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 'EST/-5.0/no 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


    December 13, 2006
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - DECEMBER 13, 2006

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • MORE TROOPS?: Richard Wolffe, Newsweek chief White House correspondent and MSNBC political analyst; Col. Jack Jacobs, U.S. Army (ret.) and MSNBC military analyst
    • PAULY SHORE STOOPS AWFULLY LOW: Paul F. Tompkins, VH1's "Best Week Ever"

    KO bellowed the opening spiel: Tim Johnson's health, a possible Republican replacement, "Mister" Bush rumored to be planning "not less [sic] troops in Iraq but more" (Olby's Murrow-like command of the English language never fails to impress), Rummy's farewell interview, Tony Snow, and The Great Paula Shore Controversy. You just can't get this stuff anywhere else.

    MADMAN

    The Hour of Spin began with the latest on Sen Johnson, with Olby already raising red flags about a Republican governor who might just end up appointing his replacement. Slippery Shuster showed up, and in what may be the best possible news for Johnson, reported that his sources told him "the Senator's health is not good". KO tipped off his party on how to handle the situation, noting that there is no way a Senator who is incapacitated can be forced out of his office and thus replaced. The two of them gloomily talked over the scenario of the GOP taking back the Senate, and a good time was not had by all. Slippery was great thanksed.

    Then it was on to rumors of "doubling down" in Iraq. Yesterday's news, but it filled a few minutes on Countdown. If you wonder why we have a "Mister" Meter, consider that the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann here quoted from a Los Angeles Times article, and changed its wording so it would read "Mister" Bush.

    After the obligatory bad poll numbers, The Wolffe Man crept onto the scene. Monkeymann claimed "Mister" Bush "does not value the opinion" of people who disagree with him (doesn't it sound like Olby is talking about himself?), and blamed the possible shift in tactics on "the neocons at The Weekly Standard". Them damn neocon monkeys! Oops, Wolffie didn't agree. KO suggested that Bush shouldn't send more troops because that's not what the opinion polls favor. Insightful analysis there by the discredited sports guy. Maybe A-Mess-NBC should stop running The Hour of Spin because it's not what the opinion polls (ratings) favor. That's our Olbermann: way down deep, he's shallow.

    After great thanksing the Wolffe Man, Olby turned to "mouthpiece" Tony Snow, devoting an entire segment (titled "Snow Job") to the fact that among thousands and thousands of responses, he allegedly said "I don't know" 400 times. Another frenetic oddball preceded a newsmaker item about "George Lukas" of "Star Wars" fame. Lukas? Is that the same sort of alternate spelling (like "Olberman") that leads KO to hand out a "worst person" nomination? Heh.

    The #3 story was about Rummy, and since he's leaving Olby has to take every possible opportunity to attack him. He tried to pick some nits between two different versions of the Rummy resignation, and dragged in Lawrence Korb. As always, Larry was described as a "Pentagon veteran from the Reagan administration". Fat Ass uses that to imply that he's some sort of conservative or Reaganite, when he's actually no more a Reagan Republican than David Brock. If he were, he wouldn't be in the Countdown Seat of Honor. When the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann actually suggested that instead of leading a war on terror, Rumsfeld should have just "wrapped up the group of 40 to 50,000 who attacked us", it was clear this partisan propaganda palaver had definitely jumped the shark.

    #2: Rollover crashes (regurgitated NBC video), Britney Spears, K-Fed, Peter Boyle. #1: Pauly Shore! In the Media Matters Minute, there was nothing much. You see, the upcoming Christmas Festivus holiday is leaving the Soros site shorthanded, and there just hasn't been anything there about O'Reilly lately. And if Brock doesn't do his research for him, Herr Olbermann can't be bothered to do it for himself.

    OLBY

    Muted mongrels: Given that A-Mess-NBC has a whole staff of retired generals who serve as analysts, why is it that Monkeymann has not turned to either General McCaffrey or Gen Downing, both of whom met with the President regarding his Iraq policy? Instead of guessing how that meeting went, wouldn't they be able to give Keith first-hand information? Couldn't they explicate the reasons why they recommended the increase in troops? Sorry gentlemen. You've made the sort of heretical statements that just drive Olbermoronn crazy. Get the picture? McCaffrey and Downing agree with the President's reported change in tactics. So they ain't gonna be allowed on Countdown to say so. The Iranian convention of holocaust-deniers went unmentioned for yet another day. Krazy Keith has reported on the ethics committee Foley report, but, like the slovenly political hack that he is, he left something out. He still has said nothing about the miserably uninformed chairman-designate of the Intelligence Committee, nothing on the Jimmy Carter plagiarism controversy, and to be sure not a word about the round up of illegal aliens involved in a massive case of identity theft. No time for any of that--we need more Pauly Shore! Finally, KO has yet to tell his viewers how Jack Abramoff implicated Sen Harry Reid.

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olberman's name fell to #468 at amazon, while Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" rose to #19. The OlbyTome sunk to #1,723 at Barnes & Noble, but O'Reilly's book is up to #17. Tuesday's numbers must have brought a grim dose of reality to the Hour of Spin gang. Once again Olby was relegated to an ignominious fourth place, losing to The Factor, Paula Zahn, and a rerun of Deal or No Deal, both in total viewers and in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 7 [HIGH]


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (243) | | View blog reactions

    243 Comments

    Olbermann implied the South Dakota governor (Mike Rounds) barely won re-election. Winning with 61% of the vote is not "barely."

    Olbyspin is a mindboggling thing. Only the libs are captivated by it.

    I hate Queef Odormoron

    George Lukas? Who is that? Oh, he meant George Lucas, of Lucasfilms, who made the Star Wars saga. DUH!

    And isn't it ironic that my cable system is now televising a commercial for the Star Wars saga on Cinemax, right after incompetent Olby misspells his name in the Top 3 Newsmakers segment.

    Pathetic; you people are sitting here splitting hairs about a simple spelling error of someone's last name that is rarely mentioned these days.

    Can't you see how ridiculous you sound???

    A 34% Bush approval rating in the latest poll.

    Astounding! What that poll really shows is that 34% of the population must be morons!

    Fox News apologized for spelling Olby's name wrong. Let's see if Olby does the same for George Lucas. And it's not a minor error there Phil. It is in local tv news but on a national news broadcast? Bad. Very bad. Very unprofessional.

    "I hate Queef Odormoron"

    Probably for f---ing your mother.

    Word is that KO has trouble getting it up and keeping it up for anyone and he's far more likely to be f---ing someone's very young daughter, not a mother.

    hey Phil boy your hero Kieth Gerbilmann has put people on his moronic "worst person in da world" for far less. don't you realize how idiotic you sound defending the gerbilmann??
    yesterday gerbils in the butt today butt painting?? either olbermann has a serious ass fetish or he is trying to "firm up" his homosesual base of viewers.. maybe both.

    hey Phil boy your hero Kieth Gerbilmann has put people on his moronic "worst person in da world" for far less. don't you realize how idiotic you sound defending the gerbilmann??
    yesterday gerbils in the butt today butt painting?? either olbermann has a serious ass fetish or he is trying to "firm up" his homosexual base of viewers.. maybe both.

    Since Olby is the managing editor of the broadcast, he ultimately is responsible for ensuring that the display graphics contain correct spelling. I guess he's the managing editor until something goes wrong.

    "I hate Queef Odormoron"

    Probably for f---ing your mother
    I smell the stupidity of the gerbil -boy O'lilelly...

    Anon: I'm not defending Olby. I'm just observing what a pathetic life you must have if you've got nothing better to do than to waste your time picking at minor spelling mistakes of a cable TV pundit!

    Did Olby just say that Pauly Shore is a CD viewer? If so, that explains a lot.

    You do know that Olby has used other networks mistakes as an excuse to rip into them right?

    And who would brag about having Pauly Shore as a viewer? Oh, that's right, a loser like Olby.

    Olby wastes his life picking at the foibles of others. He should expect similar treatment.

    This latest Pauly Shore thing only proves that there are too many publicists in this world.

    Do any of you seriously think he actually cares whether or not you sit there and pick at his 'foibles' or not?

    "Anon: I'm not defending Olby. I'm just observing what a pathetic life you must have if you've got nothing better to do than to waste your time picking at minor spelling mistakes of a cable TV pundit!"
    with all due respect Phil what is the lesser of two evils :pointing out the foibles and mistakes of man who has made his pathetic carreer over loudly announcing the foibles and mistakes of others or in your case trying to defend that man ?
    the gerbilmann lets no conservative mistake, no matter how miniscule and inconsequential pass by so it stands to reason to hold him as accountable as he holds others. who holds the media accountable for their mistakes and bias?
    the sad part is not that olbermann's mistakes would be pointed out but that you would defend him for it.

