that I believe in the infallibility of quotes or some other such nonsense.

    But without concrete points of reference, it's either opinion or fiction, or name calling to those not creative enough for their own myths.

    "DailyKos, Huffington Post, and Democratic Underground" at what point did I claim to read those? Refresh my memory. Oh, that's right, I didn't. And I don't. And as someone who doesn't read them, didn't mention them, I am also not defending them.

    To Robert Cox, wrong form of "your"; you meant to use "you're". So, you called me a name, yet again proving my point that there is no discourse. C'mon, you can do better than that.

    As for Sharia law. Hon, do you have so little faith in our democracy? If the god-claiming Jesus-owning Republicans control the House and the Senate and the Presidency and have stacked the Judiciary with their ilk, how then would this islamic fundamentalism become law in the land of religious freedom? What is it, the land of the free, home of the brave.

    Are you doubting our CIC and the loyalty and capability of his troops, or the NSA? What's with this Fear Mongering? Is that the best you've got, fear mongering?

    Our buddy Glenn Beck was smokin' Joe Scarborough on Monday. He's starting to come around.

    Long story short, KO is a hack who attacks and America has spoken in the form of ratings or lack there of.

    "Yes, Krazy Keith named Nancy Grace "Worst Person In The World" for "padding" her resume with details about her fiance's murder."

    Uh, Nancy Grace embellished or flat out lied about almost every aspect of the story in order to create herself a successful right wing populist TV persona. She created a false persona for him that included a long rap sheet and entirely misrepresented both the defense and prosecutorial team so she could turn her anger into a sellable populist message. And it worked big time.

    She lied on each of the following points:

    · Griffin was shot not by a random robber, but by a former co-worker.

    · The killer, Tommy McCoy, was 19, not 24, and had no prior
    convictions.

    · Mr. McCoy confessed to the crime the evening he was arrested.

    · The jury convicted in a matter of hours, not days.

    · Prosecutors asked for the death penalty, but didn't get it,
    because Mr. McCoy was mildly retarded.

    · Mr. McCoy never had an appeal; he filed a habeas application five
    years ago, and after a hearing it was rejected.

    She has called defense attourneys in general "guards at Buchenwald."

    Sarah,

    So you concede that Keith Olbermann doesn't live up to the expectations that he demands from others regarding Nazi imagery?

    I vaguely remember the Nancy Grace thing, so as per the transcripts available at msnbc.com (which anyone could actually quote!)

    "But tonight's winner, speaking of photo shops Nancy Grace of CNN's “Headline News” for years she's openly spoken of the murder of her fianc’ when she was 19 and how it set her on her career path, whatever her career is actually. She has always said that man was shot five times by a stranger with a long rap sheet for the $35 he had in his wallet. The murderer denied any involvement. She had to live thought a series of painful appeals and thus lawyers are devils.

    The “New York Observer” reports today that the record show Grace's fianc’e was in fact shot by a former co-worker who had no prior convictions, who confessed the night he was arrested, who didn't get the death penalty because he was mildly retarded and oh by the way the man never appealed his conviction. Padding the story of the murder of your fianc’e, Nancy Grace. Today's worst person in the world."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11638354/

    That's what you referred to as editorialized from it's original context.

    And to the person who named themself after me but then could not find the ability to hit the "H" key when actually addressing me. It's a Bachelor of Fine Arts, my concentration was Scientific Illustration. By my own admission I cannot read music, although as a child I took 3 years of ballet and 5 years of jazz. Tap dancing has never held any appeal.

    I also don't live in, nor did I grow up in, Ann Arbor.

    "Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard, no doubt. But Keith Olbermann should never have done that. There's no getting around it."

    Well, we pretty much agree. But as to degree, which is worse:

    A. Claiming (several times, I believe, even when people tried to correct him) that Americans had massacred nazi's, and using that false fact to somehow imply that massacring Iraqis is not such a big deal.

    B. Lampooning someone who bizarrely claims Americans massacred Nazi's to support a bizarre argument as himself a kooky Nazi?

    Apologies to the ADL, but I simply disagree that you can't use Nazi imagery in jest unless you are a Jew. I think jest is the only proper way to use it and frankly it should be used that way as frequently as possible. Read very simply, one can take KO's statement be very broad, but I think the context is clear. He meant it should not be used seriously by legislators and policymakers.

    I certainly don't think it's the kind of thing that one forms a website around. Can we come up with any others?

