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 31, 2006
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - AUGUST 31, 2006

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CALIF.) SAYS PRES. BUSH SHOULD FIRE SEC. RUMSFELD: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
    • PRES. BUSH SPEAKS IN SALT LAKE CITY AS PART OF OFFENSIVE ON WAR ON TERROR: Dana Milbank, Washington Post
    • PROTESTING BUSH: Mayor Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City, Utah
    • REACTION TO SEC. RUMSFELD'S COMMENTS: John Dean, fmr. Nixon White House counsel
    • YOU'RE FIRED - RADIO SHACK FIRED 400 EMPLOYEES BY SENDING THEM EMAILS; TRUMP FIRED CAROLYN KEPCHER: Michael Musto, Village Voice

    Keith Olbermann launched into his carnival pitchman's spiel with unusual gusto, perhaps bouyed by the fact that Countdown was now flogging an old news story for the 3rd day. Rummy, of course, and again Olby lied about what Rumsfeld said:

    In the wake of his speech against your right to dissent.

    KO launched the show proper by saying that "Mister" Bush [1] was "expanding" on Rumsfeld's theme and promoting the troika of repetitive unanimity that were to be his "guests". He quoted from "Mister" Bush [2] and showed a few clips (carefully edited to remove as much audience reaction as possible). A reference to the Brian Williams interview with "Mister" Bush [3] was used to criticize the President for insisting that the Iraq war is in fact part of the war on terror. Olby noted that "Mister" Bush [4] did not use Rumsfeld's description of critics as "confused"--again Olbermann misrepresents what Rummy said, but on The Hour of Spin, that's hardly news.

    What a great lead in for the first of KO's "top newsmakers": Barbara Boxer, who is about to introduce a non-binding resolution asking for Rummy to be shown the door. That makes it about as significant as a resolution establishing National Kumquat Week. The BB-gun said Rumsfeld "has just gone too far", then added "this is just too far". We kind of get the idea that it's too far. After all, the Secretary of Defense "attacked the American people". Olby wanted to know what's the impact of such a resolution, and BB rambled on about Iraq, UBL, and so forth. For his part, Keith, world renowned for his tough, non-nonsense interview style, honed in on the BB-gun with laser-like precision:

    The administration also insisted again today that nothing in Mr Rumsfeld's speech Tuesday was about stifling dissent, not even the part about those who disagree with the administration being morally or intellectually confused. Do you buy that?

    Then it was on to Bush's speech, and more relentless grilling:

    There are several parts of that address that a Professor of logic might be able to drive a truck through.... Is that not just nonsense?

    A challenging, thought-provoking question! Truly another Countdown Edward R Murrow Moment. For the record, the BB-gun's response was yes, it's total nonsense. Bush is trying to "scare the American people", and off she went into a string of talking points eerily reminiscent of ones spouted just 24 hours ago by Dr Dean. But the tough interrogation wasn't over yet. Edward R Olbermann had one more incisive, probing query:

    Senator have you or your colleagues in the Senate or the Democratic Party, at any point, ever suggested not fighting terrorists in other parts of the world?

    She rambled on so long that there wasn't even time for another of KO's sharply barbed inquiries, but she got "great thanks" anyhow, as did the "literally thousands" who responded to his Wednesday night diatribe. Then a teaser involving "Mister" Bush [5] to lead into commercial break #1 ("Countdown is brought to you by Dish Network").

    The #4 story began with a bit of OlbyLogic: Utah is a red state, but the mayor of its largest city protested Bush's visit, so that raises questions about the President's "core support". Um, not if the mayor is a self-described Democrat, and the city actually voted for Kerry in 2004 (KO eventually admitted the latter, but not the former). Just by coincidence, Mayor Rocky brought up the Rumsfeld "confusion" meme, along with illegal war, immoral war, Bush is a liar, his "neocon advisors" too, and so forth. It was music to Olby's ears. Question: will Rocky get a "great thanks"? Ding! After all, he did thank Krazy Keith for his "great statement yesterday". We're going to need hip boots if this gets any deeper.

    Time to update The List (partisan politicos and strategists interviewed on Countdown, identified by party):

    • May 22: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
    • May 30: Rep Barney Frank (D)
    • June 9: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
    • June 15: Bob Schrum (D)
    • June 16: Rep John Murtha (D)
    • June 19: Al Gore (D)
    • June 20: Sen Jack Reed (D)
    • June 20: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
    • June 23: Al Gore (D)
    • July 5: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
    • July 12: Barbara Boxer (D)
    • July 13: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
    • July 26: Bill Richardson (D)
    • August 8: Daily Kos (D)
    • August 9: Joe Trippi (D)
    • August 30: Howard Dean (D)
    • August 31: Barbara Boxer (D)
    • August 31: Rocky Anderson (D)

    After oddball, it was Rumsfeld Day 3, and "why this continues to resonate". Could that just possibly be because the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann has been flogging it day after day? Once again he played the same edited clip he used yesterday, slicing out the part where Rummy was referring to terror battlefronts everywhere except Iraq, to "prove", see, he was talking about Iraq. After another reference to "Mister" Bush [6], it was time for the third of KO's ideological triplets. Disbarred lawyer John Dean had the honor of the "Curly" slot, and Olby launched right in, referencing "semantical dilettantism". KO framed another incredibly probing question by noting that Rumsfeld was "seriously misjudging the playing field and overreaching":

    Did he do that in this speech?

    It will surprise no one that the ex-con thought it to be "textbook authoritarianism". Olby had him on the ropes now! Time for another killer inquiry:

    Can there be, in your opinion, a bigger or broader danger to our democracy than when the very notion of debates, never mind the particulars of debate, becomes not just anathema to the leaders, but is no longer seen as a requirement for the very survival of the Democracy?

    Dont' try to diagram that sentence. KO also wanted to know why Rumsfeld wants to "throw dissent under the bus". (Because on OlbyPlanet the rule is Democrats can criticize Republicans, but the reverse is fascism.) The felon chuckled and said, with a straight face, "good question". Good question?!? No wonder he was disbarred. Then more OlbyLogic on parade:

    He had conflated the cold war with the fascists, with Mussolini, with, with, uh Hitler, uh, it, it really is, uh, uh, is there anything to be gained by exaggerating a threat like this, by, by, by putting it in terms of, of apocalypse?

    After "great thanks" to the ex-con and a sentimental trip down memory lane (ballots in Ohio), came the most welcome commercial break in the history of television. The rest of The Hour of Spin sped by: storms, Kevin Federline, stolen paintings, Donald Trump, and the inimitable Michael Musto. The latter was so daring as to make a joke about men who like "younger women" right to Olbermann's face. In the Media Matters Minute, it was a trifecta: Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Conrad Burns (R). This is the segment Keith Olbermann insists is "nonpartisan".

    Krazy Keith's scheme to make ratings headway Wednesday night wasn't exactly a roaring success. Even with Mr Bill O'Reilly on vacation, KO found himself mired in fourth place in both total viewers and his beloved key demo. Today's blue blogapalooza will doubtless fare no better--after all, tonight the MisterMeter only went to "6".


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (163) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    163 Comments

    "All voices count"? Yikes!

    Yes, but Olbermann's intense grilling of those guests will balance things out.

    He won't let them get away with any nonsense.

    Anyway, how the heck did all these people escape the dragnet of Bush's fascist security forces? Shouldn't they be in Gitmo?

    SMG

    The voices that count most of all to Olbermann (and his fans) are all those voices inside their heads. It explains just so much about him and them.

    I think we've overestimated the meaning of "all voices count." In reality, it's a promo for Countdown, you know, all voices COUNTdown.

    Hey Olbermann still nobody to talk to who might disagree with you? What kind of a "news" show only has guests on who agree with the host?? That's not news thats only spreading propoganda along the party line. I know you like to think of yourself in the highest terms but you are a fraud and a nothing more than an ugly cheerleader for the democratic party which sadly has become nothing more than the socialist party.
    Yeah I'll stake my claim with Rumsfield and Bush rather than throw in with the likes of Howard dean and Barbabra Boxer. How about asking Boxer about her support for ther Constitution? I guess it's OK for Boxer to declare the second ammendmant null and void but you'll whine as loud as you can about supporting the Constitution when it comes to wire tapping terrorists. Opps I forgot you leftards are on the side of the terrorists.
    Once again Olbermann I challenge you to have someone on your "news" program that disagrees with you. Don't be such a typical liberal pussy.

    Olby and John Dean must have kissed and made up. Awww, love is in the air...

    Olbylogic is simple...

    * Criticizing the government is patriotic and every American's right

    * Criticizing those who criticize the government is OUTRAGEOUS and should be illegal!!