    "Do any of you seriously think he actually cares whether or not you sit there and pick at his 'foibles' or not?"
    No, I don't care what, if anything, olbermann thinks or cares about.
    the purpose of this site I expect is not care about olbermann's feelings or opinion but to point out what a glaring hypocrite and blatantly partisan liberal hack he is.
    maybe if olbermann took the time to read some of the comments on this site he might learn something. For all his misdirected pedantic ramblings olbermann has a lot to learn and little to teach or preach.

    Olbermann reads this site. He's talked about it in interviews as well. I think you might better ask him that question than us. He's seemingly obsessed with what people say about him, he seems to have very thin skin as well. Bottom line: he can dish out but he can't take it.

    Once again, I'm not defending Olby. I'm pointing out how stupid YOU look! Why don't you just watch a show you actually like, or go to the movies, or watch O'Reilly, etc. etc. In other words, get a life?

    typical Olby loon response to everything: just don't watch! Hey, I've got a suggestion for you Phil buddy: just don't post here!

    Then just what are you doing, Phil? If BOR or anyone on Fox had made that mistake, Olby would be the first to tell us all about it.

    If Olbermann does actually read this site, I don't think he is too impressed with the intellect of bloggers who resort to terms like 'Olbermoron', 'Odorman', 'Gerbilmann', etc.

    I remind you that Olby has called Chris Wallace a "monkey" and has called Lindsay Lohan's mother an "old bag". And don't even get me started on the names he's coined for O'Reilly.

    You don't really know your hero too well do you Phil?

    We're not impressed with Olby, either.

    I would imagine with olbermann's bloated ego and over reaching and ambitous but delusional sense of self worth he would read study this website. But like most of the liberal media he has a glass jaw when it comes to criticism. They can sure dish out the opinion and holier than thou attitiude but when someone, anyone points out THEIR failings.
    I would expect a self declared "newscaster" like olbermann who spends 1/3 of his time bashing Bush and the conservatives and the other 2/3s of his pitiful broadcast reporting on tom cruise/britanny/ gerbil-rights/ musto/ butt painting/ teo day old recycled net vids to not really have the ability at introspection and self realizations to know how really dumb he looks and sounds. Watch his sad little face after he asks some yes man guest to reinforce his POV sometime. He looks like he just ate a gerbil- recycled of course!

    It's funny how he only looks and sounds dumb to right wing posters. Your obsession with this man wouldn't have anything to do with your political outlook, would it?

    "If Olbermann does actually read this site, I don't think he is too impressed with the intellect of bloggers who resort to terms like 'Olbermoron'"
    well then Phil we are even then because most of us here, with noteable exceptions like yourself, are not too impressed with olbermann either.
    are you impressed Phil by olbermann's using psuedo monnikers for those who he chooses to ridicule? If so then thank you for demonstrating the intelligence and the high caliber of olberman supporters. We all knew that it was perfectly OK for leftists to use any nasty names for those that disagree with the party line but conversely not OK for anybody else to do so. Isn't that called "politcal correctness" or some such nonsense? Oh that's right olbermann admitted on late night TV ( white loafers and all!!) to being a discple of the politcally correct vison.

    I didn't watch the show. So, I have to ask: During the Tony Snow segment, did KO credit Dana Milbank, who wrote the same information in a column in today's papers? Or did he simply "report" the story as news, without attribution...it seems awfully coincidental, the timing of this segment, the article, and the fact that the Gregory/Snow spat from last week made such big news on other networks.

    Throw in the fact that Milbank is now a MSNBC employee, and it reeks of NBC News damage control by making Snow look ill-tempered and uninformed.

    " It's funny how he only looks and sounds dumb to right wing posters. Your obsession with this man wouldn't have anything to do with your political outlook, would it"
    well would YOUR favorable obsession with him and defending him so gallantly have anything to do with YOUR political affiliation?

    OK,I won't argue about that.

    You think Olbermann is a moron...I think the president of the United States is a moron. Assumming we're both right, which is worse?

    and why do you think that the prsident of the US is a moron?? most likely beacuse olbermann or some other liberal mouthpiece TOLD you he was.
    but fair enough, no use going around and around about it. we all have our opinions and values. We;ll just have to agree to disagree.But this IS a site devoted to pointing out the mistakes and utter ridiculousness and pomposity of olbermann. if you want Bush bashing watch olbermann.

    and why do you think that the President of the US is a moron?? most likely beacuse olbermann or some other liberal mouthpiece TOLD you he was.
    but fair enough, no use going around and around about it. we all have our opinions and values. We;ll just have to agree to disagree.But this IS a site devoted to pointing out the mistakes and utter ridiculousness and pomposity of olbermann. if you want Bush bashing watch olbermann.

    Phil
    Were not impressed by Olby. Thats why we have this site. And people like you drop by for our entertainment pleasure.

    Pauly Shore, finally Olby finds someone who has lower ratings them him. How many fans does Pauly have left? two? Him and his Mom? Yep Olby beats him. Olby has Himself , his mom ,and Katie what's her name.

    Tony Snow does Fox and CNN all the time. Why doesn't chicken s**t Olby have Mr. Snow on Countdown. Edward R. Morrow would have!

    Okay Phil let's do you're dopey moron thing......One Moron was smart enough to become president. The other moron can't even draw a million veiwers to his dopey little propaganda fest. Well then who's the better moron. Or! Is Phil a bigger dope than we give him credit for?

    We report you decide!

    Thats where you are wrong. Liberals and moderates think for themselves. Thats why we don't march in lockstep like the Repubs have been doing until just recently.

    On the flip side, all those idiots who call in to the Limbaughm show saying things like "ditto Rush", or the Hannity show saying "your a great American" don't even realize how stupid they sound to anyone who has a brain!

    But Bush is a politican and everyone knows what party he represents. Olby is still giving interviews where he pretends to be an inpartial journalist, not a political hack. Even his fans can't pretend he's not biased. His bias is part of our problem with him. But thanks for providing us with the comic relief Phil.

    Libs don't march in lockstep? You're shitting me right? Look, I read the liberal blogs and websites. Anyone who ever points out anything contrary to the popular and leading opinion is usually banned very quickly or ripped to shreds. In fact, I'd say that although liberals love to TALK about free speech and hearts and flowers and all of that stuff, they are far more intolerant of any contrary opinion than any other political group that exists. And your posts here just reinforce that concept Phil. You want to silence us re Olbermann. I guess the truth is too painful for some of you to come to grips with. So hey, why don't you go back to your little Dem websites where you cheer on Al Quaeda, Chavez, and Castro and you wish doom and gloom on our troops in Iraq.

    Phil,

    We appreciate your comments on this blog. You are "speaking truth to power".

    But Brandon, Bush is supposed to be President of ALL of us, not just his political party! Other presidents have understood that, this one doesn't!

    Oh that he is. The truth that you Olbyloons are indeed dumber than the man you worship and that's really saying something. But hey, you are totally defining the term Olbyloon for us so we thank you for that!

    Phil: you are out of your tree if you don't think that the Clintons practiced partisan politics just as every other president has in recent memory.

    No Brandon. You've got it wrong again. I don't want to silence this site at all. It's entertaining and sometimes insightfull.

    It does, however, appear that the purpose of this site is to silence Olbermann or to change his show to the point that it becomes something entirely different.

    And finally, I don't go to "Dem" sites. I'm not interested in preaching, or being preached to by the choir. I have read your criticism of those sites in that they supposedly ban bloggers with opposing views. If that's true, it's sad. I wouldn't get on any blog that banned opposing views.

    If it's true? It's totally true. Go to DU. Our problem with Olbermann is that he continues to give interview after interview where he claims he is not politically inclined towards one party or another and that he is an unbiased journalist. WATCH his show. JD does a damned fine job of documenting Olbermann's biases on a nightly basis. If Olbermann would just admit it, and label his show accordingly, I wouldn't have an issue with him. But he's not doing that and he's being intellectually dishonest in the process by not presenting any other side of the argument except the very far-leftist agenda. If he wants to run an opinion show, fine. Just label it as such, don't try to put the pig in a dress and tell me it's a beauty queen when I know damn well it's a partisan, lop-sided, liberal love fest he's airing every single night.

    Well Puck, I don't know who the more 'dopey' moron is, but I know who the more dangerous one is!

    If Olbermann does actually read this site, I don't think he is too impressed with the intellect of bloggers who resort to terms like 'Olbermoron', 'Odorman', 'Gerbilmann', etc.

    Posted by: Phil at December 13, 2006 09:19 PM

    Don't fporget Olber'tard, Olberdouche and Shit-for-brains, all nicknames he's earned fair & square

    Sorry Phil, but it is dangerous to see one-sided journalism presented as something it's not. At least Fox tells you that O'Reilly and Hannity are opinion shows, not NEWS show. MSNBC is still trying to sell Olbermann's show as a NEWS show and Olbermann as a journalist. He stopped being a real journalist when he decided to become the far left's whore.

    I prefer calling him Mr. Limp Dick, Mr. Cialis, Viagra-poster boy. Man on fan. In short, an impotent hypocrite.