    O.K. maybe Olberman's salute IS the kind of thing you form a website around, after all...

    http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/

    Well, we pretty much agree. But as to degree, which is worse:

    A. Claiming (several times, I believe, even when people tried to correct him) that Americans had massacred nazi's, and using that false fact to somehow imply that massacring Iraqis is not such a big deal.

    B. Lampooning someone who bizarrely claims Americans massacred Nazi's to support a bizarre argument as himself a kooky Nazi?

    I think Bill O'Reilly was referring to the response to Malmedy, and I think he clumsily said so a day or two later. Again, look at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenogne_massacre

    for details. It was officially disputed that it happened by the US Gov't, but eyewitness accounts say something different.

    If you were to read the Bill O'Reilly transcripts in their entirety, I really believe you wouldn't be making statement (A). Regardless, I concede that he should have apologized for his error.

    As should Keith Olbermann. Right? Shouldn't Keith Olbermann apologize?

    Sarah with an H,

    Congrats on being the smuggest Olbyite to yet grace the site. You want us to "debate" you, yet you refuse to read Mr. Dollar's summaries.

    Tell you what, I will pick a post for you. Let's go in the wayback machine and discuss "voter fraud" in Ohio:

    http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2004/12/olbermann_flogs.html

    You can read the details here:

    http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20041201.asp#2

    Mind you, this is just one example of Kooky Keith's conspiracy mongering. The November 2004 archive is filled with posts by Mr. Dollar on the subject.

    "Apologies to the ADL, but I simply disagree that you can't use Nazi imagery in jest unless you are a Jew."

    If a Nazi salute is no big deal when Olby is lampooning O'Reilly, would it be a big deal if someone wants to lampoon Sen.Robert Byrd by using a burning cross or white hood, since Byrd is a former KKK member? If not, please explain.

    This is a PERFECT examople of the ridiculous HYPOCRITES you people on this site are. Someone asked for a reason why you despise this show so much and someone else wrote:

    "Olby has not had anybody on his "news program" that even slightly disagrees with him in a long time. He is afraid that he could not make sense or would stutter or something. Libs have no answers to conservatives except fighting and name calling."

    THE VERY NEXT POST READ:

    "We get it. You love Keith, and that is your right. Please allow us to despise the lying leftist hack as he defames innocent men and women whilst developing conspiracy theories that would embarass Oliver Stone. We don't come to your websites and bother you."

    Anybody see the complete and utter hypocrisy you people exhibit?
    "Keith doesn't ever show opposing sides..."
    "Please leave our site if you disagree..."

    TYPICAL RIGHT-WING BULL$HIT.
    Why don't you just come out and tell the truth?
    You don't like KO because he doesn't present the news the way you like it.
    He has different views than all of you and it comes out in the stories. That would be respectable.

    But no.
    You all can't say that. You have to have your cake and eat it too. You have to act like you don't hate other views, just that KO for some reason is a person worth hating. You are all VERY open to opposing views, right?

    Right...

    Now I'll take the advice one of you O'Reilly/FoxNews rumpswabs gave and go find another site.
    One with people who at least have the courage of their convictions, and are at least capable of saying they don't like shows that don't show GWB or the republican agenda in a negative light.

    Bunch of typical right-wing hypocrites.


    BRAVO!!!
    Perfect post by Y.A.T.R.W.H.N.J.P.!!!!

    "Keith doesn't ever show opposing sides..."
    "Please leave our site if you disagree..."

    1. Correct. Keith does not like to interview people who disagree with him. We have kept running lists that prove this to be the case.

    B. People are free to leave the site or stay. But the point is, this site is open to all points of view. We don't screen people so that only approved viewpoints are expressed. That's the Countdown way, not ours.

    III. If you want an example of hypocrisy, how about writing a long diatribe under one name, and then immediately signing on under a different name to yell "Bravo!" and praise your own writing as a "perfect post"?

    Now I'll take the advice one of you O'Reilly/FoxNews rumpswabs gave and go find another site.
    One with people who at least have the courage of their convictions, and are at least capable of saying they don't like shows that don't show GWB or the republican agenda in a negative light.

    Could you direct me to such a sight? I've tried to leave very logical, thoughtful posts both at the DU, KOS, and others and have been roundly banned from posting. I'm serious here. I would love to debate, but have yet to find a Democratic/Liberal website that allows for honest debate...

    would it be a big deal if someone wants to lampoon Sen.Robert Byrd by using a burning cross or white hood, since Byrd is a former KKK member

    Um, because burning a cross is NOT free speech - the Surpeme Court held that it is "an instrument of terror" and that the government has the authority to punish those who do it.