    ...and would someone PLEASE tell Olbermann that Rumsfeld and Bush, in recent speeches, are talking about the greater War on Terror (Worldwide) and NOT just the War in Iraq (which is a part of it).

    J$, time to update that list again.

    May 22: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
    May 30: Rep Barney Frank (D)
    June 9: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
    June 15: Bob Schrum (D)
    June 16: Rep John Murtha (D)
    June 19: Al Gore (D)
    June 20: Sen Jack Reed (D)
    June 20: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
    June 23: Al Gore (D)
    July 5: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
    July 12: Barbara Boxer (D)
    July 13: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
    July 26: Bill Richardson (D)
    August 8: Daily Kos (D)
    August 9: Joe Trippi (D)
    August 30: Howard Dean (D)
    August 31: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D)
    August 31: Mayor Rocky Anderson (D)
    August 31: John Dean (D)

    "All voices count," indeed.

    Out of all the people on that list, the only one I don't mind listening to is Bill Richardson. Okay, maybe Joe Trippi to a point.

    Question: if Olbermann decided to have conservative guests on his show, who would be the best picks?

    British TV to show Bush assassination drama

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14608725/

    "Death of a President" shows Bush being gunned down after a speech

    LONDON - A British television network plans to broadcast a dramatic, documentary-style film about a fictional assassination of U.S. President George W. Bush

    "It's an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work, a drama constructed like a documentary that looks back at the assassination of George Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective story," Dale told reporters.

    "It's a pointed political examination of what the war on terror did to the American body politic," he said.

    _______

    I'm wondering if they will then focus on the aftermath of this "assasination" where Dick Cheney becomes President and them gets elected in 2008...

    Oh for God's sake Olby, shut up and stop the lies about the Republicans hate dissent. This guy appears to be outright mentally ill.

    That show about Bush sounds disgusting. I can't believe the crap on television (including on MSNBC right now).

    When you consider that MSNBC also has Scarborough (Center Right) and Tucker Carlson (Loony Right) and Chris Matthews (Center?) to balance out Olbermann, I don't see what you have to object to?

    If there was no Olbermann, what cable news show would you consider "left wing" or Democratic?

    Ellen and Tyra don't count.

    Oh look who finished fourth out of five last night, just ahead of HLN. Guess? I guess all that pimping of your rant was a waste.

    http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/08/31/wednesdays-numbers-22/#more-3113

    Did Olby just mention enlargement drugs? Let them borrow yours, KO.

    Scarborough (Center Right) and Tucker Carlson (Loony Right) and Chris Matthews (Center?) to balance out Olbermann, I don't see what you have to object to?

    Two objections on my part:

    (1) Olbermann insists that he has no political agenda or ideology when he does the show. He claims that Countdown is not biased and that it looks at issues in a neutral fashion.

    I think that is absurd.

    (2) From (1) above, unlike Carlson, Matthews and Scarborough, Olbermann never - never - has dissenting guests on his show. I guess Olbermann would argue that because his show is unbiased, why have a conservative or right-of-center panelist/guests on the program.

    It's a one-sided and tendentious look at the news with no dissenting views.

    For all of his praise of dissent, Olbermann sure doesn't like to have it on his program.

    SMG

    It is embarrassing with BO gone for the week Krazy Keith still pulls up the rear in the rating.
    I know I know it is not about the ratings (Don't tell that to the stock holders or advertisers)

    You want to sell a book�..go to King Bill (Ask John Dean)

    Barbara Boxer quoting Teddy Roosevelt?? If Roosevelt were alive today he would just puke his guts out over some liberal anti-gun nut like Boxer. Then he would kick the shit out of Olbernuttjob.
    he Olbermann! I know you read this board. Be a man and have somebody on you can debate, not just liberal-progressive ass kissers. I know you like your ass kissed but isn't your pet fag Musto enough?? Don't be a liberal pussy.

    Yes, you are correct, he is a liberal pussy.

    And, the man clearly has no penis.

    I think the list of partisan interviewees should be in reverse order, starting with the most recent. Countdown is confusing enough with its ridiculous premise of counting. Backword? Foreword? What's with that anyway?

    Johnny Dollar:

    Again, calling the President "Mister" Bush is STANDARD PROCEDURE IN THE NEWS BUSINESS as long as the FIRST time you refer to him, you call him "President Bush" (which Olbermann did do).

    In other words - STOP CRITICIZING HIM FOR DOING WHAT EVERY JOURNALIST AND NEWSMAN IN THE FUCKING COUNTRY DOES.

    Olby is neither a journalist nor a newsman, so what's your point?

    Ok, "Anonymous," we hear you loud and clear, Keith.

    wow, you know the wingnuts on the right are getting a little nervous when THEY CREATE A WHOLE WEBSITE for the only, non-kookyright voice on cable. Jesus H. Lincoln, you people have the white house, the supreme court, the house, the senate, a whole television news channel Fox, and the other two cable news outfits doing their best to ape it to get ratings, see Glen beck, tucker carlson, Joe Scarbourough, Rita Cosby, Lou Dobbs Coulter pimpin her book EVERYWHERE etc. and one guy who has the stones to be on cable and say something against McNamara, er, Rumseld and you all go bat crazy and whine on some website. Who are the facists again? Let's see what Bush shills will crawl from the woodwork to attack this post. Go for it!

    wow, you know the wingnuts on the right are getting a little nervous when THEY CREATE A WHOLE WEBSITE for the only, non-kookyright voice on cable. Jesus H. Lincoln, you people have the white house, the supreme court, the house, the senate, a whole television news channel Fox, and the other two cable news outfits doing their best to ape it to get ratings, see Glen beck, tucker carlson, Joe Scarbourough, Rita Cosby, Lou Dobbs Coulter pimpin her book EVERYWHERE etc. and one guy who has the stones to be on cable and say something against McNamara, er, Rumseld and you all go bat crazy and whine on some website. Who are the facists again? Let's see what Bush shills will crawl from the woodwork to attack this post. Go for it!

    And there's a reason for that Tim. We are the mainstream. You and Olbermann are NOT. Deal with it.

    Brandon: Shill No. 1 Congratulations!!! Who'se No. 2?

    Ok, "Anonymous," we hear you loud and clear, Keith.

    Cute. Disregard my argument with a flip response. What are you, ten years old?

    How about actually ANSWERING THE DAMN QUESTION. Or would that require too much thought from what is clearly a malnourished intellect?

    Tim we'll get the last laugh in the November election where the GOP will retain the House and the Senate and the Dems are defeated once again because of idiotic thinking like that demonstrated by you and your ilk at this website in "defense" of your leftist agendas which are NOT embraced by the mainstream voter.

    Malnourished intellect. LOL. Olbyspeak at its most pretentious. You're not very polite to yell at people like that. And you wonder why no one ANSWERS THE DAMNED QUESTION.

    Oh, Shill No. 1, I have no doubt the Repubs will win. I agree with you there. and they will win in 2010. Dems have about as much guts as Bush, Wolfoditz, Cheney, Limbaugh, and the rest of the Vietnam-era chickenhawks. Until a dem grows a pair, not likely, Bush and his shills will keep winning, and no matter how bad it gets shills like Shill No. 1 wil just keep shilling for some reason.

    You're not very polite to yell at people like that.

    That's rich. The same people who tell me I'm a traitor and a seditionist are going to lecture me on manners.

    And the reason I shout is because I've asked this question at least three times and all three times I have not gotten a response that wasn't snide and/or flip.

    I just want to know: why is Johnny Dollar making all this noise about a practice that is commonly accepted as normal within the news industry?

    Mayor Rocky Anderson is a Democrat. He is the mayor of Salt Lake City, which, (1) has a tradition of Democrat Mayors and is the Downtwown area of the Salt Lake Valley. He gets elected because the university people and the governemnt workers are in the downtown area.

    Rocky is far more left than his prececessors and most of the rest of the Salt Lake valley (over 600,000 people) don't like him. The city of Salt Lake is about 450,000.

    He is an anomoly. So, Olby gets a guy from a red state who is out of step with 70% of that state and thinks he is being balanced.

    Big Man or as I wil call you: Shill No. 2. why does he need to be balanced? If you don't agree with him, here's an idea, TURN THE CHANNEL. You have a whole network, Fox News, to spoonfeed you all those things outside that pesky reality based community.

