Well worth the wait, Bob.

It's always fun to see the left's hatred of america on full display, thanks anonymous.

hating fascists makes perfect sense.

How is not wanting America to torture people hatred ? I would like an answer if you can conjure one up.

getting a little off topic? are we anon?..never mind..ahem..back to the issue of "you tube". correct me if i'm wrong but meembers grade the videos on that site, much like the articals submitted to digg are subjected to member rejection or acceptance. problem i see with this is much like the book "reviews" at amazon-if a particular author is reviled by a particular group-then that group can maliciously "gang up" and tar whatever that individual has submitted or is selling. witness all the loons who "review" on amazon that troll to smear conservative authors. doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pattern.
the upshot of these musings is that i think that both malkin and olbyloon should be free to post videos-and that ganging up to shoot the messenger simply to get people banned is wrong-

getting a little off topic? are we anon?..never mind..ahem..back to the issue of "you tube". correct me if i'm wrong but meembers grade the videos on that site, much like the articals submitted to digg are subjected to member rejection or acceptance. problem i see with this is much like the book "reviews" at amazon-if a particular author is reviled by a particular group-then that group can maliciously "gang up" and tar whatever that individual has submitted or is selling. witness all the loons who "review" on amazon that troll to smear conservative authors. doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pattern.
the upshot of these musings is that i think that both malkin and olbyloon should be free to post videos-and that ganging up to shoot the messenger simply to get people banned is wrong-

getting a little off topic? are we anon?..never mind..ahem..back to the issue of "you tube". correct me if i'm wrong but meembers grade the videos on that site, much like the articals submitted to digg are subjected to member rejection or acceptance. problem i see with this is much like the book "reviews" at amazon-if a particular author is reviled by a particular group-then that group can maliciously "gang up" and tar whatever that individual has submitted or is selling. witness all the loons who "review" on amazon that troll to smear conservative authors. doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pattern.
the upshot of these musings is that i think that both malkin and olbyloon should be free to post videos-and that ganging up to shoot the messenger simply to get people banned is wrong-

getting a little off topic? are we anon?..never mind..ahem..back to the issue of "you tube". correct me if i'm wrong but meembers grade the videos on that site, much like the articals submitted to digg are subjected to member rejection or acceptance. problem i see with this is much like the book "reviews" at amazon-if a particular author is reviled by a particular group-then that group can maliciously "gang up" and tar whatever that individual has submitted or is selling. witness all the loons who "review" on amazon that troll to smear conservative authors. doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pattern.
the upshot of these musings is that i think that both malkin and olbyloon should be free to post videos-and that ganging up to shoot the messenger simply to get people banned is wrong-

getting a little off topic? are we anon?..never mind..ahem..back to the issue of "you tube". correct me if i'm wrong but meembers grade the videos on that site, much like the articals submitted to digg are subjected to member rejection or acceptance. problem i see with this is much like the book "reviews" at amazon-if a particular author is reviled by a particular group-then that group can maliciously "gang up" and tar whatever that individual has submitted or is selling. witness all the loons who "review" on amazon that troll to smear conservative authors. doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pattern.
the upshot of these musings is that i think that both malkin and olbyloon should be free to post videos-and that ganging up to shoot the messenger simply to get people banned is wrong-

sorry about multiple posts!!-what is up with that anyway?

I think that's the record selfwilly, lmao. The enemy is the terrorists, not the american men and women who do everything they can to protect us. Something you and anonymous will never understand o'lielly. Have you two checked out the site rc linked to? You'll love it, people worshipping olbermann as god.

I think that's the record selfwilly, lmao. The enemy is the terrorists, not the american men and women who do everything they can to protect us. Something you and anonymous will never understand o'lielly. Have you two checked out the site rc linked to? You'll love it, people worshipping olbermann as god.

Yes the terrorists are the enemy... however is our problem worse or better than it was before we invaded Iraq for no reason. We have lost bilions of dollars and 2,800 lives, and what have we got in exchange for that ?

RCOX.. are you unable to read the results for your own poll ? The winner was and is a crazed rightwinger. Are you like Faux and not willing to face your own truth ?

And PC gods are hard to come by these days, what with the ACLU ..olby would be a good choice for the secular progressive...LOL...can't wait to see the shrine!

I guess secular progressive is fair if effing jesus freaks who want to ruin our country is fair.