    Your right, but it's a circular argument. The only real issue seems to be that he won't call his show an 'opinion' show. Frankly, I wish he would, and it might even help his ratings if he did, But I will keep watching regardless of what he chooses to call it.

    Phil: Many who patronize this very website would, also.

    Olbermann is a liar and a hypocrite because he won't admit he's running an opinion show. To borrow a phrase, he's still trying to insist it's fair and it's balanced. This world is far too complex to have just one prevailing view but if you watch Countdown and nothing else, that's exactly what you get. He's not doing the public a service here, no matter what his rabid fans insist. Most of them can't even admit he's running a far more biased newscast than anything Fox has ever tried to get away with. To me, there's very little difference between him and Bill O'Reilly. Both are egotistical, arrogant, think-they-know-it-alls. But at least O'Reilly has the right to be somewhat arrogant & egotistical, given his position as the most highly rated news show on cable and his many best-selling books. What's Olby got a right to claim as his own? The one who has had the most lurid details printed about his sex life in the tabloids this year? LOL. No wonder he's so angry and bitter. Why anyone remains his fan is beyond me. He's insulting to women. He's especially insulting towards older women. He's made slurs against Jews on air. And then there was the Nazi salute which he still hasn't apologized for. He's just a huge loser and why the press insists on writing all these kiss-articles on how great he is mystifies me.

    Phil,
    Brandon and the rest of them live in mommy's basement, only coming out to play dress-up for their conventions. George Lucas is their life. Misspelling their God's name is very hurtful.

    To Keith's a fraud: I seriously doubt if very many people watch KO's show and nothing else. I certainly don't. Cable News is pretty much a haven for current events junkies like ourselves who can't get enough from just the traditional news outlets.

    If Olbermann does actually read this site, I don't think he is too impressed with the intellect of bloggers who resort to terms like 'Olbermoron', 'Odorman', 'Gerbilmann', etc.

    Posted by: Phil at December 13, 2006 09:19 PM

    If anyone does actually watch his show, I don't think they would be too impressed with the intellect of a host who resorts to terms like "Bill Orally", "George Macaca Allen", "Chris Monkey Wallace", etc,etc,etc

    So why is it that Olbermann's fanatical fan base insists he's not biased? How is it that they don't know he's putting on a very biased news show? And more importantly, why can't they admit that he's lying his ample ass off when he claims otherwise?

    To Keith's a fraud (again):

    I just re-read your post, and you admitted O'Reilly's arrogance - thank you for doing that. THATS the main problem I have with O'Reilly's show. You think they are BOTH arrogant, and I respect that, but it must be a different kind of arrogance.

    Bob:

    I wish Olbermann wouldn't use terms like that either, and I have to admit I cringe when he does it. However, I can't find a perfect cable 'news' or 'opinion' show, so compromise is necessary, kind of like life.

    To Keith's: I DO admit Olbermann is biased. So am I!

    Both are arrogant a'holes who play their audience. And I think the fact that O'Reilly is far more successful at it burns Olbermann up because he thinks he's smarter than O'Reilly (and everyone else). And that's what makes Olbermann the far more arrogant of the two.

    Is all the name calling necessary? Come on. Do you think that calling Keith "fat ass" or "monkey" helps your cause? And for the people getting on Keith's case for coming in behind "Deal or No Deal" in the ratings, keep in mind that the show was the third most watched show in the country this week with 17.4 million viewers. And for Mark, Keith never said that Governor Rounds barely won re-election. He said that he won by 89,000 votes. Which is true.

    if Brock doesn't do his research for him, Herr Olbermann can't be bothered to do it for himself.

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


    You want a traditional Worst Person in the World?!?

    Here it is for you all, curdious of me!!!

    The bronze goes to... Dennis Praeger! Or as I like to call him... "Mister Don't Use Your Own Holy Book". On his radio program, while interviewing a person who wants to ban homework, he says something to the effect of 'helping children with their homework is a new thing'. ... I should change his aforementioned nickname to "Mister Don't Interact with your Own Children's Text Book".

    The Silver!?! Nancy Grace! Apparently back to the blame game, in her usual mildly ammusing rants against newly cased M.O.s, Nancy Grace calls guilt on the parents whom had their child's toes eaten by a baby pit-bull. Weird, but plausible. What is weird but not plausible was Nancy Grace's finger pointing for the baby's incident. In just two sentences, Nancy Grace changed her verdict from guiltiness from the baby getting 4 toes getting eaten to 9 toes getting eaten and back again. Not learning her lesson, now is she?

    The Winner Of The World's Worst Person in the World is The United States AND Europe. In a spat over which of the two producers will bring genetically engineered produce to proverty famen Africa. Hey guys --- why not bring them the real thing?!?

    These two world powers ... tonight's Olbermann Watch Us Bicker In Technicolor's Worst Person in the World!!!

    The above worst person in the world list is not of Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, this website/blog, or anybody else related to the aforementioned.

    The problem isn't that Olbermoron is liberally biased. The problem is the show is presented as "news". "Counting down the top 5 news stories of the day" is what it says on my cable guide. It is a load of crap.

    Every single show opens with a Bush bashing segment. The guests are all one-sided who agree completely with the ignorant host.

    If you're going to have an opinion show, then call it an opinion show. And then, perhaps, occasionally bring guests on that have different opinions than you're on.

    This is why Countdown will never interest anyone but the ultra-libs who believe this crap.

    Slam O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. all you want, but they actually bring on guests and debate the issues.

    We all slam in one way or the other, bigred...

    Slam O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. all you want, but they actually bring on guests and debate the issues.

    Posted by: bigred at December 13, 2006 11:22 PM

    They bring only guests who will set them up to say all the talking points of the day and if one of them shows them up you won't see them again.

    Truth.

    Olbermann is just a DNC hack who takes talking points from the Dems. He has no original thought.
    He even recives talking points from the Iranians too!

    Mythic.

    Are you kidding me? Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Janeane Garofolo, James Carville, Paul Begala, etc. have appeared on those shows numerous times. That's the TRUTH.

    Like your hero Olbermoron, you don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

    Al Sharpton: Far-right leaning.

    Jesse Jackson: Nearly so.

    Janene Galofolo: Centrist.

    James Carville: Moderate Independant.

    Paul Begala: American hero and patriot to this great nation of ours.

    I hope for your sake you're joking. Either that, or you need to reduce your LSD dosage and clean out your crackpipe.

    Crack has nothing to do with it.

    Bigred,

    His show is the only blatently liberally biased show on the air. Consequently, it has drawn the ire of neocons. And, yes I will continue to slam O'Reilly. At least Olbermann has never sexually harrased his interns (Andrea Makris), made up false reports from non-existant companies to prove his point (Paris Business Review), or claimed his previous show won multiple peabody awards.

    As far as debating the issues? O'Reilly, Hannity, and Co. have a long long climb out of Bush's rectum to see the daylight, smell fresh air, and open their ears to anything other than neocon BS.
    O'Reilly can't even handle intelligent debate. Anytime he mistakenly invites a liberal onto his show that doesn't cow at his giant form and Irish temper he shouts over them and has even been known to tell them to "shut up!" O'Reilly is no culture warrior. He's a selfish egomaniacal baby.

    Quite sincerely,
    Josh

    Wow! That was 1 hour since I made that terrific worst person in the world?!?!? Fast?!? Did I do a stupendous job?!?

    As far as debating the issues? O'Reilly, Hannity, and Co. have a long long climb out of Bush's rectum to see the daylight, smell fresh air, and open their ears to anything other than neocon BS.
    Posted by: Josh at December 14, 2006 12:00 AM

    Absolute truth.

    Nothing truthier.

    A whole slew or morons on the site tonight. None of you ever watch those shows so I wouldn't expect you to know what's actually said. You read something on one of your tinfoil hat blogs and accept it as truth.

    I don't need to defend O'Reilly or Hannity. Their ratings do that for themselves. It's funny that you cannot debate the issues of your hero, KO.

    Name for me ONE completely one-sided, blatantly conservative show. One that offers no chances for any points of view except conservatives.

    BTW, that disqualifies every single show on FOX.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... breathe........ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    You poor fool...

    What was the last liberal thing you learned on O'Reilly's show?

    Inqusitively,
    Josh

    Bigred,

    BTW... Only on FOX are ratings a definite measure of truth. But, O'Reilly never mentions that David Lettermen kicks his butt in ratings every night. So, I guess he's a bit more truthful than even Billo.

    You don't really believe that ratings shlock do you? It's really pretty pathetic to hide your "facts" behind ratings, instead of showing that there are facts on your show, don't ya think?

    Sincerele,
    Josh

    P.S. I've watched FOX and Co. many times. They are the only network advocating for illegal profiling in American airports. And, they are certainly the only network that had anyone advocating waterboarding of captives, terrorist or otherwise. Why don't you provide me the facts behind O'Reilly's claims of intelligence obtained through waterboarding?