    I notice KO didn't say anything about the other protest the Mayor had allowed to go on called the "Death To (Jews)Israel� rally that paid homeless to protest.(liberals are so dam lazy they can't even protest on their own).

    http://www.utahadventurevideos.com/blog/archives/2006/08/30/death-to-israel-rally-in-salt-lake-city/

    I notice KO didn't say anything about the other protest the Mayor had allowed to go on called the "Death To (Jews)Israel") rally that paid homeless to protest.(liberals are so dam lazy they can't even protest on their own).

    http://www.utahadventurevideos.com/blog/archives/2006/08/30/death-to-israel-rally-in-salt-lake-city/

    Of course, Anderson is just the type of politician that fits the Countdown mold. If someone hates the Bush Administration, they are perfect for Countdown. On occasion a Republican will make a snide comment about Bush, and they are elevated to a Countdown-worthy mention. Personally, I think Olbermann is allergic to the letter (R) until it fits his cherrypicked ideals.

    There are Republicans, there are Democrats, and there are Olbermanns.

    .
    .
    .

    .
    .
    .


    The guy at Inside Cable News won't let me comment on Olbermann's miserable ratings. Wonder if Keith kisses his ass the way he does Brian from TV Newswer. They think that by receiving e- mails from Keith they're "special" and must protect him.

    Dean was incredibly intellectual this evening. He depth and breadth of knowledge regarding fascism as an ideology was equally impressive. He failed to grasp that while Fascism as a political movement in the 1930s and 1940s was a statist structure, it is not solely confined to those parameters. Furthermore, the President and Secretary Rumsfeld said they were fascists as they were LOOKING TO ESTABLISH A FASCIST LIKE SOCIETY. Therefore, and I know this is complicated for disbarred lawyers who hawk their book(s) on whacky leftist programs, it is fair to call the terrorists and the Iranian regime, fascist. I believe Nazi Germany, which Dean would concede was fascist, facilitated proxy groups such as Vichy France and the Ustache regime in Yugoslavia. So, I guess Hizzbulah, Hamas and other jihadists are not fascists despite being proxy armies of the Iranians?

    I was nearly unable to finish my dinner because I was so appaled by the idiocy on Countdown. If Keith wants to have a logical argument, that's fine, but he does not know a goddamn thing outside of whether or not Barry Bonds is on steroids and who leads in most homeruns right now. The guy should go back to sports and shut up for the sake of humanity.

    I get it, so Olderwomann is ok to spout his dissenting views about Bush and O'Reilly but he does not have the sack to have someone with a dissenting view on his "program"?

    So why was John Dean left off the list of guests?

    The List is of partisan politicians or strategists identified with a particular party. Felon Dean is neither a politico nor a party strategist so he doesn't qualify for The List.

    Well now you've probably hurt his feelings!

    For the guy last night

    Keith Olbermann's book is #48 at Amazon

    From 37,000 to 14 ranking as of tonight I'm impressed! But wait you said it didn't matter what the numbers were? Talking out of both sides of you're mouth? A lib? never. By the way I hope you and you're freinds at truth out have enough money left over for the shipping and handling charges. We will see how long this keeps up. But remember Aquarius you said Amazon didn't matter. Oh and I'm sure nothing will count as we get closer to 9-26-06 right?


    Nick I got those two top pictures of Orange Boy and I've got "Spider On My Bed" by the Scofflaws for the sound on my I-Tunes. It just seems to go great together. Keep em' commin!!!!!!!!!!

    Aquarius, Olby just fell to #17. Better go steal somebody's credit card. And not mine, my credit card company notifies me if there are any bizzare purchases made on it.

    , ,. ,. ., . ., . .


    .
    .
    .
    .




    It doesn't matter if Johnny Dollar or Robert Cox types this drivel; it's all the same. Neither one of you can actually construct an argument that references anything outside of your own personal opinion; you have no sources, you have no factual substantiation.

    You are petty, and you call people names. That is completely pathetic. Pathetic in that you have nothing better to do with your time, and no constructive means of arriving at any sort of solution to what you see as a problem.

    To most anyone with any degree of education, to witness someone consistantly resort to name calling as a means of expressing dislike is childish, immature, and unreputable.

    Doing what you do, you have zero credibility.

    I'm not going to defend Keith Olbermann. I didn't come here to defend anything. I came here to read this sad drivel for what it is and continually harp on the lack of depth, ethics, ingenuity, and general creativity that are not displayed at any point on this site.

    I post here to criticize the site.

    So, try as you and your sycophants may with as many misdirective forced defenses as you think you're going to hurl at me; I'm not going to do it.

    You write like a skank. You have no ethics, no depth, and have displayed a clear lack of factual sunstantiation. You are woefully unable to perform a parenthetical citation.

    And, oddly enough, you have no opinion of "Oddball." So, your editorialization isn't even complete. You're a 90% sub-par wannabe hack.

    The problem people have with Olbermann is he professes to be fair and continues to bash, disrespect, and make fun of people who have a different point of view than he does. He is bitter and has a history of crossing the line. On the other hand Tucker Carlson is gracious and respectful of people who have a different point of view. Liberals are all for diversity, except when it comes to thought.

    Olbermann reminds me of a mentally handicapped, local man who lived in my college town. He would stand by the side of the town's main intersection and proceed to "direct traffic", waving his arms, and I think at one point he even had a whistle. Everbody called him "the mayor".

    Keith is like "the mayor", he expends a lot of energy, perceives that he has some influence over people. But in the end, most sane people ignore him and some even find pity for him. Really sad.

    Who is Keith Olbermann?

    He is a "Special" person with an orange hue that finished 4th in the ratings Wednesday night behind Nancy Grace.
    Vactioning King Bill took the top spot again!

    Go try the "search" feature on Amazon and read the book. Do you know what it is? Transcripts from the WPITW segment from his show. Nothing original, nothing new. That's the book that Keith "wrote". And the liberals will eat it up like it's a missing book of the Bible. Not that any of them read the Bible, godless sodomites that they all are.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rumsfeld1sep01,0,1419169.story?coll=la-opinion-center


    Here's the link to an op-ed by Sec. Rumsfeld, printed in today's LA Times.


    Being a top-seller at Amazon doesn't mean Jack. Making it can mean selling as little as 20 books by that person in a day. It's one store. Now if it were the NY Times list, I'd be impressed. But Amazon? No.

    Sarah spewed:
    "You are petty, and you call people names. That is completely pathetic."

    Sarah, that's a very accurate synopsis of Mr. Olbermann. Well done.

    Keith Olbermann is the guy who compared Clinton-era Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr to Nazi war criminal Heinrich Himmler and who routinely likens those who don't share his views to everyone from Sen Joe McCarthy to George Orwell's Big Brother...

    So often does Olbermann (and his fellow leftists) draw such comparisions between his political opponents and so frequently does he do 'chicken littles' over the looming tolitarian transformation of our nation because of the influence of said critics and opponents (Bushies, the religious-right, those who voted for Clinton to be impeached, etc...), that he makes the real Chicken Little seem laid-back.

    Currently Olbermann is squawking over Sec. Rumsfeld analogy using the preWWII isolationist mentality.

    Olbermann's upset because Rumsfeld hasn't paid him royalities on his intellectual property...

    His guests include felon John Dean
    He's disbarred? That's really obscene
    He's Krazy Keith's hero
    The ratings near zero
    Keith, go back to dating your teen

    i'm kind of new here. but didn't this olbermann guy have a real serious head injury a few years ago? wouldn't that explain some of his crazy views and behavior. i think i read somewhere that he can't drive because of his head injury. why would anyone trust his opinions?

    No, that was Hannity. He slipped on some ice and hit his head on the curb in 1997. Now he can't drive.

    Keith Olbermann is the guy who compared Clinton-era Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr to Nazi war criminal Heinrich Himmler and who routinely likens those who don't share his views to everyone from Sen Joe McCarthy to George Orwell's Big Brother...

    So often does Olbermann (and his fellow leftists) draw such comparisions between his political opponents and so frequently does he do 'chicken littles' over the looming tolitarian transformation of our nation because of the influence of said critics and opponents (Bushies, the religious-right, those who voted for Clinton to be impeached, etc...), that he makes the real Chicken Little seem laid-back.

    Currently Olbermann is squawking over Sec. Rumsfeld analogy using the preWWII isolationist mentality.

    Olbermann's upset because Rumsfeld hasn't paid him royalities on his intellectual property...

    Administrator:

    I think there is a glitch in trying to post on this site. Hence, all the double postings. I usually get an error message, or a huge delay in trying to post, so it seems most construe this to mean their posts did not take the first time. Anyone looking into this?

    Ahhhh....here's a perfect example of my point... Bush in Nazi regalia.... no wonder these folks are appalled at Rumsfeld's weak anaology to appeasement and isolationism.... they think he's tiptoeing on THEIR territory...

    In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

    Breaking News: The administration engages in playing out various scenarios involving potential enemies of the United States. These scenarios are called wargames.