How about that Atlas Shrugs lady? I mean c'mon and all.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

You probably won't get your wish since things like Olbermann's Special Comments get top download ratings.

i guess the question really is, why a concerted gang effort is brought to suppress speech at all? just because of a viewpoint?? i disagree with what i read on the net all the time...but i don't feel the need to call all my little internet buddies to get some thing banned or smeared just because it's an opposing opinion.

O'leily wrote:

"RCOX.. are you unable to read the results for your own poll ? The winner was and is a crazed rightwinger. Are you like Faux and not willing to face your own truth ?"

The poll is posted there plain as day for anyone to read.

It just happens to be wrong. The correct answer is "D. Keith himself"

oh,, so like Florida in 2000 the votes do not count ? Or like that corrupt bastard Ken Blackwell in Ohio a lot of the votes were ' spolied ' ?

The poll is posted there plain as day for anyone to read.

It just happens to be wrong. The correct answer is "D. Keith himself"

Posted by: Robert Cox at October 6, 2006 07:21 PM

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

2 things:

a) The poll states that choice D. is neither, not Keith Olbermann. It is yourown site's poll.

b) We will remember that the next time we answer an Olbermann Watch poll... that there is supposed to be a correct and incorrect "answer". Infact... with that said... I am sorry that I answered the poll in the first place (I answered Neither Michelle Malkin or Keith Olbermann).

For shame.

RC was right, olbermann's numbers are back down to usual. Olbermann was in 3rd, instead of the usual 4th, which is something. But the real news is O'reilly at 2.3 million! DAMN! Stompin' all over olbermann's sorry ass!

Olbermann was at 588,000 in case you're wondering.

Ms. Malkin makes a good point.

During World War II, American journalists knew that "Loose Lips Sink Ships!" In the new World War, many Americans wonder where the loyalties of American journalists lie. We have a free press in America, but not a responsible press.

In the new World War, many Americans wonder where the loyalties of some journalists lie. Some journalists follow American soldiers into battle only to report on what goes wrong, to focus attention on mistakes that are made, to get the story from the enemy's point of view, and to weaken American resolve: they blame America for evil deeds and seem to want America to lose the war.

When was the last time you read a newspaper article telling you about the bravery, courage, or success of our troops in battle? Can you imagine a TV news anchor closing a news broadcast with the words: "Godspeed to our troops and our prayers for the swift defeat of the enemy."

Even worse, some journalists actually help the enemy by revealing top secret programs designed to protect America from enemy attack. In June 2006, the New York Times proudly published details of a top secret program designed to trace and cut-off the funding of Islamic terrorist groups. It was not the first time the New York Times chose to betray the American people by revealing top secret programs that have been keeping them safe since 9/11: The New York Times revealed top secret plans to adjust troop levels in Iraq; The New York Times revealed a top secret program to trace phone calls between terrorists in the U.S. and other countries; The New York Times blew the cover of FBI agents by alerting an alleged terror-funding Islamic charity that an FBI raid was imminent.

But Americans really should not be shocked by the anti-American attitude and treasonous behavior of modern-day journalists. It's not new. The anti-American attitude and treasonous behavior of modern-day journalists was on full public display almost immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Many journalists in America have been on the wrong side of the war since "Day One."

After the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, journalists from the Reuters international news service refused to describe Osama bin Laden and his murderous disciples as "terrorists." The journalists pointed to the official Reuters editorial policy, which stated: "As part of a long-standing policy to avoid the use of emotive words, we do not use terms like terrorist." But the definition of the word "terrorist" is: "A person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community." The term is clearly descriptive, not "emotive."

In the United States, ABC News barred its journalists from wearing American flag lapel pins because it didn't want to be seen taking sides in the War on Terror. An ABC News spokesman said: "We cannot signal how we feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause, through some sort of outward symbol."

In February 2003, just before the American invasion and liberation of Iraq, CBS News aired an interview with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the despicable mass murderer, torturer of women and children, and supporter of international terrorism. Many Americans scratched their heads during the televised interview, wondering what could possibly be learned about Saddam that wasn't already known, and why they should believe anything that Saddam had to say. At the end of the interview, CBS News anchorman Dan Rather told Saddam: "I would very much like to see you in the future, Mr. President."

On April 13, 2004, during a nationally televised presidential press conference, viewers across the country were astonished to hear members of the American press corps ask repeatedly whether or not President George W. Bush thought he should apologize for the tragedy of 9/11. The questions included: "Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11, 2001?" and "Do you believe the American people deserve an apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?" The president responded: "Here's what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans."