    Expect Mr. Olbermann to pull out his trademark cards this evening as he stated on the Dan Patrick radio show that he (Olbermann) will "vivisect" Rumsfeld over the Defense Secretary's criticism yesterday of the press's coverage of the war.

    Olbermann said he will not accept government officials telling the public that they can't criticize the government's policies.

    Of course, Rumsfeld never said that. Instead, the Defense Secretary was criticizing the content of the criticism directed against the Administration and not the right of those to criticize the White House.

    An important but obvious distinction; and one that Olbermann cannot - or will not - understand.

    So, look for lots of McCarthy and Nixon and Orwell references tonight from Mr. Olbermann. But I'm sure it will be a balanced show with a defender of Rumsfield's views on the program.

    Right.

    SMG

    Do you agree with this Supreme Court decision Anonymous? After all, in the context I provided the burning cross would only be used to lampoon Sen. Byrd, it's not meant to be terroristic. The Nazi salute is a symbol of the slaughter of 6 million Jews (is that "terroristic" enough for you), but, hey if you're just lampooning, it's fine, right Anonymous?

    There are no legislative prohibitions that I know of against wearing of the white hood. Let's say someone wants to lampoon Sen. Byrd by wearing the white hood. Since you say firing off the Nazi salute as a gesture of ridicule or lampoon is OK, then the wearing of the white hood to lampoon Sen. Byrd is OK with you too, then?

    Since you say firing off the Nazi salute as a gesture of ridicule or lampoon is OK, then the wearing of the white hood to lampoon Sen. Byrd is OK with you too, then?

    Hank, you know damn well I didn't say that. So stop puttng words in my mouth, you ass.

    After all, in the context I provided the burning cross would only be used to lampoon Sen. Byrd, it's not meant to be terroristic.

    Irrelevant. The Supreme Court said the mere act of burning a cross, REGARDLESS OF THE CONTEXT, is a terrorist act because the of its past history as an intimidation tactic.

    "As should Keith Olbermann. Right? Shouldn't Keith Olbermann apologize?"

    To who? For what?

    I guess you mean to all the Jews he supposedly offended. No, I really don't think he should. Nor do I think Mel Brooks is on the hook nor Charlie Chaplin. It was quite obviously intended as satire, and it used nazis as a villains, not a heros. What is possibly the difference between this and the flippant way Hitler an nazism is treated in the Producers? I don't know if the ADL jumped on that, but if they did, they were wrong there too.

    There is really not much wrong with lampooning someone who is presenting some factual error that would be a nazi propaganda point as a nazi. Why is that a problem, beyond the possible charge of hypocracy with regard to his one statement against the legislators, which I addressed?
    BOR accused very particular American servicemen of committing war atrocities they did not commit, to help him make a bad point in a political fight. And he was factually wrong, and stood by it. Olberman made fun of that guy as a nazi. I really don't see why the panties are bunching.

    "Since you say firing off the Nazi salute as a gesture of ridicule or lampoon is OK, then the wearing of the white hood to lampoon Sen. Byrd is OK with you too, then?"

    Yeah, I think that would be fine. Why not? Especially if he started mistakenly arguing KKK talking points like BOR did with the nazi stuff. It would be a little more pointed and mendacious, since dude really was a kluxer. I'm not going to do it, but it's fine by me.

    I guess you mean to all the Jews he supposedly offended.

    No 'supposedly' about it. I think we can both agree that the ADL is a reputatble organization, and their letter to him states that they even received letters from Holocaust survivors about that. It's a sensitive subject to many.

    I guess when 6 million of your own are slaughtered for nothing more than being Jewish, it kind of makes you sensitive. For that alone, he should apologize. The only reason I brought up Jews lampooning Hitler and Nazis (Hogan's Heroes, Mel Brooks, etc) is because, while I am not a Jew, I visited a Messianic Jewish Synagogue in Richardson Texas (Eitz Chaim) one time. I asked the Rabbi about that. Why would a Jew make fun of Hitler (the whole Larry David show series was aobut "The Producers" at the time and had me curious). Anyway, he said, "It's our way of taking the sting out of it. When Christians, Muslims,or any other religious or non religious group does it, it's offensive. Kind of like how black people call eachother N***er, but other groups shouldn't."

    Made sense to me.

    He should apologize, Anon. It was totally inappropriate what he did.

    More circular logic from the Olby-loons. Two wrongs do not make a right and I don't care how you try to justify it, Olbermann was flat-out wrong and very offensive in using such a loaded "symbol" as the Nazi salute, no matter what his intent was. And yes, he should apologize for it.