    Thanks Captain Obvious. Prempting these scenarios by suggesting a conspiracy that would blame the US for any potential conflict, how very Noam Chomsky of you.

    It's amusing how much misleading goes on.

    Bush summarizes the intelligence estimates in a misleading way. Rumsfeld sumarizes his critics in a misleading way. Olberman sumarizes Rumsfeld and Bush in a misleading way. Dollar summarizes Olberman in a misleading way, and a host of keyboard monkeys summarize Dollar in a misleading way. Then they all accuse each other of lying and being unpatriotic or stupid.

    Bush wants to get people upset at Saddam, Rumsfeld wants to get people upset at critics, Olberman wants to get people upset at Bush and Rumsfeld, Dollar wants to get people upset at Olberman, and the slacking keyboard monkeys are just pretty much upset and want to vent.

    Everyone in this parade benefits by the misleading they do. It's not irrational or stupid to prefer one sort of misleading to another. War enthusiasts on the whole were not mislead by Bush, they adopted his misleading statements as pretext for the positions they already held--for instance, that you have to meet threats with force before they fully materialize. That is not irrational or stupid, just more of a kind of personality trait. You pay your nickle and take your choice.

    No one was mislead by Rumsfeld into thinking that critics really want to appease Bin Laden, or sympathize with him. He was trying to evoke WWII imagergy in front of a WWII crowd to position this administration as successful war leaders. It gives people who already hate war protesters a talking point and motivates them.

    No one is actually mislead by Olberman, who speaks as if Rumsfeld's attempts to stir up feelings against critics were the same or similar to putting those critics in prison. In doing so, he is bolstering the liberal version of the Bush doctrine, that you need to address threats to civil liberties and human rights before they fully materialize. He accentuates these threats, again, to motivate.

    No one is actuall mislead by Dollar, who speaks as if he was concerned that people would really think Countdown is a totally impartial news source just because it claims to be. Oviously people cruising around on cable have enough experience with things like the "No Spin Zone," and every other source screaming about how impartial it is, to understand what they are seeing. OW would be another good example. No one can imagine that the administrators of this site are anything but Bush supporters, and they are attempting to motivate by accentuating the "threat" of a skeptical left-leaning journalist.

    Everyone is attempting to mislead, and everyone knows it. That is not relativism, it is fact. In the end, Olberman stands for extreme sketpticism regarding the current administration, and for civil liberties and human rights as the core of our strength. The administration stands for it's policies of preemptive wars of defense, and understands our strength and vulnerability in a much more physical sense. It's too bad that these positions can't be somewhat more moderate, but in reality, as rhetorical points they both run naturally to extremes. Hopefully we who consume the rhetoric can be a bit more moderate and keep a healthy skepticism for both sides, whichever one we lean towards.

    I lean towards Olberman only because I lean away from Bush. On an objective level Bush, just produces pretty bad outcomes.

    "(Because on OlbyPlanet the rule is Democrats can criticize Republicans, but the reverse is fascism.)"

    Er, I think the rule would be that citizens can critisize their government, but when government officials start to hint that citizens who do so are immoral or traitorous, then they are indeed trending towards authoritarianism.

    But I admit that your formulation more effectively stirs up ire against Olberman, which is either your sincere passion or job.

    Let's analyse Olbermann Watch Watcher's circular synopsis of the situation at hand...

    Everyone is trying to mislead.... and everyone knows it....therefore there's no one out there gullible enough to be misled....

    But we know that Olbermann Watch Watcher "leans more toward" Olbermann's misleading (and by extension that of a media outlet that allows him to bill himself as being impartial in the first place) because Bush is president and has bombs at his disposal....so his misleads have worst consequences....

    Hard to tell if.... this ....I struggle to call it "reasoning"... is that of a cock-eyed optimist or utter pessimist...

    It would be more apt to say it's that of a silly twit.

    Mr. Cox:
    FYI -Today's WaPost Editorial "End of an Affair" is priceless and worth noting on your blog.

    Keep up the good work.

    Anonymous writes:

    "Er, I think the rule would be that citizens can critisize their government, but when government officials start to hint that citizens who do so are immoral or traitorous, then they are indeed trending towards authoritarianism."

    Not withstanding that Rumsfeld never claimed that... I'm going to have to go back and read Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in a whole new light...

    nick:

    Did mom and dad get you some fun photoshop software for your birthday? Is your argument against Olbermann that he looks funny if you splice video segments together in a funny way? I'm sure you jerk yourself off each time you make an extra funny clip.

    I love the fact that Olbermann's fans can't seem to put together than what Olbermann did was an elaborate PR stunt for his upcoming book. And it worked like a charm. There were posters at these liberal websites encouraging people to "show their support" for Keith and buy his book. And what happens? His book sells spike on Amazon.

    "Everyone is trying to mislead.... and everyone knows it....therefore there's no one out there gullible enough to be misled...."

    Yup. That's basically it. No one who watches cable news is doing it for any reason other than to have their preconceived notions bolstered.

    "But we know that Olbermann Watch Watcher "leans more toward" Olbermann's misleading (and by extension that of a media outlet that allows him to bill himself as being impartial in the first place) because Bush is president and has bombs at his disposal....so his misleads have worst consequences...."

    I don't know that your summary clarifies anything. My opposition to Bush is not that he has bombs, but that imo he screws things up. I don't think 6 years ago we could have imagined quite as bad a situation regarding Iran as we now have. They are, so far, the clear winners of the Iraq war, which in essence, was supposed to be about Iran. The reformers have been ousted and marginalized, they can influence or control a plurality of Iraq, they are busy nukifyin', and oil is sky high so they are rolling in it and can flat out nuke our economy whenever they like. Lebanon was rolling nicely towards becoming what we say we want Iraq to be someday, and now that is marching backwards.

    Where do you see the good here?

    "It would be more apt to say it's that of a silly twit."

    Ah.

    Brandon,

    Remember too that the DNC is using Rumsfeld's speech as a counterpoint for any 9-11 Anniversary sentiment that might potentially help Republicans in the fall. Especially Sen. Boxer's "resolution".

    Now, since Keith is a guy who perpetually invokes totalitarian regimes and Orewellian senarios in a way that makes Rumsfeld's analogy about isolationist and appeasement mentalities seem complimentary in comaparision.... And Since Keith is always demanding that journos that he dislikes be fired (O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, John Gibson...as well as others...) it's difficult to say that Keith is involved with giving the ole DNC a leg-up on their strategy.

    It's more like he's giving the DNC a leg-up and staying true to his M.O. of trying to sqelch those he dislike by accusing THEM of sqelching dissent.

    If any of you want to know more about Rumsfeld's "plan" for the Middle East, look no further than the United States military community, where retired Major Ralph Peters sets out the latest ideas in current US strategic thinking (see the full article at http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899):

    "the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats."

    " As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

    Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works."

    Who might we consider to be the fascists? I think Bush and Co. are getting pretty close to meeting that definition.

    I forgot Turkey, which in every speech Bush gave could have replaced his vague and pie-eyed aspirations for a modern and moderate democratic state in the middle east, the existence of which was supposed to domino the whole region.

    I guess you needed TWO such states to start the dominos falling. Of course now we are marching rapidly towards zero, where we used to have one.

    I wonder, will Olby show his face today? Will he mention the Wash Post article editorial, or hide under his desk? He played up the Plame case for years. And now, even the Wash Post editorial says that the person most to plame for outing his wifey is Wilson himself.

    Will that be on tonights show?

    Yeah, right......

    Anon,

    Anyone who argues that someone is "misleading" but that somehow it's better to go with that particular person because their deceptions don't have the impact of this other person's deceptions....has pretty much made an argument of a twit.

    You may think such sophistry makes you look informed and sophisticated... but no...you look like a twit...

    Anon,

    Anyone who argues that someone is "misleading" but that somehow it's better to go with that particular person because their deceptions don't have the impact of this other person's deceptions....has pretty much made an argument of a twit.

    You may think such sophistry makes you look informed and sophisticated... but no...you look like a twit...

    "I love the fact that Olbermann's fans can't seem to put together than what Olbermann did was an elaborate PR stunt for his upcoming book. And it worked like a charm."

    PR stunt? Yes...what have you ever seen on cable "news" that was not PR? Elaborate? Well, if you think two rocks sitting side by side is a complex system, then yeah...otherwise...

    Why do you say Olberman fans can't put this together? They know it and like it. I know I do, and I'm not really a fan.

    "Anyone who argues that someone is "misleading" but that somehow it's better to go with that particular person because their deceptions don't have the impact of this other person's deceptions....has pretty much made an argument of a twit."

