I see you guys are still spreading the lie that Shuster 'predicted' Hastert would resign.

Sorry, but he did no such thing.

Now, IIRC, Joe Scarborough 'predicted' the Dems would sweep Congress or somesuch.

radmod,

We all know that in OlbyLoonLand you can just call something a "lie" and that makes it a "lie". Unfortunately, the rest of us, here on planet Earth, actually watched the show, linked the transcript and quoted Shuster directly.

I am guessing you did not even WATCH the show in question but are just being a typical OlbyLoon and reflexively defending Keith against any criticism that might in any way reflect on him.

Thanks for demonstrating OlbyLoonThink for our new readers.

" watched the show, linked the transcript and quoted Shuster directly."

I have repeatedly shown (with transcripts) that Shuster REPORTED, not 'predicted', that REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS said that Hastert would resign. That is not a prediction. To say otherwise is lying.
Prove it is a 'prediction'.

If you guys want to bitch about predictions, bitch about how Rep lawmakers predicted incorrectly.

Really? Then where's the link?

Mr Cox, this is a typical trick from Slippery Shuster. "All my sources tell me that..." All his sources told him Karl Rove was certain to be indicted. All his sources told him Hastert would be out in a week. Etc etc.

Has any reporter ever been burned so many times by bad sources? Usually, when a reporter gets such bad information, he will explain himself by identifying the people who misled him so badly, since there is no confidentiality for a source who feeds misinformation. Shuster has been strangely reluctant to do so. Is it because he wants to go back to these "sources" the next time he needs to spin something for Olby? Is it because his "sources" are always the same one or two pseudo-Republicans who want to do a hit-job on the administration? Or is it because his sources are fictional, little more than voices inside his head?

C'mon, BobbyC, I know you are not that obtuse. You know I've pointed this out. However, fine, act that way:
Shuster: "And, in fact, tonight, we‘ve been told by every lawmaker, every Republican lawmaker we‘ve called has said that Dennis Hastert will not be the speaker of the House this time next week. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15141830/

JD, that comment was insipid. However, You would've done better than lying by facetiously saying, originally, "I wonder how many 'lawmakers' he called?"

Especially considering it was reported he would resign (I left out the 'letter' about him leaving by Fri.) A couple of examples:
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/10/04/cq_1566.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/12/hastert-resign-2/

And for a bit of levity, the odds he will?
http://www.gambling911.com/Dennis-Hastert-Resigns-100406.html

radmod wrote "Shuster REPORTED (as I have pointed out before but you guys keep lying): "And, in fact, tonight, we‘ve been told by every lawmaker, every Republican lawmaker we‘ve called has said that Dennis Hastert will not be the speaker of the House this time next week. "

As you keep posting this on EVERY thread imagineable I guess it really bothers you. The problem is that Shuster's sources area about as real as Brian Stelter's "emailers" and "tipsters". Perhaps you don't recall how Shusters "sources" had Karl Rove being frog marched out of the White House. Shuster's track record suggest that he fabricates sources in order to go on TV to make outrageous claims. You think Brian Williams would have Shuster on the NBC Nighltly News with the kind of crap reporting he does on MSNBC?