Modern-day American journalists seem to have difficulty choosing the side of right over the side of wrong, the side of good over the side of evil: They even have difficulty showing loyalty to their own countrymen. During World War II, American journalists understood the meaning of "Loose Lips Sink Ships." Today, many American journalists don't.

Thank you.

Michael S. Class

Web Site: www.MagicPictureFrame.com
Blog: www.MagicPictureFrame.blogspot.com

Well said micheal.

The War on Terrorism pits the forces of freedom and democracy against the forces of tyranny. Unless you are ready to shred the Constitution and live under radical Islamic rule, this is a war we must win - for ourselves and for our children. With the enemy producing videotapes and Web sites to get its message across, the meaning of this war couldn't be clearer.

In an audiotape released on January 23, 2005, Islamic terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, gave the following warning: "We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it. Democracy is based on the right to choose your religion, and that is against the rule of God. Whoever helps promote this and all those candidates, as well as the voters, are also part of this, and are considered enemies of God."

In February 1998, Osama bin Laden issued the following order to his followers: "To kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

In November 2002, Osama bin Laden said: "The Islamic Nation is the Nation of Martyrdom, the Nation that desires death more than you desire life."

In 2002, Osama bin Laden wrote a letter to the American people explaining the reasons for his War on America. He wrote: "The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leader of the criminals. The creation of Israel is a crime that must be erased. You support the Jews."

In 2002, Osama bin Laden wrote a letter to the American people explaining what he wanted Americans to do in response to his attacks. He wrote: "What are we calling you to do, and what do we want from you? The first thing we are calling you to is Islam. You are a nation who, rather than ruling by shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies."

Seems like Ms. Malkin is right on the money.

What is disturbing is that so many people - and entire political party (Democrats) - don't want to believe the words of our enemies.

Thank you.

Michael S. Class

Web Site: www.MagicPictureFrame.com
Blog: www.MagicPictureFrame.blogspot.com

The War on Terrorism pits the forces of freedom and democracy against the forces of tyranny. Unless you are ready to shred the Constitution and live under radical Islamic rule, this is a war we must win - for ourselves and for our children. With the enemy producing videotapes and Web sites to get its message across, the meaning of this war couldn't be clearer.

In an audiotape released on January 23, 2005, Islamic terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, gave the following warning: "We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it. Democracy is based on the right to choose your religion, and that is against the rule of God. Whoever helps promote this and all those candidates, as well as the voters, are also part of this, and are considered enemies of God."

In February 1998, Osama bin Laden issued the following order to his followers: "To kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

In November 2002, Osama bin Laden said: "The Islamic Nation is the Nation of Martyrdom, the Nation that desires death more than you desire life."

In 2002, Osama bin Laden wrote a letter to the American people explaining the reasons for his War on America. He wrote: "The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leader of the criminals. The creation of Israel is a crime that must be erased. You support the Jews."

In 2002, Osama bin Laden wrote a letter to the American people explaining what he wanted Americans to do in response to his attacks. He wrote: "What are we calling you to do, and what do we want from you? The first thing we are calling you to is Islam. You are a nation who, rather than ruling by shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies."

Seems like Ms. Malkin is right on the money.

What is disturbing is that so many people - and entire political party (Democrats) - don't want to believe the words of our enemies.

Thank you.

Michael S. Class

Web Site: www.MagicPictureFrame.com
Blog: www.MagicPictureFrame.blogspot.com

Michael:

Are you seriously afraid of Bin Laden forcing us to abandon our Constitution and live under Sharia law? I'm not, because he can't. He can write all the letters and make all the videos he wants, but he does not have the power to subjugate our Constitution.

The only people who have that ability are the leaders of our government - they can erode our rights and violate our freedom. They can turn Americans into torturers, invade countries for no legitimate reason, spy on us illegally. They shouldn't, but they can.

This is why we need people like Olbermann to argue the other side, and the Times, Post and ABC News to expose illegal activities by the government. In a democracy, the people provide the oversight to the government, so we need to know if the government breaks the law.

We need opposition to keep the government's power in check. We need somebody to tell us if the leaders of Congress are covering up a child sex predator, or if the president is committing illegal search and seizure, because if they don't, we won't know to vote the offenders out of office.