    Another summary eh? Again my point in a nutshell: Anyone in public life is misleaading. That is what they do, that's why they are there. They are spokesmen for this or that cause and they serve as lawyers, making the best, most misleading case for their side. We all know this, it just suits some people's purpose to feign indignance at one side or the other.

    "but no...you look like a twit..."

    rats.

    did you vote for bush? yes you did
    did he present a misleading summary of the NIE? yes he did.
    was it still better to go with him? yes, because you believe in the correctness of the ultimate approach he is taking to terrorism, which required him to present the best, most lawyerly case for war.

    So you're a twit just like me!

    OW is the third circle of lawyerly misleading. It mainly tries to mislead people into believing that Olberman is misleading people about Bush & co. misleading people.

    But of course I don't think anyone who has ever come here has been mislead, because the only people who come here have already made their minds up about which side is worth defending and which attacking. People come to defend and attack. And everyone knows that. OW provides talking points.

    I'm surprised no one has called me a relativist, which would be wrong, but a lot more relative than a "sophist" or a "twit." I'm not a relativist because in fact I do take a side, not on the grounds of who is misleading (everyone is) but on the grounds of outcomes.

    Fill in the blank.

    Politicians are _____.

    Ohhh, the Bush admin are the ones stifling freedom of speech, that explains what Bush must have meant when he said people who want to pull out are still patriotic Americans. Good thing we have people like the Olbermeister to accuse people of being nazis, berate, and childishly berate anyone who disagrees with him... now that's how you keep freedom of speech alive!

    What a corner you've painted yourself into. This is the quandry your reasoning has put you in. You must argue that if I voted for Bush it can ONLY be that I did so in full agreement that he misled the country and with the understanding that his end justifies his means.

    You can't call me a twit based upon your own reasoning...you can only do it by falliciously assuming that my thinking is the same as yours...

    Well, let do what your own reasoning makes illogical for you to do.....let me say that you aren't craftily choosing one side over the other based upon some predetermined standard of what's best..... Far from it.... you are dumb and misled and clueless and a twit.

    What is NOT Orwellian about the Bush Regime? Bush and his gang are vicious. They specialize in accusing their opposition with the crimes and unethical practices that they themselves are blatantly committing.

    a bad place to resolve IRS problems

    Anon,

    You're right you aren't a relativist or even very good at sophistry---- you've argued yourself into the position where you must illogically assume that everyone else reasons as you do.

    You're merely a twit.

    "They specialize in accusing their opposition with the crimes and unethical practices that they themselves are blatantly committing."

    Please enlighten us on these crimes that the administration is committing.

    " you are dumb and misled and clueless and a twit."

    Oh my goodness! I'm getting even worse.

    I do wonder though, how one explains the fact that a slim majority of the public came to believe that Iraq was directly involved in the 9-11 attacks after a series of administration speeches if they weren't in some way misleading. Hmmmm....I'll have to go back and think about that.

    Again I tend to look at outcomes:
    People believe a likely true thing--You give a speech--People believe a likely false thing that is conducive to your intentions.
    Chances are, you mislead them.

    "you've argued yourself into the position where you must illogically assume that everyone else reasons as you do."

    that would not be illogical. There is, theoretically, only one way to reason. My mistake is that I assumed that you would grant as facts things which you do not grant. Not a logical fallacy, I simply misestimated you.

    " do wonder though, how one explains the fact that a slim majority of the public came to believe that Iraq was directly involved in the 9-11 attacks after a series of administration speeches if they weren't in some way misleading.

    The fact that any majority is and has been capable of being misled blows holes in what you have argued.

    "Hmmmm....I'll have to go back and think about that."

    duh

    There is, theoretically, only one way to reason. My mistake is that I assumed that you would grant as facts things which you do not grant. Not a logical fallacy, I simply misestimated you.>>>

    Go look up the logical fallacy called "begging the question", einstein.

    You're assumption was that people cannot be deceived...and anyone who assumes otherwise (Johnny for instance) is guilty of willfully overlooking 'the obvious' in order to bash an opponent.... "everyone is being misled...and everyone knows it"...

    Get a better argument in your attempts to marginalize others.

    "The fact that any majority is and has been capable of being misled blows holes in what you have argued."

    I didn't say anyone was misled did I? I said the statments were misleading, but you still supported him, and probably aped the same misleading statements to try and convince others.

    Parenthetically, I would make a bit of a special case for people who have access to classified information and give knowing winks and nods to create an impression. That would be the case for Bush who cherrypicked little parts of the classified NIE and leaked them in 2002-2003. People could be very simply misled by that. But in fact, there were only some people who came to believe these things, (a tiny bit under 50%) which I think is the same timy bit under 50% who voted for him. They wanted ammunition to support him and he gave it to them. That is my point. It is misleading, but overall, people are not misled, in the sense that they are already predisposed to the argument. They just want ammo, so their attacks can be better than:

    " you are dumb and misled and clueless and a twit."

    and

    "duh"

    "Get a better argument in your attempts to marginalize others."

    Oooo...that sounds like a nasty thing to do, "marginalizing others." I'm sure Dollar's feelings are hurt badly. But your point is laughable. You and I both know who comes to this site. You and I both know what happens here, for instance, calling people twits and so forth. And your indignance is phony and amusing.

    I do think this is probably the most damning thing that can be said at this site, that it is just as misleading as Olberman, with opposite intentions, and that we all should be a bit more moderate and understanding than the rhetorical clowns we talk about.

    "I do wonder though, how one explains the fact that a slim majority of the public came to believe that Iraq was directly involved in the 9-11 attacks after a series of administration speeches if they weren't in some way misleading."

    And

    "I didn't say anyone was misled did I?"

    Yes, you said a majority of folks came to believe something misleading....

    That mean that people can be misled. And that would make you arguing that they were successfully misled ....

    That you tripped up and contradicted yourself in this way while making an effort to change the subject into an argument over whether the Bush Administration is, in fact, misleading....is merely the consequence of your being none too bright.

    In other words-- a twit.

    >ddthat we all should be a bit more moderate and >understanding than the rhetorical clowns we >talk about


    more you should stop being damn hipocrites about the people you bitch and moan about.

    And you should go to high school.

    Using logic to analyze Uberloon is illogical. Krazy Keith's konvoluted logic algorithm always generates the same whacked-out, left-wing, conspiracy theory results. It's like playing political word association with a victim of Tourette's Syndrome.

    Talk about "rheorical clowns"...I love this:

    "But in fact, there were only some people who came to believe these things, (a tiny bit under 50%) which I think is the same timy bit under 50% who voted for him. They wanted ammunition to support him and he gave it to them. That is my point. It is misleading, but overall, people are not misled, in the sense that they are already predisposed to the argument."


    And how..pray tell...could one get "predisposed" to a position in the first place...

    "Duh" and "Twit" sum it up...

    "Yes, you said a majority of folks came to believe something misleading....

    That mean that people can be misled. And that would make you arguing that they were successfully misled ...."

    People can say and believe things that are misleading without being misled. That is my WHOLE point. Everyone in public life is misleading. That is in essence their job. Everyone (so to speak) recognizes this at some level, even if they feign indignance at their opponents overstated case. Is this a fine point? Perhaps. If you don't get it, then feel free to call me a twit and go on about your business.

    And I already said I would make a special case for people who have access to classified intelligence and make comments about it. That can be genuinely misleading, at least until you realize that this may be how they operate.

    By the by, I mildly supported the invasion.

    It's amusing how much misleading goes on.

    Bush summarizes the intelligence estimates in a misleading way. Rumsfeld sumarizes his critics in a misleading way. Olberman sumarizes Rumsfeld and Bush in a misleading way. Dollar summarizes Olberman in a misleading way, and a host of keyboard monkeys summarize Dollar in a misleading way. Then they all accuse each other of lying and being unpatriotic or stupid.

    Bush wants to get people upset at Saddam, Rumsfeld wants to get people upset at critics, Olberman wants to get people upset at Bush and Rumsfeld, Dollar wants to get people upset at Olberman, and the slacking keyboard monkeys are just pretty much upset and want to vent.

    Everyone in this parade benefits by the misleading they do. It's not irrational or stupid to prefer one sort of misleading to another. War enthusiasts on the whole were not mislead by Bush, they adopted his misleading statements as pretext for the positions they already held--for instance, that you have to meet threats with force before they fully materialize. That is not irrational or stupid, just more of a kind of personality trait. You pay your nickle and take your choice.

    No one was mislead by Rumsfeld into thinking that critics really want to appease Bin Laden, or sympathize with him. He was trying to evoke WWII imagergy in front of a WWII crowd to position this administration as successful war leaders. It gives people who already hate war protesters a talking point and motivates them.