    Sarah:

    Man!!! You're killing me. Don't you have to take a bathroom break or something?

    I don't give german Jews the sole propriatorship on hatred of, or sensitivity to, nazi's. There are several million Russians, Slavs, Poles, Italians, English, French, Americans etc. who died from nazi's as well. And in this case, we were talking particularly about American service deaths at the hands of nazi's, not the concentration camp stuff. Hitler was a global catastrophe. My grandfather died fighting him, as did a lot of others'. Everyone has some right to dance on his grave. So I really don't think the N-word analogy is in the ballpark.

    Would it be better if he apologized? Sure. He should do the standard "I'm sorry if you were offended, that was not my intent"-- then explain himself -- "my intent was to lampoon BOR as a right-wing demagogue who will stop at nothing, not even nazi-propaganda points, to get ratings and help make this a more uniformly Christian and xenophobic country."

    "Two wrongs do not make a right and I don't care how you try to justify it, Olbermann was flat-out wrong and very offensive in using such a loaded "symbol" as the Nazi salute, no matter what his intent was."

    And the use of said salute as the header for this site, with a Hitler face to boot, is...what...the third wrong? which does make it right?

    Anon,

    Again, please see the link I have provided twice in the above posts. As I said, Bill should apologize. He got his facts wrong. That doesn't make him a nazi propagandist. He said "Malmedy" but should have said "the response to Malmedy". And I believe he made that correction (albeit clumsily) very shortly thereafter (within a day or two).

    But I'm glad that you think Keith should apologize.

    The image of Olbermann flashing the salute on this website is a a reminder of who he is and what he is about. OW is reporting on what he is doing and the disgusting depths he will go to to gin up the imaginary rivalry against his superior competitor.

    Spare me the suggestion that Olby should say: "I apologize if anyone is offended" bullshit. That is an insincere non-apology so why bother? If he's sorry he said it, Olby will say so.

    Just because others besides Jews are terified by the Nazi salute does not mean that the terror expereinced by Jews upon viewing the Nazi salute is not as deep and hurtful as that being experienced by blacks when they hear the n--- word or see a burning cross or a white hood. I don't necessarily think that these sorts of symbols should be criminalized, because then we start down a slippery slope of categorizing all kinds of words and deeds as unlawful, but Anonymous if you can't bring yourself to say hardly anything more than a half hearted condemnation of Olby's Nazi salute, you are either an insincere Olby sycophant or you are a truly sick person with no regard for the traumatic symbolism of the Nazi salute and it effect an those affected by it.

    Your statement about BOR using Nazi propaganda points is an utter lie and has been rebutted elsewhere on this site.

    Thanks for the link Matiicus, but I've tried ten times to sunday to see how O'reiley's point can make any sense. He was saying that the U.S. government needed to cover up the Abu Gahrib scandal. I don't think it works if he meant to say "the response to Malmady" instead of "Malmady." His point was apparently that this stuff happens in war and that you have to cover it up so that your enemies don't retaliate. This was a rejoinder to Clarks point that you just don't do that stuff in the first place. If it was "the response to Malmady" that would reverse the position of the Americans and Iraqis and doesn't make sense to me.

    Although BOR does tend towards the same side of the politcal spectrum as Hitler (right wing populist spokesman for increased state power to fight shadowy enemies) obviously he isn't near that in degree and is not simply a nazi propagandist. But his mistake (which clearly was not just mispeaking--he thought the Americans did it first) would have been the nazi side of things in that case, and so it makes sense to lampoon him as a nazi in the sense of that mistake.

    A little MORE sense, I think, than lampooning the lampooner by pasting a Hitler face on him, which really seems to completely muddle things just to enjoy the imagery.

    "The image of Olbermann flashing the salute on this website is a a reminder of who he is and what he is about. OW is reporting on what he is doing and the disgusting depths he will go to to gin up the imaginary rivalry against his superior competitor."

    So it's O.K. to use the nazi salute, and in addition a Hitler face for that? You'll see his salute and raise him a Hitler face. Olby was using his as a reminder of who BOR is and what he is about. So what?

    We might further note that after Olby received the note from the ADL, he hasn't used it. While OW, shocked at the insensitivity of a liberal, greets its Jewish visitors day after day after day with a saluting Hitler. You can't even tell it is supposed to be Olberman. All you see is Hitler. It's stupid.

    Anon, I disagree with you on the O'Reilly point, but agree with you that the flashing Hitler salute is not in the best taste.