    Well, at least heard a liberal point of view on O'Reilly's and Hannity's show, from almost every single prominent Democrat in the nation.

    Whether I learned anything from them is another matter.

    I'LL TYPE THIS SLOWLY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND.

    NAME ONE SHOW ANYWHERE THAT ONLY OFFERS COMPLETELY ONE-SIDED CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT WITH NO DEBATE.

    You already admitted Olbermoron's "show is the only blatently liberally biased show on the air".

    Name the conservative one that is completely, wholly, blatanly conservatively biased show on the air.

    Try to understand this, as well. I don't agree with O'Reilly or Hannity on everything. I like to hear different viewpoints on an issue.

    As for racial profiling in airports and waterboarding terrorists... if it saves lives, if it prevents a terrorist attack, I think you'll find most clear-thinking Americans would support it.

    There is no issue. FOX is wholely blatantly conservatively biased. They just say "fair and balanced" as a little joke between them. Roger Ailes is possibly the biggest donator to conservative causes in America. His radio programs host people like Michael "Savage" Weiner, Rush Limbaugh, and even Sean Hannitty has his own show. You have bought into the absurdity that is FOX. that is, "Tell them your fair and balanced and they'll believe you." The simple fact is, FOX is the most biased network their is. O'Reilly himself has intentionally misrepresented figures from studies on news bias from universities to show a purported balance at fox, when the authors of the studies concluded the exact opposite.

    It's not liberal bias. It is fact. O'Reilly lies and FOX news is conservatively biased. It's owner is conservately biased. To fool yourself into believing anything different is a willful act of ignorance.

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    Waterboarding neither saves lives or prevents attacks. Every study says so. It's only Billo that disagrees.

    Racial profiling is an unethical, stupid, and barbaric attrocity. It's a blight to our country and the equality and freedoms we stand for.

    You may as well put a big sign on America saying that we're the land of rampant paranoia and racial inequity, not the land of promise we purport to be.

    Disgustedly,
    Josh

    Josh,

    Are you just not bright? Is that it? O'Reilly brought James Carville and Paul Begala on his show and DEBATED WITH THEM about whether or not FOX is biased.

    ANOTHER VIEWPOINT WAS HEARD. You don't get that on Olbermann's show.

    For the final time, give me a show that only offers a conservative viewpoint. One show. No opposing viewpoints are ever heard. Again, that disqualifies every single show on FNC.

    We're talking about television. Liberals have plenty of their own shows on the radio. An entire (pathetic) network, in fact. Plus NPR, which also, unlike Olbermann, offers other viewpoints, occasionlly.

    As for racial profiling, if it existed before 9/11, at least some of those planes would not have been hijacked. The hijackers were suspicious for i.d. issues and warnings, but were allowed to board anyway.

    As for waterboarding, cite for me a legitimate study that says it does not work.

    I'm guessing we could find out a lot of interesting things if we tried it on you.

    How about the address on the graphic for #3 Worst Person...the graphic had an envelope addressed to "Santa Clause, North Poll."

    Since Keith likes to whine about misspelling, he's running an impressive 50% himself.

    No you don't get it.

    Olbermann, liberally biased.

    O'Reilly, conservativley biased
    HANNITY and colmes, conservatively biased
    Brit Hume, conservatively biased
    Neil Cavuto, conservatively biased
    Cast of FOX and Friends, conservatively biased
    John Gibson, CONSERVATIVELY BIASED
    Greta Van Sustren, conservatively biased

    Seeing a pattern here? I don't care if Olbermann's only guest every night was George Sorros, it wouldn't equal FOX's conservative voracity. The people who are choosing the topics, guests, and agendas are all strictly conservatively biased. The minor nuissance of allowing Democrats on your network isn't a big problem when you control everything else.

    Yes, I do freely admit Olbermann's bias. But, if you can not admit the same of FOX then you are exactly what our current administration wants you to be. Truthiness challenged!!!!

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    "As for racial profiling, if it existed before 9/11, at least some of those planes would not have been hijacked."

    It CANNOT exist - Racial Profiling is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It fails the strict scrutiny test because while there is a compelling state interest, the means are not narrowly tailored to meet that interest.

    It's not an issue of ethics or morality, it's one of legality.

    I get it. Allan Colmes doesn't worship at the alter of Jimmy Carter, so he's "conservatively biased". Give me a break. Show me one ounce of evidence Greta is conservatively biased, besides who her employer is.

    I will say it again. Their shows give Democrats time to offer their points of view. Your hero KO does not.

    Do I need to run through the list of tv hosts who are liberally biased?

    Weren't you the one who mentioned Letterman earlier?

    Letterman, Jon Stewart, Oprah, Chris Matthews, Paula Zahn, Allan Colmes, Katie Couric, Meredith Viera, Matt Lauer, Bob Schiffer, George Stephenopoulos... I could continue.

    Here's the deal, Josh. I wouldn't watch a show that just had one conservative viewpoint, because it would be boring and monotonous, and probably shrink my I.Q. Unfortunately, that's what happened to you and all the Olby lovers.

    You are correct, bigred. Josh doesn't know what he's talking about. He cites three radio shows: Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage, and claims that Fox, or Roger Ailes, somehow "hosts" these programs.

    Well he's wrong on one. No wait, make that two. Oh, sorry, he's wrong on ALL THREE. Not one of them has a radio show on Fox.

    Perhaps he's confused Hannity with Alan Colmes. He DOES have a radio show on Fox. But then, facts are always confusing to Olbypologists who have to change the subject because they can't defend the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann.

    “The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

    Quote from the Army Field Manual.

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    Johnny,

    You're a lieing jerk. I heard all three on fox radio just last night. You are unbelievable.

    And you are just a jerk. Hannity's radio show is on ABC. Rush Limbaugh is on Premiere Radio Networks, and The Savage Nation is distributed on the Talk Radio Network. It took me about 90 seconds to look that up. Just consider these a few more inconvenient truths for Olbypologists to ponder.

    Josh,

    Perhaps you heard their program on a local affiliate, but Ailes has nothing to do with Hannity's or Limbaugh's radio programs.

    Anonymous, as for your post:
    "
    It CANNOT exist - Racial Profiling is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It fails the strict scrutiny test because while there is a compelling state interest, the means are not narrowly tailored to meet that interest.

    It's not an issue of ethics or morality, it's one of legality."

    Show me where in the 14th amendment is says anything about racial profiling. "Equal protection" does not apply to planning a crime.

    The only people hijacking planes in the past 15 years or more are Middle Easterners. Those are the people we should be leery about when they board planes.

    I suppose the 6 imams who were kicked off their flight after praising Saddam, cursing the U.S., moving to seats that weren't theirs, asking for extra seatbelts that they did not need, etc. should have been allowed to continue on their flight, right?


    Here's the deal, Josh. I wouldn't watch a show that just had one conservative viewpoint, because it would be boring and monotonous, and probably shrink my I.Q.
    Posted by: bigred at December 14, 2006 02:23 AM

    Liar liar pants on fire, your nose is bigger than a telephone wire.

    Bigred,

    Give me a break. No one watches Letterman for the news. Jon Stewart is fake news. Oprah? Is that a joke? Chris Matthews? The same one that has a gushfest over McCain every night? Paula Zahn, nope. Alan Colmes, moderate democrat, extremely overshadowed by his conservative cohost. Katie Couric, nope. Merideth Viera, . My god I'm getting tired of this.

    This is getting nowhere. You are as stubborn as you are ignorant. I don't see why you have such a hard time seeing the obvious.

    I don't worship KO. I simply believe your hatred is misplaced.

    I have an extreme hatred of O'Reilly because he is at best a stubborn, stupid, pompous, bloviating, sexist, lieing, hypocritical, and disrespectful person. All provable via Lexis Nexis.

    Maybe I'll harbor the same opinion of KO later, but I'll wait until he has his own multitude of books written about his lies and misinformation.

    G'Nite,
    Josh

    Oh, you aren't aware of the next project from Mr Cox and the contributors to this site: "The Worst Newsman in the World: The Distortions and Lies of Keith Olbermann"? That reminds me, I've got to return that call from Judith Regan. She's in the market for a book...

    "I have an extreme hatred of O'Reilly because he is at best a stubborn, stupid, pompous, bloviating, sexist, lieing, hypocritical, and disrespectful person."

    You've got anger management issues, Josh. I don't hate anyone. Your description above actually fits Olbermoron to a tee.

    As for the liberal hosts I named above... ok. We'll stick with the ones who do news programs.

    Couric marched in abortion rallies. Liberal.

    Viera marched in an anti-Bush rally in NYC the Sunday before the Republican convention. Liberal.

    Matthews worked for Democrats. Liberal.

    Stephenoupoulos worked for the Clintons. Liberal.