    No one is actually mislead by Olberman, who speaks as if Rumsfeld's attempts to stir up feelings against critics were the same or similar to putting those critics in prison. In doing so, he is bolstering the liberal version of the Bush doctrine, that you need to address threats to civil liberties and human rights before they fully materialize. He accentuates these threats, again, to motivate.

    No one is actuall mislead by Dollar, who speaks as if he was concerned that people would really think Countdown is a totally impartial news source just because it claims to be. Oviously people cruising around on cable have enough experience with things like the "No Spin Zone," and every other source screaming about how impartial it is, to understand what they are seeing. OW would be another good example. No one can imagine that the administrators of this site are anything but Bush supporters, and they are attempting to motivate by accentuating the "threat" of a skeptical left-leaning journalist.

    Everyone is attempting to mislead, and everyone knows it. That is not relativism, it is fact. In the end, Olberman stands for extreme sketpticism regarding the current administration, and for civil liberties and human rights as the core of our strength. The administration stands for it's policies of preemptive wars of defense, and understands our strength and vulnerability in a much more physical sense. It's too bad that these positions can't be somewhat more moderate, but in reality, as rhetorical points they both run naturally to extremes. Hopefully we who consume the rhetoric can be a bit more moderate and keep a healthy skepticism for both sides, whichever one we lean towards.

    I lean towards Olberman only because I lean away from Bush. On an objective level Bush, just produces pretty bad outcomes.

    Matticus...note to self....don't ever cross Cecelia.

    "I lean towards Olberman only because I lean away from Bush."

    If that's your only reason for watching his show, then I'd say that Olbermann has a real problem with his core fan base.

    She's scarrrrry. She can call you a twit if you don't watch your step.

    Who cares what you supported.

    Again, you're defending your argument with the argument's conclusion. That means you now have to plead a special exception to your claim that "everyone knows they are being misled"--- "genuine" deceptions that come deceiving the public about classified info and such...then you have to backtrack on the genuinely misleading argument by then saying that people aren't really even misled over it because they're merely predisposed....

    Stop while you're.....behind...twit.

    "If that's your only reason for watching his show, then I'd say that Olbermann has a real problem with his core fan base."

    I don't watch his show. Big waste of time.

    "Matticus...note to self....don't ever cross Cecelia"

    Matticus, I don't know if you are aware of this, but we can all see your notes to yourself.

    Just so you know.

    Matt,

    I'm sweet as pie. But there's only so much lunacy I can take...

    "Who cares what you supported."

    No one. I'm too stupid. And you're not here to attack people or bolster your preconveived notions with a neverending, self-congratulatory Guy-Fawkesing of an obscure journalist, but to protect the public from a genuinely misleading menace!

    The world hangs in the ballance Cecelia the girl! Are we going to have to moral strength to keep typing positive things about our president and countering the viscious lies of the left? Or will we cut and run and face a neverending nightmare of Islamofascism as all the forces of darkness converge on us?

    Only YOU can answer this burning question, Cecelia!

    Anon-
    Dang. Was that out loud? Sorry.

    Miss Cecelia-
    Yes ma'am.

    No one. I'm too stupid. And you're not here to attack people or bolster your preconveived notions with a neverending, self-congratulatory Guy-Fawkesing of an obscure journalist, but to protect the public from a genuinely misleading menace!

    The world hangs in the ballance Cecelia the girl! Are we going to have to moral strength to keep typing positive things about our president and countering the viscious lies of the left? Or will we cut and run and face a neverending nightmare of Islamofascism as all the forces of darkness converge on us?

    Only YOU can answer this burning question, Cecelia!


    More logical fallacy: Reductio Ad Absurdum

    (Look it up, twit...)

    "More logical fallacy: Reductio Ad Absurdum

    (Look it up, twit...)"

    No, I know what that means. How does that make sense here?

    "Please enlighten us on these crimes that the administration is committing."