We need a Keith Olbermann to point out that it's ridiculous for Republicans to accuse Democrats of agreeing with terrorists, just because they disagree with Republicans. That it's a lie to accuse those who disagree with the government of hating the country, the troops, Jesus, baseball and apple pie. What is disturbing is that cable news broadcasts of these opinions are necessary, because it means that there aren't enough people out there making the connection themselves.

It's also sad that so many people misuse the phrase "terrorists win". Terrorists can't win by killing us - we just bounce back. We're good at that. We're Americans. But if our reaction to terrorist attacks is fear, hatred and abandonment of American values, then maybe terrorists win - not for anything they did for us, but for things we did to ourselves.

I'd rather live in a free country with a 1/100,000 chance of being killed by a terrorist than in a country that is not free. If there is another attack, and if I were to be one of the victims, I could accept that, knowing that while the attacker believed he was a martyr to his God, I was a martyr to our freedom.

I fail to see the value in "banning" someone from YouTube. Doesn't the first Amendment give everyone in the United States the right to speak his/her mind? No one is forcing you to watch Olbermann or Malkin videos.

Andy,
First of all I need Olbermann like I need
hemroids! Next I belive its been said he
got a spike in the ratings by his coverage
of the Foley mess,isn't that warm and fuzzy
Foley sent nasty e-mails to young boys,thats
all they have on him,nothing else...Lets do
a little time travel and put the shoe on the
other foot and see if its true about BIAS in
reporting

The Mark Foley instant-messaging scandal is playing out like a massive October Surprise for Democrats. On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, ABC News anchor Christopher Cuomo spoke insistently: "Less than a month before the elections and the Mark Foley scandal just keeps growing." Reporter Jake Tapper added: "This is the scandal that will not go away."

To measure the aggression of TV assignment editors on the Foley story, MRC analysts counted the number of stories devoted to the scandal and the repetitive insistence that Republicans are in deep political danger and may need GOP leaders to resign. On the ABC, CBS, and NBC morning and evening news programs, from the story’s emergence on Friday night, September 29, through Wednesday morning, October 11, the Big Three networks have aired 152 stories. (A fraction of the stories were brief anchor updates.) The breakdown:

ABC: 50 (World News, 20; Good Morning America, 30.)
CBS: 46 (CBS Evening News, 15; The Early Show, 31.)
NBC: 56 (NBC Nightly News, 20; Today, 36.)
Is this feeding frenzy what the networks would do for any scandal where a middle-aged Congressman is caught talking dirty to a teenager? No. Consider the case of Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Illinois). In 1994, Reynolds was indicted over a consensual sexual relationship with a girl named Beverly Heard, beginning when she was 16. Heard testified that Reynolds gave her cash at each meeting and supplied her with his pager number and apartment keys.

In taped phone conversations, they even plotted group sex with a 15-year-old Catholic high school girl Heard had said wanted to have sex with him. Reynolds responded on tape: "Did I win the Lotto?" He asked Heard to take naked photos of the girl. He was indicted on August 21, 1994, and convicted on August 23, 1995 on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography. Here’s how the same networks handled that congressional sex scandal.

The 1994 indictment of Reynolds (total: three stories): ABC: zero. CBS: two (one anchor brief in the evening, another one in the morning). NBC: one evening story.

The 1995 conviction of Reynolds on all 12 counts (total: 16 stories): ABC: one. CBS: five (one evening anchor brief, three morning briefs, and a full morning story). NBC: 10 (one evening anchor brief, six morning anchor briefs, a morning story, and two morning interview segments).

Please note that this adds up to 19 stories over more than a year, not 12 days. If the Foley story advanced to an indictment, how many more hundreds of stories will these three networks air?

There are obviously some differences in the two sex scandals. Foley’s Web interactions were with a congressional page, while Mel Reynolds was dealing with a minor in private. But Foley’s scandal is based on sex talk, while Reynolds not only had an active sex life with one teen, he was trying to add more teen sex partners.

There’s one obvious similarity: Reynolds was in the Democratic majority in 1994. The networks did not erupt in a frenzy asking: what did Speaker Thomas Foley do to protect the children? When would Democrats force Reynolds to resign? No one did. He was re-elected in 1994.

In the fall of 1994, with the ethical scandals hanging over Democrats, like the indictment of crooked Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (who did not resign, but ran for re-election), the Reynolds scandal might have had partisan resonance. But the networks weren’t interested in that kind of partisan resonance.