    "Waterboarding neither saves lives or prevents attacks. Every study says so. It's only Billo that disagrees"Disgustedly,
    Josh

    Apparently not every study." I hope you watched "The O'Reilly Factor" Wednesday night. Bill had an interview with Brian Ross, ABC News investigative reporter and once upon a time the same thing for NBC News.

    Ross' independent investigation has established a certain set of facts which every American should be aware of, and O'Reilly did a great job of drawing it out and getting it all on the record so there can be no further argument.

    Here it is: The special interrogation techniques that were used on the 9/11 plotters we had in secret CIA prisons � the techniques erroneously called torture by Human Rights Watch and others � those techniques work.

    They worked on all 14 of these 9/11 detainees and each of those detainees gave up valuable information as a result of those techniques.

    They were the items I described earlier in the week, including induced hypothermia, belly slaps, and sound assaults. And here's the big one: waterboarding" People call it torture. As Ross described it, waterboarding sounds unpleasant, and since no one could stand it for longer than a couple minutes, I might say very unpleasant. But I hardly think it is torture.

    However, here's the important point: It worked. It worked so well American interrogators were given information on a hijacking plot that was supposed to crash an airliner into the Library Tower in downtown Los Angeles. Unless that crash occurred on Sunday morning at 6:00, it would have killed thousands.

    These are results certified independently by Brian Ross of ABC News. Multiple sources, some of whom opposed the techniques, confirmed the results.

    Yes, we're Americans and we don't torture. These special interrogation techniques are not torture and they work.

    Let's hope the deal between the president and Sen. McCain today allows American interrogators to continue to use techniques which have proven to work.

    Looks to me like it saved lives and prevented attacks. And I guess BILLO had a reason to disagree.

    So I go to the Fox Radio Site (foxnews.com/radio/index.html) to see if there is any verification for Josh's claims.

    There isn't. The Fox Radio lineup is actually pretty limited. Brian and the Judge, Spencer Hughes, John Gibson, Alan Colmes. That's it.

    Now, for those of you who wouldn't go to a Fox news site on a dare, you could find the same information on the left-friendly Wikipedia site by searching Fox News Radio. However, there you would find this tidbit of information, "The talk radio program hosted by FNC's Sean Hannity is syndicated by ABC Radio (show started in 2001." Now since this would have directly contradicted your convoluted claim, I can understand why you wouldn't have checked there either.

    But who in their right mind would try to claim Rush Limbaugh as being on the Fox network? No one who has ever actually heard Rush on the radio.

    The problem those on the left have is that it is so easy to disprove their claims with minimal research to find the truth.

    Anxiously awaiting Josh's next enlightening and truth-laden post void of name calling...

    Or one could just pull three names out of thin air, make a claim, and call anyone a liar who disproves it.

    Ratings Reality:

    Combined audience of two showings from last night

    The Factor: 3,244,000 viewers

    Countdown: 958,000 viewers

    The ratings for last night:

    8:00pm Factor 2.1
    8:00pm Countdown 0.6

    O'Reilly gets 3.5 times more viewers; BOR trounces Olbermann in the "demo" as well.

    It's not that OlbyLoons lie it's the they they lie.


    Another superficial, biased, poorly presented and silly mistake ridden COUNTDOWN. The show seems to be going down in quality from an already poor product. Keith Olbermann misses very important and interesting topics just to continue his brown-nosing of the radical left. It is painful to watch.

    Keith Olbermann complained about having dry heaves over having to report the Monica Lewinsky story on MSNBC during is BIG STORY days....I wonder what problems he is having now being a shill of The Democratic Party?

    If it's true? It's totally true. Go to DU. Our problem with Olbermann is that he continues to give interview after interview where he claims he is not politically inclined towards one party or another and that he is an unbiased journalist. WATCH his show. JD does a damned fine job of documenting Olbermann's biases on a nightly basis. If Olbermann would just admit it, and label his show accordingly, I wouldn't have an issue with him. But he's not doing that and he's being intellectually dishonest in the process by not presenting any other side of the argument except the very far-leftist agenda. If he wants to run an opinion show, fine. Just label it as such, don't try to put the pig in a dress and tell me it's a beauty queen when I know damn well it's a partisan, lop-sided, liberal love fest he's airing every single night.
    ***********************************************

    I partially agree. My big problem with a lot of the media (hence why I beat feat around the web for news) is the false advertising. (though I do watch ABC some, it's pretty decent)

    The MSM should stop trying to claim they were unbaised and just admit it. After all, isn't that what most of 'the left' claim is the problem of Fox news? That it's "fair and balance" claim is false? (though the irony that apparently 'fair and balanced' means agreeing 100% with them escapes their minds)

    It must frost Keith Olbermann that Bill O'Reilly's book, CULTURE WARRIOR, is still #3 on the NYT list for 3 months now while his book didn't even make the list.

    O'Reilly just announced 8,000 copies of CULTURE WARRIOR are going overseas to the troops as well. I hope Olbermann bites and mentions it on his show....even a possible WPITW slot, AGAIN, for BillO.

    Again, Mahmoud or David Duke were not mentioned again last night on the show? Surprise.

    I will say it again....I am so glad I am in that correct minority of 30% who support Bush and not in that large group of wrong people including Olbermann, Mahmoud and The Grand Wizard of The KKK!

    News item:
    "US District Judge James Robertson [appointed by Mister, er, President Clinton] dismissed Salim Ahmed Hamdan's [Bin Laden's driver] petition because he said Congress clearly intended to keep such cases out of the federal courts. And he held that, as a foreigner with no voluntary ties to the United States, Hamdan has no claim to a constitutional right to habeas corpus."

    Imagine that. An alien has no habeas rights under the US Constitution!

    I guess Olbermann will claim that Robertson is part of the "form of fascism" under Bush that has been taking away our rights.

    Apparently the owner of this blog is fashioned from the same mentally defective mold as both Olbermann and O'reilly, criticizing the "other side" for their "bias" while at the same time showing just as much of it in his own statements. Youre just as much of a hypocrite as they are.


    Apparently the owner of this blog is fashioned from the same mentally defective mold as both Olbermann and O'reilly, criticizing the "other side" for their "bias" while at the same time showing just as much of it in his own statements. Youre just as much of a hypocrite as they are.


    Uh, Alex.....have you ever heard about truth in advertising?...."OLBERMANN WATCH...reality-based news for the belligerently uninformed" pretty much gives it away that the site is anti-Olbermann.

    What about COUNTDOWN or what Olbermann has said about himself, or the show in the press, comes across as what it or he really is.....a liberal editorial show and a liberal hatchet-man?

    So it appears that our great leader is going to "double down" and increase the amount of troops in Iraq, despite the American people wanting just the opposite.
    Any president with half a brain knows you can't fight a war w/o the support of the American people.
    There is no question Bush is stubborn to a fault, and he also knows that his whole presidency and legacy is riding on the outcome of Iraq.

    I say, let the president and McCain get their way with expanding troops levels in Iraq.
    ( wonder where they are going to come from ?)
    Let's make it a 2 year plan.
    That will take us right up to election day in 2008. This will absolutely assure a democratic victory for the presidency.

    Thank you George. Thank you John.

    This is a direct question to the Bush apologists.

    When you hear Bush speak, and see the inappropriate smiles,the arrogant smirks,the mangled syntax,the repetitive slogans,etc,
    doesn't it make you cringe?
    Doesn't it make you just a little bit embarrassed that you support this joker ?
    Don't you wish that you had a president who could actually SPEAK the English language, and has a clue about what he is doing ?

    When Bush's face comes on in restaurants, bars, people's homes etc the reaction more times
    than not is" Oh God, he's such an idiot !"

    You all should watch Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" (Link TV; FSTV). No celebrity bullshit; very little overt editorializing; just honest reporting that is in effect scathing to those in power.

    "Show me where in the 14th amendment is says anything about racial profiling. "Equal protection" does not apply to planning a crime."

    But at the point you want to act, they haven't committed the crime yet. Remember innocent until proven guilty?

    You CANNOT legally say "all Arabs over here, everyone else over there" for airport screening. A government official (which TSA officers are) cannot make decisions on the basis of race.

    Can you tell BY SIGHT who is an Arab as opposed to, say, Hispanic? Or light-skinned African-American? This is what makes the act too broad - you'll get people who aren't even part of the "suspect class" you're looking for.

    In addition, there is a Fourth Amendment issue - the mere fact that you belong to a "suspect class" by virtue of your race is not probable cause to initate a search.

    I will say it again....I am so glad I am in that correct minority of 30% who support Bush and not in that large group of wrong people including Olbermann, Mahmoud and The Grand Wizard of The KKK!

    Cee proudly proclaims his idiocy.
    He lumps the ( large ) majority of the American people with Mahmoud and Duke, when nothing could be further from the truth.
    In Cee's world, he thinks the American people support the KKK and Holocaust deniers !
    You know these are desperate times for Bush supporters and republicans in general when they have to spout lies such as this to validate their support for the worst president in history.