    OK,

    THE 9/11 ATTACKS - WHAT WE KNOW:
    = The Bush administration was comprised of a group of people who had published a radical foreign policy. Elements of this policy include what is now known as the Bush preemptive doctrine. When Paul Wolfowitz first created this policy for the George H. W Bush administration it was dismissed as insane. This group of people created an agenda and a strategy to advance it. This group openly stated ”Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.“ The Bush administration was comprised of people who had a clear and public MOTIVE for creating or enabling the attacks of 9/11. This is a issue that should be addressed by our media, our lawmakers, our citizens and the rest of the world.
    = Every procedure that was in place to deal with domestic hijackings was ignored on the day of the attacks.
    = Why did the Secret Service feel that there was no need to protect George W. Bush?
    = George Bush resisted an official inquiry into the worst national disaster since Pearl Harbor for 18 months. Any reasonable person would want to know what happened and they would want to make sure that there were no traitors in our mists. It was reasonable to consider the possibilities that the people who planned an attack like this had inside help. A president would want this checked out. George W. Bush wanted no investigation. He already had an official story and was quickly passed on to the press.
    = Every bit of evidence at Ground Zero and the Pentagon was confiscated and destroyed, and not preserved as crime scene evidence. This in itself is a crime. No need to look further. This is not in dispute. The George W. Bush is responsible for ordering or allowing the destruction of crime scene evidence.
    = There is not a shred of evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. All films from security cameras at the scene were confiscated and never seen again. The few frames of video from the Pentagon security camera were leaked to the public from an anonymous source in the Pentagon. When information is leaked from the Pentagon during a heightened state of emergency it is cause for concern. Neither the administration or the press question this breech of security. This is a clear indication of an intentional leak designed to sell the official story. If a 757 had hit the Pentagon they would have released the videos that were confiscated.
    = The hole made in the Pentagon crash is far too small for a 757 to have made.
    = Dozens of bin Laden family members were hurried out of the country without FBI interrogation immediately after the attacks.
    = None of the alleged hijackers was on any passenger list of the hijacked planes.
    = Eyewitness accounts describe a windowless, blue plane hitting the WTC.
    = Someone placed ‘put’ orders on the two hijacked airlines before the attacks, and stood to net huge stock market profits.
    = The Twin Towers both collapsed at free fall speed in the manner of a planned demolition, with visible explosions occurring in sequence on floors never hit by the planes.
    = The owner of the WTC admitted that Tower 7 was ‘taken down’ (intentionally demolished) by the Fire Department. THIS IS A CONFESSION! DO WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE?
    = Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the Kean Commission about the warning memo that stated bin Laden was targeting the US.
    = Condoleezza Rice lied when she claimed that no one could have imagined an attack using airliners as weapons. NORAD had drilled for such events 2 years before the Bush White House claimed that they never could have imagined it.
    = George Bush claimed he saw the first plane hit Tower One, when no photos of the crash had been shown on any television screen.
    = George Bush sat silently in a classroom for seven full minutes after being informed that a second plane had hit the WTC. Why did George W. Bush react to the attacks differently than every other person in the nation? While every American jumped into emergency mode, George W. Bush did not flinch. He was not worried about his own safety or about the security of the nation. Why not?
    = NORAD did not send up a single interceptor jet despite knowing that four hijackings were taking place.
    = FBI agents and bomb sniffer dogs went through trash bins in both WTC Towers for weeks prior to the attacks. They were suddenly removed prior to the attack. Some people in our government were trying to do their job, others might have been trying to prevent the job from being done.
    = Dick Cheney was in charge of a series of drills held on the morning of September 11th, simulating attacks by hijacked airliners on the WTC.
    = No one in the US government is willing to investigate any of these and hundreds more concerns about this terrible event.
    THE WARS AGAINST AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ – WHAT WE KNOW:
    = Members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) occupy or had occupied many important positions in the present Bush administration.
    = PNAC explained the need for wars against Iraq and Afghanistan in papers published in the late 1990’s.
    = PNAC urged President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq, but was turned down.
    = PNAC member, Paul Wolfowitz, ADMITS that it was about OIL! HE ADMITTED IT! THE PRESS IGNORED THIS!!! ARE YOU LISTENING! DO YOU NEED MORE PROOF THAN A CONFESSION FROM ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THE WAR??? ARE YOU LISTENING???
    = The PNAC thesis “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” stated that Americans would not accept pre-emptive wars against Iraq or Afghanistan unless there was a ‘catastrophic event like a New Pearl Harbor’ inside the country. Again we establish motive for complicity in the events of 9/11.
    = The Bush administration was trying to negotiate an oil pipeline deal with the Taliban before 9/11. They promised the leaders of Afghanistan a ‘carpet of bombs’ should the deal fall through. The deal fell through.
    = Deputy Director of the FBI, John O’Neill, quit his job in protest over this threat. O’Neill died in the attacks on the WTC on September 11th.
    = The attack on Afghanistan was explained as retaliation against the Taliban for not turning Osama bin Laden over to American authorities.
    = Both Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powel stated prior to 9/11 that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction and that he was unable to pose a threat to his neighbors or the US.
    = George W. Bush came into the White House intent upon removing Saddam Hussein from power.
    = Donald Rumsfeld stated that the response to 9/11 should be an attack on Iraq because that’s where the targets were.
    = The UN inspectors were given unfettered access to sites Iraq, and requested more time to complete their task.
    = Everyone in the Bush administration with access to the media stressed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction capable of killing millions of Americans.
    = A totally false connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was fabricated and repeated at every possible opportunity.
    = In October, 2002, George W. Bush lied to the Congress of the United States about the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In a brazen and impeachable act, he manipulated intelligence information in order to procure Congressional approval for his war against Iraq.
    = Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld spent months assuring the American public that their lives were in great danger unless the US waged a preventive war against Iraq. There was no doubt about the accuracy of their information, they said. No doubt at all. Mushroom clouds were on the horizon.
    = In January, 2003, George W. Bush lied to the nation in his SOTU speech about nuclear material obtained by Saddam. His unrelenting terror tactics and repeated references to Iraq’s WMD’s paved the way for public acceptance for a war he had planned for years.
    = In February, 2003, Colin Powell lied to the UN on two separate occasions in a futile attempt to convince the Security Council of the immediate threat presented by Iraq.
    = Despite UN inspectors’ statements to the contrary, George Bush told the nation that Saddam Hussein was not in compliance with the UN resolution requiring open inspections.
    = In March, 2003, boasting of a bombing strategy named ‘shock and awe,’ George Bush invaded Iraq.
    = More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in George Bush’s war. Nearly 3000 American troops have lost their lives. Untold thousands are maimed. The carnage continues and civil war is imminent.
    = The minutes of the Downing Street meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair revealed an agreement to attack Iraq months before the invasion itself.
    = George W. Bush violated international law by waging a preventive war on a non-threatening, sovereign nation. That illegal war continues to this day.
    THE ABUSE AND TORTURE OF PRISONERS – WHAT WE KNOW:
    = On May 7th, 2002, the US officially withdrew from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The US now has immunity from the court for US citizens suspected of atrocities. US soldiers serving overseas are immune from prosecution in the court, while politicians and US officials, including CIA operatives, can claim diplomatic immunity.
    = Shortly after 9/11, WH legal counsel, Alberto Gonzalez, drafted a memo in which he virtually changed the rules of prisoner treatment. The memo declared the war on terror to be conflict against a vast, outlaw, international enemy in which the rules of war, international treaties and even the Geneva Conventions did not apply. Alberto Gonzales was subsequently appointed US Attorney General.
    = In January, 2002, the WH legal department issued another memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.
    = In February of 2002, George Bush signed a secret order authorizing the CIA. To set up a series of secret detention facilities outside the United States, and to question those held in them with unprecedented harshness.
    = The Bush administration then began to send terror suspects to other countries for interrogation, thereby absolving the US of blame for torture applied elsewhere.
    = In 2003, Abu Ghraib was formally handed over to tactical control of military-intelligence units for the expressed purpose of extracting information from detainees.
    = As an outcome of regular inspections, the International Commission of the Red Cross broke its rule of secrecy by publicly complaining of the systemic abuse of prisoners, in Iraq and Afghanistan, detailing methods of abuse that were in clear violation of international law.
    = In 2004, hundreds of photographs and video tapes were released that revealed shocking methods of abuse and torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison.
    = Despite many complaints about abuse, no investigation of prisoner treatment was held until it was clear these photographs were about to be leaked to the media.
    = Many civilian contractors were employed to carry out ‘interrogations’ of detainees.
    = Many of the detainees had committed no crimes, but had been arrested in huge sweeps of Iraqi men intended to secure information about insurgent attacks.
    = Interrogations were conducted and supervised by military intelligence operatives who ordered that prisoners be ‘softened up’ for questioning.
    = Abuses often were sexual in nature, preying upon the cultural sensitivities of Moslem men regarding nudity and public sexual acts.
    = Abuses were systemic throughout Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
    = Hundreds of other photos and videos were kept secret by the Pentagon, and have recently been ordered released to the public.
    = The Bush administration attributed the abuse to the work of a few ‘bad apple’ underlings, and denied any knowledge or approval by anyone in the administration.
    = Reports of Koran desecration at Guantanamo were corroborated by the Pentagon.
    = To date, civilian aircraft continue to fly terror suspects to other countries for harsh and illegal interrogation methods.
    = To date, no one in the Pentagon or the White House has been held accountable for the widespread abuse and torture of prisoners. To date, only enlisted personnel have been charged with any abuses or torture. To date, further investigations have been dropped.

    Maybe you are saying that I am reducing YOU to an ABSURD level?

    You could just say "Hey, you are parodying me and reducing me to an absurd level"

    I didn't mean to parody you anyway, I would have thrown in some twits and duhs if I were to do that. It was a parody of the whole vigilant watchdog thing.

    When you say Reductio Ad Absurdum it implies some kind of logical fallacy thing. This is more an error of taste and judgement. We insane flaming liberals are always prone to that.

    "We insane flaming liberals are always prone to that."

    More logical fallacy. Hasty generalization.

    Because you are a liberal and happen to also be a twit does not mean that all liberals are twits.

    (BTW-- love the way....you aren't parodying me...or putting words in my mouth...)

    On radio Keith's sniffing jock
    On TV he's selling a crock
    Both shows really shitty
    Keith's suckin' hind titty
    He doesn't know his ass from his cock

    "Matt,

    I'm sweet as pie. But there's only so much lunacy I can take..."

    I know. It makes one so very very angry. So you're on a first name basis with Matticus? And you're "sweet as pie?" That's pretty sweet Cecelia the girl. Are you sure you're not just as sweet as, say, apples or something?

    Saying you were sweet as pie was a logical fallacy.

    IAre you sure you're not just as sweet as, say, apples or something?>>>


    I'm sure.

    (yikes!)

    You are not as sweet as pie, at least, not most pies. Admit it. You may save the world from Islamofascism by unmasking the secret sympatizers among us, but ERGO IPSO you are not "sweet as pie."

    "More logical fallacy. Hasty generalization.

    Because you are a liberal and happen to also be a twit does not mean that all liberals are twits."

    Are you accusing me of DICTO SIMPLICITER? If so, I think you are making the error of POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. For I never implied YOU said that.

    please respond.

    You should have given me an "accusare nemo se debet nisi coram Deo" to my flaming liberals comment. The "dicto simpliciter" was not to the point.

    and as I say, I believe, A MARI USQUE AD MARE, one cannot find any pie that is at the same level of sweetness as you. Apples? perhaps. I fear "auribus teneo lupum."

    Cecelia, you have seriously overestimated your sweetness level. What can I expect though. DULCE BELLUM INEXPERTIS.

    Tua mater...

    No response, despite the cant that omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina?

    jethro, he likes the little boys.
    he thinks they're the cutest of toys.
    now, he's a regisred sex offender.
    somewhat of a straight guy pretender.
    who to survice, in prison, plays coy.


    Tua? Is that the right usage? And the sentiment is palpably not "sweet as pie."

    Your rejoinder? Let me not be vox clamantis in deserto.

    Ick! what a nasty place this is. Infected with the base vulgar. I tried to bring some moderation and decency. It seemed for a minute like someone knew latin. But you people are here for anger, so I shall re-embody my motto: odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

    Eezje. Orryse to ingbre a little evityle to the onversationce.

    Wait...that's pig latin. Carry on, Multilinguals.

    here's a discussion about this going on somewhere on this board, and I'm curious to see what the majority thinks (since it's quite impossible to read all the reactions in that thread).

    So, what do you think: is pre-marital sex a normal thing, which shouldn't be a problem for anyone, or do you think it is wrong?

    I don't think it's a good idea unless you are in some kind of equivalent to a life-long commitment. It causes too many problems as I've seen in my friends who were already having sex in high school. I stayed pure until I met my husband, not that I didnt have the chance to do it a lot of times, but it was a decision I made from a young age that I would wait.

    Agreed.

    I think abstinence until marriage is generally a good practice; the end result is stronger commitments and health. Also, the risk of having an illegitimate child is non-existent.

    Not to mention the risk of Syphilis, Genital Herpes, HIV, etc... which aren't exactly on my to-do list.

    Agreed.

    I think abstinence until marriage is generally a good practice; the end result is stronger commitments and health. Also, the risk of having an illegitimate child is non-existent.