    "Olby was using his [Nazi salute] as a reminder of who BOR is and what he is about. So what?"

    The "so what?" is what I told you before. The whole bogus "O'Reilly defends Nazis" defense is a disgusting lie. Here is the whole scenario from start to finish:

    http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/07/olbermann_defen.html

    Your silly attempts to equate O'Reilly's careless statements to defending Nazis is asinine and disingenuous. Read Robert Cox's entire analyis of this Olbermann lie and the comments that follow. Then come to grips with reality and face facts: Olbermann is simply flashing the Nazi salute for ratings and his hatred for O'Reilly.

    If I were running the OW website, I probably would not do the Hitler pic over the cardboard O'Reilly mask, but, in this context, the pic of Olbermann flashing the Nazi salute serves a good purpose: It serves as a GENUINE watchdog function, not the bogus watchdog function that Olby claimed to be doing because BOR never defended Nazis. It shows Olbermann CAUGHT IN THE ACT of using a symbol of hatred and OW exposes a person willing to to this for his own self promotion.

    It shows Olbermann CAUGHT IN THE ACT of using a symbol of hatred and OW exposes a person willing to to this for his own self promotion.

    It also show the "shoot the messegner, then beat the corpse to a bloody pulp" policy that Conservatives like Limbaugh, Coulter et al have adopted wholesale.

    Congratulations, hank. Karl Rove would be so proud...

    It seems to me as if some of the Olbyloons don't want to see the photographic proof of Olbermann's antics so are trying to think of bs reasons to pressure Cox into removing it. Don't fall for it Bob.

    Olbermann says:
    "It demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.

    For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence - indeed, the loyalty—of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land;

    Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants - our employees—with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

    Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom;

    And not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

    It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile… it is right—and the power to which it speaks, is wrong."

    WTF?

    Sarah wrote: "I "got you"? Okay, then go mow my lawn."

    Why doesn't it surprise me that she needs her "lawn" mowed?

    Olberman says:
    "It demands the deep analysis and the sober contemplation of every American."

    My first thought is to ask: Countdown has this type of sober reflection?

    No, it most certainly does not. For Mr. Olbermann to call for a respectful and substantive debate when he hosts a political hack show every evening is risible beyond belief.

    Beyond belief.

    SMG

    "Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom"

    How over-the-top is that? Like he gives a care about human freedom. Whatever he was smoking when he wrote his Rumsfeld rant, stay away from it.

    Why doesn't it surprise me that she needs her "lawn" mowed?

    Can we skip the usual trip through the sewers for a change?

    Dissent and disagreement with government is the life?s blood of human freedom"

    Of course, but not all dissent and not all disagreement is legitimate.

    Rumsfeld did not say anywhere in his speech that all dissent must stop. Or that one cannot disagree with the goverment.

    He clearly articulated what he believed was un-sound dissent. Can we not dissent against illegitimate dissent or must dissent only go one way?

    Is Olbermann saying that he can dissent against Republicans and conservatives but Republicans and conservatives cannot dissent against him?

    Let's indeed have a sober discussion on this issue as Olbermann says we must have. But let's apply that measure to all sides and not just one.

    SMG

    I'm sure that's what he's saying. After all, it's what his fans have demonstrated here in practice, just today as a matter of fact.

    I'm sure that's what he's saying.

    He certainly practices it with his conspiracy-mongering.

    I guess I'm stifling his ability to dissent by noting that his dissent is conspiracy-mongering and without substance.

    He can have John Dean on to promote his nonsensical and historically tendentious book claiming that we're on the road to fascism.

    But to criticize Dean's arguments is in Olbermann's view, wrong?

    In the world according to Olberman, Democrats can allege that the Administration's policies have made us less safe. But if the Administration alleges that the Democrats' policies would make us less safe that is somehow unfair.

    Sorry Mr. Olbermann, it doesn't work that way.

    SMG

    "Dissent and disagreement with Olbermann is the life�s blood of human freedom;

    And not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of liberalism the men Mr. Olbermann likes to think of as �his� kind still fight, this very evening, in Secaucus.

    It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile� it is right�and the power to which it speaks, is wrong."

    I watched the first segment of KO so far (in disbelief)

    I'll summarize:

    _______________________________________________
    TAPE SEGMENT:
    Rumsfeld, "We face a threat from terrorists which cannot be appeased, discounted or negotiated with...but instead must be confronted"
    _______________________________________________
    Olbermann, "Can we impeach this guy!?"

    Howard Dean, "I sure wish we would!"