    Thank you cee, for revealing your desperation and lunacy.

    Yes...Bob exposes the real reason the left wants more death and ultimate defeat for America in Iraq (and logically wanting the terrorists to be victorious).....their own increase in political power.

    Thank you for being honest, Bob.

    And Anon, I have no problem when someone is not articulate with the truth. I have no problem if their words are garbled if their words are honorable and they are heart-felt.

    I have a problem with hatred....even if it is expressed eloquently and with zing. I am embarrased when elitists, who think they know better than the masses, speak with authority but have none.....especially moral authority...like everyone on the left....like Olbermann.

    The MSM should stop trying to claim they were unbaised and just admit it.

    When the Bush makes another blunder or bad policy decision and the MSM reports it,does that make them biased?

    Same with the term "Bushbashing".

    If it looks like and talks like a duck, should they call it a beautiful peacock ?

    The Grim Traveler and nut cases like Cee want the MSM to make excuses for Bush and his failures. If they don't, they're chastised as being biased.

    Just calling a spade a spade.


    "Show me where in the 14th amendment is says anything about racial profiling. "Equal protection" does not apply to planning a crime."

    But at the point you want to act, they haven't committed the crime yet. Remember innocent until proven guilty?

    You CANNOT legally say "all Arabs over here, everyone else over there" for airport screening. A government official (which TSA officers are) cannot make decisions on the basis of race.

    Can you tell BY SIGHT who is an Arab as opposed to, say, Hispanic? Or light-skinned African-American? This is what makes the act too broad - you'll get people who aren't even part of the "suspect class" you're looking for.

    In addition, there is a Fourth Amendment issue - the mere fact that you belong to a "suspect class" by virtue of your race is not probable cause to initate a search.
    **********************************************
    Again I have to plug the book Disinformation.
    http://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Media-Myths-Undermine-Terror/dp/0895260069/sr=8-1/qid=1166111873/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5785979-4752015?ie=UTF8&s=books

    It's not only a great read but also non-partisan. An example is that it blows a hole in the idea of racial profiling by bringing up evidence that the terrorists are smart enough to get around this. If one particular category is selected for screening, the the terrorists will start recruiting and relying upon members that don't fit that category.

    Yes...Bob exposes the real reason the left wants more death and ultimate defeat for America in Iraq (and logically wanting the terrorists to be victorious).....their own increase in political power.

    There you go again , Cee.
    Just spouting lies and nonsense.
    I want our troops OUT OF IRAQ, so there is not another American killed , and the American people ( who you call the left) feel the same way and voted accordingly in the last election.
    But since I have no control over what happens with US policy, and Bush is going to have his way, despite the objections of the American people, well,,let him decide what's best.
    And then the next democratic president
    (unfortunately) will have the largest mess to clean up of any president in our lifetime.

    You want more death, more destruction and then you pat yourself on the back while you sit in your ivory tower proclaiming yourself on the "right " side.
    You're a fool and a chickenhawk.

    (and logically wanting the terrorists to be victorious)

    Cee failed logic 101 in school.

    Bob, Bob, Bob....."The American People," gave the Democratic Party a slim majority in the congress...The Senate isn't even fillibuster proof. "The American People," chose many Democratic candidates who do not want immediate withdrawal of the troops like the far left does and even now, Pelosi and her appointees to applicable committees are starting to say the troops will stay in at least until 2008 (JUST LIKE THE ISG REPORT SAYS!) Joe Lieberman, who was almost thrown away by radicals like you, was re-elected easily, defeating the far left candidate that was supposed to herald the new power of the leftist netroots (Poor Lamont isn't even mentioned anymore on kos).

    So, you may say "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE" want this or that.....fine...but to say they support radical liberal ideas, like your's, is just plain stupid.

    If the US pulls out of Iraq immediately, the terrorists win....that is what you want Bob....it is very easy to see.

    >>If the US pulls out of Iraq immediately, the terrorists win....that is what you want Bob....it is very easy to see.

    The terrorists won just as soon as Bush attacked Iraq for not killing three thousand Americans. Even Republicans don't see a way of winning this. It is simply Bush flushing more American soldiers after he was too cowardly to serve himself.

    Bob,

    We all want our troops out of harm's way, but if you look at the polls of American people, most of them agree we CANNOT just pull our troops out right now. The results would be catastrophic.

    And anon, re: Bush. No, he's not the most eloquent speaker, but at least he has a spine. He has moral convictions that he holds to. Unlike John Kerry, who flip-flopped every single time the political winds blew.

    That's why Bush won in 2004. To this day, can you tell me where Kerry stands on any important issue?

    Thank you anon...you beat me to the punch over Cee's ridiculous statements.

    One more point.....Cee loves to use the term
    " radical liberals".Anyone to the left of Mussolini is a radical liberal to Cee.

    The 78% of the American people who think our policy in Iraq is wrong and even "criminal" like the GOP COngressman from Oregon....are radical liberals or leftists to Cee.

    Cee is an out of touch member of the EXTREME right wing who hasn't learned a single lesson after watching the failures of the past 6 years under Bush and the GOP Congress.

    bigred,

    Bush is not just ineloquent, he is stupid. No one that deserts during time of war has a spine. No one that spends his entire term blaming others for his mistakes has a spine. No one that refuses to testify under oath has a spine. You see what I'm getting at here?

    It doesn't take any moral conviction to be attacked by the Saudis and keep them your allies while inventing a war against Iraq.

    Kerry was against attacking Iraq as long as inspectors were allowed in. They were allowed in and were doing their job when Bush pulled them out, remember?

    We all want our troops out of harm's way, but if you look at the polls of American people, most of them agree we CANNOT just pull our troops out right now. The results would be catastrophic.

    The results are already catastrophic. But many believe if the "invaders" left Iraq , the violence would lessen.
    Iraq is never going to be the democracy the deluded hope for.It's never going to be even a safe place to live, whether we stay or leave.
    There is a full fledged civil war currently in iraq.( THAT BUSH HAS HELPED CREATE) Keeping our troops in this crossfire is just an insane foreign policy decision.

    Nice summary

    Anyone to the left of Mussolini is a radical liberal to Cee.
    **************************************************
    Actually Bob... since fascism is a form of leftism anyway
    (see: http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/06/this-is-expanded-version-of-article.html)
    I would consider anyone to the left of Mussolini a radical as well.

    Morons.. the Saudis did not attack us. A radical group, some of which were from Saudi Arabia, attacked us.

    If things would be better if we left Iraq, then why are the leaders of that country begging us to stay?

    As for Bush being "stupid".. he has degrees from Yale and Harvard. Where's your degree from? The Dailykos tinfoil hat convention?

    Oh, and Kerry's stances on the war...

    He stated on Meet the Press, "Saddam's chemical and biological weapons are real and grave threat."

    Then he voted for the war. Then he voted against funding the war. Then he said actually did vote for funding it, before he voted against it.

    Then he said, even knowing we had not found WMD, he STILL would have voted for the war.

    Now that public sentiment has turned against the war, he says it was a mistake.

    What will his opinion be next month?

    bigred,

    Amazing how quickly ignorant folks like yourself get bitchy. MOST of the hijackers were Saudis. None were Afghanis and none were Iraqis. The attack was funded by Saudis. The final report, you will remember, had all references to the Saudis blacked out.

    Things would've been better if we'd never gone into Iraq. Now that we are there, most of the Iraqis want us out. The leaders don't because we are propping them up. Next stupid question...

    Bush is from a wealthy family and pulled a 'C' average in an easy major. I have a degree in Chemical Engineering and a Masters in Math.

    Good thing you didn't respond to the fact that Bush deserted. That one is deadly, eh? Got any other pathetic attempts?

    Actually Bob... since fascism is a form of leftism anyway.

    I spent most of the day yesterday correcting your errors on climate change and Gore's movie( Your GOP led Congress committee and right wing blogs were a hoot as opposing viewpoints.)

    Looks like I'm going to have to do it again.

    Since I teach a course in fascism and you probably can't enroll in my class, I'll educate you here:

    Politics can be characterized as liberal (as the Democratic party in the USA), middle of the road, or conservative (as the Republican party in the USA). These are moderate parties or viewpoints on a wider spectrum that ranges from communist (or far left wing) to FASCIST ( OR FAR RIGHT WING). The expressions left wing and right wing come from the British Parliament in the 1700's, when the Liberal (progressive) party sat on the left and the Tory (conservative) party sat on the right.

    Of course, liberal parties and people may have some conservative ideas, and vice versa. For example, racism is traditionally a conservative doctrine which relatively few conservatives (except for far right Nazis) would admit to today. The words "fascist" or "fascism" come from the symbol of the Fascist party in Italy before WWII, an ax in a bundle of sticks, which was called a fasces and is a right wing ideology.

    Wow, bigred, you are putting out stupidity faster than can be responded to. Are you from Texas?