    Not to mention the risk of Syphilis, Genital Herpes, HIV, etc... which aren't exactly on my to-do list.

    "Not to mention the risk of Syphilis, Genital Herpes, HIV, etc... which aren't exactly on my to-do list."

    Who are you having sex with? I'm not talking about that, I mean with good, clean white girls.

    It seems to me that today's "marriage" is a state or religious sanctioned event. I think we should ignore the state and ignore religious involvement because they have made a fine mess of things. We can act responsibly without a leash.

    Abstinence is NOT the way to change a declining population. Get it? I think "abstinence" is another scam to brainwash Whites into NOT mating. I don't see other ethnic groups practicing "abstinence", but your taxes provide assistance! Be responsible. Don't be hedonistic.

    I'm not against increasing the population, especially given big run ins of mexicans and such. I just think you need to get married. Blacks have tons of premarital sex and babies...it's not the way to improve a race.

    I dont believe it is a Theological issue, just a moral one. Just as is homosexuality, which too is now considered "acceptable" to our nation as a people just as the "theys" who run hollywood want us to...and has also effected the White birth rate. It's an immorallty issue.

    Join me for Chruch this Sunday at www.scripturesforamerica.org

    "Always be armed. You never know when the Lord Jesus will send you someone who needs to be shot. You should always be ready to serve Him, lest they rape or kill others after you!"- Swordslinger77 (AKA: Colonel Denton.)

    Mr. Olbermann stated on the Dan Patrick radio show that he'll give a "response" to Rumsfeld's LA Times op-ed piece that ran today.

    Hmm, after claiming that someone is practicing a "form of fascism" what followup commentary can one do?

    'Course if we truly lived under any form of fascism, Olbermann wouldn't be around to give a followup commentary. That inconvenient fact complicates Mr. Olbermann's silly diatribe.

    Anyway, he didn't say who would represent Rumsfeld's views during the show to provide balance.

    (ahem)

    SMG

    Course if we truly lived under any form of fascism, Olbermann wouldn`t be around to give a followup commentary.

    that`s right, dumbshit. nevermind that the country is MOVING TOWARD fascism, just simplistically state that we aren`t one now, and that`ll suffice for a cogent argument from the likes of idiots like you. so just sit around and swill your propaganda and ignore what`s really going on and keep telling yourselves that there`s nothing really going on.

    Join me for Chruch this Sunday at www.scripturesforamerica.org

    "Always be armed. You never know when the Lord Jesus will send you someone who needs to be shot. You should always be ready to serve Him, lest they rape or kill others after you!"- Swordslinger77 (AKA: Colonel Denton.)

    -----------

    Join me for Chruch this Sunday at www.scripturesforamerica.org

    "Always be armed. You never know when the Lord Jesus will send you someone who needs to be shot. You should always be ready to serve Him, lest they rape or kill others after you!"- Swordslinger77 (AKA: Colonel Denton.)

    -----------

    You are all weclome to keep calling each other names if you want but regular OlbyWatch readers, both pro-KO and anti-KO, tend to have a little more wit in their posts. Come on people, lighten up, focus a bit more with Olbermann-centric topics and try to have some fun. We are not ACTUALLY solving the problems of the world here!

    : :

    ; ;


    nevermind that the country is MOVING TOWARD fascism, just simplistically state that we aren`t one now

    Well, your argument should be with Olbermann and not me.

    Mr. Olbermann says that we currently live under a "form of fascism." Present tense. Not future.

    Try again. Only this time try and raise the quality of your post.

    SMG

    Despite his pep talk to the leftists and terrorists Tuesday, Olbermann's ratings remain abysmal

    The Scoreboard: Wednesday, August 30 DARA (DARA = Day after Rumsfeld attack)

    25-54 demographic:

    1. Fox O'Reilly 390,000
    2. Zahn CNN 282,000
    3. Grace CNNHLN 224,000
    4. Olbermann MSLSD 216,000

    Total Viewers

    1. Fox O'Reilly 1,683,000
    2. Zahn CNN 745,000
    3. Grace CNNHLN 534,000
    4. Olbermann MSLSD 484,000

    Olberman fails at all he attempts. He is perfect for MSLSD.

    liberals demand politcal correctness, negating the second ammendment and disarming law abiding citicens, outrageous taxes and re-distribution of wealth, DEMAND so called gay "marriage" on a populace unwilling to re-define the family. They seek to negate and ridicule any religion (except Islam of course) in the public sphere. They demand we fight the war on terrorism and terrorists in a poltically correct way and sometimes seem to be actually rooting for the enemies of America. In their hysterical looney reaction to losing elections since 1994 they go after the President and his cabinet rabidly while offering no real alternative other than telling us what a bad job Bush has done. They simply cannot wrap their liberal socialist mind around the fact that they no longer are in power and can do nothing but bitch-bitch-bitch about Bush.
    The real enemy of America is from within. The liberals who have taken over the democratic party have become insane and unscrupulous in their attempt to regain power. I believe the lunatic leftists in this country are far more dangerous than the terrorists. Make no mistake in my words- the terrorists ARE a real and present danger to America but the liberals will literally hand this country over to them in the name of their sacred and cherished ideology of "diversity and tolerance" .
    Then we get this has been sports reporter with bad hair and a bad tan not reporting news but actually out Dan Rathering Dan himself with liberal politcially correct insanity.
    I want to know what gives this ginat moronic blowhard the right to criticize Rumsfeld?? What credentials and classified information does this Olbernuttjob have? Has he been to Iraq?? He probably would not go because it might mess up his ridiculous metrosexual look. If we had slimeballs like this guy during WW2 we would all be spaeking Jap or German right now. Then the liberals would have the REAL Hitler they always name to describe our President.
    Hey Olbernut you slimeball how about rooting for the hoe team for a change you traitor?

    Despite his pep talk to the leftists and terrorists Tuesday, Olbermann's ratings remain abysmal

    That's purported terrorists, mind you.

    The terrorists are always alleged or purported to have done something. Let's not be too hasty with them.

    But the White House is always guilty of something.

    Of leaking to Drudge or Novak or something.

    No qualifiers with those charges.

    Thus is the world according to Olbermann.

    SMG

    Maybe Olby will name Joe Wilson WPITW tonight, because even the Washington Post now says that the main person responsible for outing Plame was Joe Wilson himself.

    What are the odds for Wilson being WPITW?

    Interesting post above by a terrorist-loving leftistl! Could there be any better example of their self-destructive and childish mind-set?

    How about a picture of the Twin Towers falling on Bush after Bin Laden pushes them over? Do you get inspired by Al Jazeera then create your pictures? You do realize that the above is the exact same view that a terrorist would love, don't you? If the Islamists win it will be your face on the man laying down as Islamofacists force you to live as a slave.

    Regarding ths images posted to this by "You" and "George W. Bush" above. I have reported the matter to their internet access provider and they will likely lose their service for violating the terms of their user agreement with Comcast:

    ============================

    Dear Comast,

    A Comcast customer accessing my web site may be violating the terms of their Comcast User Agreement.

    Could you please investigate and report back what steps have been taken to address the actions of the person or persons accessing my site from IP address 71.202.123.73 which WHO IS reports as Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. ATT-COMCAST (NET-71-192-0-0-1) ; 71.192.0.0 - 71.207.255.255; Comcast Cable Communications, IP Services BAYAREA-20 (NET-71-202-0-0-1) ; 71.202.0.0 - 71.202.255.255

    I find the images posted to my site by your customer to be objectionable, per your terms of service, on the grounds that the images as (a) pornographic in nature; (b) constitute "hate speech"; (c) are gruesome and in bad taste. I would like to remove the linked images from my site as rapidly as possible but want to give Comcast and opportunity to investigate and report back. I would ask that you please do so promptly so that I do not need to subject my readers to these images any longer than is necessary for you to look into the matter.

    You may view the images in question at the following URL:
    http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/08/countdown_with_110.html#26240

    The posts originating from Comcast are time stamped as follows:

    Posted by: President George W. Bush at September 2, 2006 12:16 AM

    Posted by: You at September 2, 2006 11:49 PM

    Posted by: You at September 2, 2006 11:50 PM

    Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

    Sincerely,

    Robert Cox
    Editor
    Olbermann Watch

    HTML has now been disabled in comments.

    Sorry folks...no more pix.

    I'll miss the animated photos of Olby but I will not miss the stupid and pointless cartoons nor the positively pornographic images that were posted here in the last several days.

    I have been so busy that I have not done what I promised with Nick which is to post those animated gifs myself. They WILL be back on the site, this time coming from me.

    This comment thread is now closed.