    The bills Kerry voted on were two different bills. Want proof? I'll provide it. It would be good if you could learn how to use the internet yourself, but I'm charitable.

    And, Kerry did state that Iraq's weapons were disturbing. That is why the weapons inspectors were there. Please try to keep up.

    If things would be better if we left Iraq, then why are the leaders of that country begging us to stay?


    because they love our money, our troops are doing THEIR work, and as long as we enable them, the Iraqi leaders will take it.


    Now what the Iraqi PEOPLE want is a totally diferent story....the Iraqi people want us the hell out of their country by a large 4-1 margin.

    Get it straight. get it right.

    I see. So you think things would be better if Saddam Hussein was still in power, murdering people by the hundreds of thousands, having rape rooms, sending dissenters through plastic shredders, seeking nuclear and biolgical/ chemical weapons, and paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Is that it?

    Oh, I forgot about Kerry's latest stance. Our troops are idiots.

    Ah! Bigred is still being an idiot. She doesn't remember that no mass graves date from Clinton's term, that our soldiers have been torturing, raping and killing and that the Saudis pay a lot more than the few payouts that Saddam ever made.

    Besides that, she jumps around like a flea on a hot brick. She makes an erroneous point, then runs from it and makes another one.

    Pathetic! I hope her personal life is better than that or else I imagine she has a lot of bastard children runnin' around the ol' trailer.

    As for Bin Laden being funded by the Saudis... um, Bob, he was expelled from the country. They were going to kill him for speaking out against them. We were not attacked by the Saudi government.

    bigred is funny. She thinks that, when someone wants to kill you, they exile you first.

    That's right, anon. You're a liberal America hater, so you think our soldiers are worse than Saddam's henchmen.

    Here's the difference...on the very rare occasion one of our soldiers commits a crime, he stands trial for it and is sent to prison. Saddam endorsed it and certainly never punished anyone for it.

    And what does the date of the mass graves have to do with anything? There are still hundreds of thousands, maybe a million, who Saddam ordered executed.

    Did I ever say that our soldiers are worse? Nah! But, they were taking orders from people just as bad as Saddam.

    And, the dates of the mass graves shows that Saddam was contained and no longer a threat to the Kurds. This war is killing far more than he would have if the previous decade shows us anything.

    So, you still have nothing, young lady. Are you proud of that? Perhaps you should finish high school, then log back on.

    You know Bob, I wouldn't take your class anyway since you're obviously a bad teacher that doesn't do research but only selects facts based upon your own preconcieved notions. How about you challenge yourself for once and check out the article I posted? The following is from it.

    Oh... and these are Mussolini's own words.
    ==================================================
    In Mussolini's own words

    Let us listen initially to some reflections on the early days of Fascism by Mussolini himself -- first published in 1935 (See the third chapter in Greene, 1968).

    "If the bourgeoisie think they will find lightning conductors in us they are the more deceived; we must start work at once .... We want to accustom the working class to real and effectual leadership".

    And that was Mussolini quoting his own words from the early Fascist days. So while Mussolini had by that time (in his 30s) come to reject the Marxist idea of a class-war, he still saw himself as anti-bourgeois and as a saviour and leader of the workers. What modern-day Leftist could not identify with that?

    "Therefore I desire that this assembly shall accept the revindication of national trades unionism"

    So he was a good union man like most Leftists today.

    "When the present regime breaks down, we must be ready at once to take its place"

    Again a great Leftist hope and aspiration.

    "Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics".

    The "Liberalism" he refers to here would of course be called "Neo-liberalism" today -- the politics of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Mussolini opposed such politics and so do Leftists today.

    "The present method of political representation cannot suffice".

    Modern-day Leftists too seem to seek influence outside the normal democratic channels -- from strikes and demonstrations to often successful attempts to get the courts to make law.

    "Fascism now and always believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say in actions influenced by no economic motive"

    He here also rejects the Communist emphasis on materialism. Leftism to this day is often seen as a religion and its agitators clearly often long to be seen as heroic and unmaterialistic.

    "Fascism repudiates the conception of "economic" happiness"

    Leftists today also tend to regard consumerism as gross (or say they do as they drive off in their Volvos).

    "After the war, in 1919, Socialism was already dead as a doctrine: It existed only as a hatred".

    Socialism has never been a buzzword in North American Leftist circles but it certainly was for a very long time in the rest of the world. And to modern day British Leftists too socialism has a meaning that is more nostalgic and emotional than concrete and many would be prepared to admit that it is functionally "dead". Mussolini, however was 70 years earlier in announcing the death. It should be noted, however, that Mussolini was principally referring here to the policies and doctrines of his own former Socialist Party -- which was explicitly Marxist -- and which were far more extreme than the socialism of (say) Clement Attlee and the postwar British Labour party.

    "Fascism ..... was born of the need for action and it was itself from the beginning practical rather than theoretical".

    Modern-day Leftist demonstrators too seem to be more interested in dramatic actions than in any coherent theory.

    " one would there find no ordered expression of doctrine but a series of aphorisms, anticipations and aspirations".

    This is how Mussolini described early Fascist meetings. Modern-day Leftist agitators too seem more interested in slogans than in any form of rational debate.

    "If the 19th century has been the century of the individual (for liberalism means individualism), it may be conjectured that this is the century of the State.

    This is Mussolini's famous prophecy about the 20th century in the Enciclopedia Italiana. It came true with the aid of the modern-day Left and their love of big government. To underline that, note that in 1900 the ratio of government spending to GDP in Italy was 10%, in the 1950s 30%, and it is now roughly 60% (Martino, 1998). In this prophecy, Mussolini rejected Marxian socialism because he disliked the Marxist notions of class war and historical inevitability but modern-day Leftists differentiate themselves from Marxists too.

    But Mussolini was more like Lenin and Stalin in his overt rejection of democracy: "Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society". Most modern-day Leftists in the Western world would undoubtedly like to get rid of democracy too but they are less open about it than Mussolini was.

    "Laissez faire is out of date"

    To this day the basic free market doctrine of "laissez faire" is virtually a swear-word to most Leftists. Quoted from Smith (1967, p. 87).

    "The paid slaves of kings in their gaudy uniforms, their chests covered with crosses, decorations and similar foreign and domestic hardware ..... blinding the public with dust and flaunting in its face their impudent display".

    Here Hibbert (1962, p. 11) reports Mussolini's youthful contempt for the armed forces. Such anti-militarism would surely resound well with most student antiwar demonstrators of today.

    "The Socialist party reaffirms its eternal faith in the future of the Workers' International, destined to bloom again, greater and stronger, from the blood and conflagration of peoples. It is in the name of the International and of Socialism that we invite you, proletarians of Italy, to uphold your unshakeable opposition to war".

    This from Carsten (1967, p. 46). It is from an article that was published by Mussolini in the Socialist Party organ "Avanti!" of 22 September, 1914 during Mussolini's Marxist period. So Mussolini's anti-militarism persisted until he was aged 31. When compared with Mussolini's subsequent career this shows exactly where anti-militaristic and antiwar sentiments can ultimately lead.

    "Our programme is simple. We want to rule Italy".

    As I have argued at length elsewhere, that is the real program of any Leftist. But Mussolini had the honesty to be upfront about it. Quoted from Carsten (1967, p. 62).

    Mussolini ha sempre ragione ("Mussolini is always right").

    This is probably the most famous of the many slogans that were plastered up everywhere in Fascist Italy. It too has a resounding echo among Leftists today. I can think of examples where modern conservative politicians have apologized and retracted their views but I can think of no example where a Leftist has. In the old Soviet empire there was virtually no such thing as "negative" news reported in the media. Even plane crashes were ignored. And as Amis (2002) notes, even though the reality of the vast, destructive and brutal tyranny of the now collapsed Soviet regime is undeniable, Leftists to this day are almost universally unapologetic about their past support for it and may even still claim that Lenin was a great man.

    And Mussolini's "Fascist Manifesto" of 1919 (full translation by Vox Day here) includes in Fascist policy such socialist gems as (I quote):
    * The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
    * A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
    * The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
    * The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
    * A minimum wage.
    * The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions

    Anonymous is not funny. He/she is a big, brave comments section insulter (boy, that takes guts). Anonymous is so brave that he/she feels the need to use an anonymous tag (nice!) while hurling personal insults.

    Spewing crap about other commmenters in a comments section requires no talent (making a point and defending it does).

    I changed my mind. I understand why he uses the anonymous tag. ANYONE could hijack someone's name.

    Good thing you didn't respond to the fact that Bush deserted. That one is deadly, eh? Got any other pathetic attempts?
    =================================================
    Ummm...... Bush never deserted, no matter what Dan Rather wants to believe.

    Grim,

    Why was he grounded?

    Grim,

    Why was Bush grounded?

    Another clarification: Bin Laden doesn't get any money from his family, they froze his inheritence. Whatever money he does get is from individuals (though some might be in the Saudi Government... that's another matter to go into).
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20010910/ai_n13923042

    And again, check out 'Disinformation'.

    Can you give me a little more context for your question anon? It was "why was bush grounded" but I'm wondering what specific instance you are referring to (my first thought was maybe an instance in high school and my guess would be: "he broke curfew?" lol) and I'll get you an answer when I can.

    Bush was grounded from flying while in the guard.

    Wow, anon. Did your mom help help you type all those big words? You have no proof for any allegation you made here.

    No, do us all a favor and get off welfare and go try to find a job. Or maybe take some classes at your local community college.

    G'day.

    bigred,

    Pick an allegation or leave.

    I had this silly discussion with some radical liberals a couple of months ago.....

    Both Nazism and Communism originated from "new" liberal world views that developed during the 18th and 19th centuries. Nazism was no more "conservative" as Bob is intelligent.

    Fascist states can be "leftist" in ideology simply because fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism. The ideology or world view is what matters when defining liberal versus conservative.

    I am a conservative because I base my world view on traditional Judeo-Christian teachings and I am VERY skeptical of purly secular institutions and philosophies. Liberals worship at the alter of secular humanism which has it's origins in the 19th century secular philosophies, which included Marx and Nietsche...This is why liberals always get it wrong and should never have too much power....These philosophies lead to tyranny, death of tens of millions and fascism as shown in the 20th century.

    So Bob, you hold to a world view that has the same origin as Nazism....congratulations.. That is why David Duke and you can be in the same group and believe Iraq's freedom struggle is lost and we should just abandon them!

    bigred,

    you want proof, ask for it. Pick a topic.

    Anonymous posting as me JohnE: "I changed my mind. I understand why he uses the anonymous tag. ANYONE could hijack someone's name."

    Funny stuff Anonymous... really, really clever too.

    The Grim Challenger has been furiously googling fascism...and still got it wrong.
    How funny is that !

    Since you don't want to believe me, ask any educated person or anyone involved in academia if the term "fascism " is a left or right wing concept.
    Get back to me on that, and an admission of error would be appropriate.

    You are a lot alike your fearless leader where you won't / can't admit you're wrong.

    Even when you hear the answer from an expert( and teaching a course and having a Masters in History does constitute an expert) you still want to believe your misconceptions.

    You are indicative of many in the right wing spectrum where no matter how many times you're proven wrong about something, you continue to believe your falsehoods.


    Now about Bush going AWOL..Dan Rather DID NOT get it wrong. He did use an unconfirmed source which got him in trouble.
    There is an award to any member of Bush's unit if they can testify that they worked with him or saw him during the specified time.
    To date, the money has not be claimed.
    Bush did desert his country during time of war, and no one can prove otherwise.
    Remember that when you and Cee claim what an honorable man he is.

    bigred,

    You should've asked for proof instead of whining.

    JohnE,

    That happened to me recently. Get it now? I couldn't carry on a discussion. Now people have to respond to points and specific posts.

    Hey Brainwashed Bob,

    The only reason why you think "academia" has such a definition of fascism is because you have bought the propaganda of the secular humanist liberals who control the public school system and universities of this country. Think for yourself, dude.....study primary sources and read the writings of those philosophers who started it all during the enlightenment, modern and post-modern periods.

    Your "profs" had their own adenda and spoonfed it to you.

    So Bush was grounded for Desertion???LOL

    You liberals are so retarded it's scary!!!!

    So Bob, you hold to a world view that has the same origin as Nazism....congratulations..

    The way you distort and mangle a point and then come up with your own conclusion is truly a great example of doublespeak !

    Cee...you are consistent. You're still an idiot.

    And as one who teaches history, there were so many incorrect statements you just made in that post, I'm not even going to waste my time to correct them.


    Anonymous, I always got it. So, your name got high-jacked by some lame-ass juvenile and he/she posted as you... big deal (cry me a river). By the way, I posted against that kind of crap when it happened to you, or whoever it was, back a few days or weeks ago. I just don't like responding to Anonymous posts generally because multiple people use them (hide behind them).

    However, your fact-free insult-fest post are the reason you can't carry on a discussion. Here's a tip... if you want people to respond to your points, make one in your posts.

    So Bob, an "expert" on political alignment believes that Mussolini's "Fascist Manifesto" of 1919 is right-wing even though it looks like Nacy Pelosi and others like that ripped off it's text.

    Such as...
    * The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
    * A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.
    * The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
    * The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
    * A minimum wage.
    * The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions

    Thus, we can all conclude from this that Bob and the current incoming democratic congress are in fact right-wing! He just said so.

    In fact, I'd like Bob to give me a detailed list of what exactly made fascism "right wing". Especially since the fasicsts states WERE allied with communist Russia for quite a few years.

    Oh, and before you say that Mussolini was "racist" I remind you of this little inconvient historical fact:
    "Under Hitler's prodding, Mussolini did eventually put antisemitism on his agenda and did in 1938 pass generally unpopular antisemitic laws but it was no part of his own original program. He had never expressed any antisemitism prior to his alliance with Hitler. In fact, Italian Jews had been prominent as leaders in some of the early Fasci di combattimento (Fascist bands) and the antisemitic laws were largely ignored by Italians -- so much so that one of the safest places in Europe for Jews to be during the second world war was undoubtedly Fascist Italy. Jews were in fact routinely protected by both Fascist and non-Fascist Italians (including the clergy) and many Jews to this day have grateful memories of wartime Italy. At a time when Jews had very few friends anywhere in the world, they had friends in Fascist Italy (Steinberg, 1990; Herzer, 1989). Contrast this with the way in which Eastern Europeans and even the French actively co-operated with Hitler's round-up of Jews. It should also be noted that, unlike Hitler, Mussolini did not set up any concentration camps for the Jews."

    One other note:
    "And much less surprisingly, F.D. Roosevelt, found in Mussolini's policies part of his inspiration for the semi-socialist "New Deal" and referred to Mussolini in 1933 as "that admirable Italian gentleman". Mussolini was plausible to an amazingly wide range of people -- not the least to the people of Italy."

    So I'm guessing now we're saying that FDR was right-wing too?

    Think for yourself, dude.....study primary sources and read the writings of those philosophers who started it all during the enlightenment, modern and post-modern periods.

    I do and I have.

    Your "profs" had their own adenda and spoonfed it to you.

    I am a "prof" and my only agenda is to educate. unlike yourself who discloses your extreme biases on a daily basis.
    I deal with facts.
    You deal with propaganda.
    That's why you and I will never agree.

    Anon (12:52),

    Bush was grounded for not showing up where ordered, which got him grounded, which hindered the war effort, which is desertion.

    "There is an award to any member of Bush's unit if they can testify that they worked with him or saw him during the specified time.
    To date, the money has not be claimed."

    And thats your proof ......gee did you include that
    logic in your "masters thesis"?????

    JohnE,

    I don't insult until insulted. Check the thread if you like.

    If you want something proven, ask me to prove it.

    I have one other question for you Bob.

    If facism is "right-wing", why then was "NAZI" short for "National SOCIALISTS"??? (translated of course)

    So I guess socialism is now right-wing as well?

    Grim,

    A real socialist wouldn't outlaw labor unions and communists, with death penalties for both. Hitler did, of course.

    "There is an award to any member of Bush's unit if they can testify that they worked with him or saw him during the specified time.
    To date, the money has not be claimed."

    And thats your proof ......gee did you include that
    "proof" when you wrote your "masters thesis"?????
    or did you just have of your buddies type up your
    primary sources like Danny Boy did????

    http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html

    So again, today's democrats are right-wing then? (after all, THIS sounds familiar:)
    Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy. The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.

    from
    http://www.peikoff.com/op/home.htm

    Grim,

    A real socialist wouldn't outlaw labor unions and communists, with death penalties for both. Hitler did, of course.
    =================================================

    And on a side note, I guess then that Ralph Nadar isn't a socialists since he won't permit unions at his place of business?

    Nadar isn't a socialist.

    Now I see! Bob is a dyed in the wool secular humanist!

    No Bob, based on how you act on this blog, your only agenda is to indoctrinate.

    If you really want to have a logical and honest debate about secular philosophy and history...I would be glad to participate.

    I have traversed the United States public education system from K to Medical School, exposing my formative neurons to crazier ideas from even crazier liberals. My foundation of Judeo-Christian ideas of justice and compassion have served me well. I would be glad to discuss the alternative world views, and their impact on our world, if you like.

    Anon (1:00),

    Either he deserted or he didn't.The punishment for
    desertion ain't grounding...

    Ok then, so is Nadar left or right-wing?

    Justify your answer is 500 words or less.

    "I have an extreme hatred of O'Reilly because he is at best a stubborn, stupid, pompous, bloviating, sexist, lieing, hypocritical, and disrespectful person. All provable via Lexis Nexis."

    And we can prove the exact same thing about Olbermann. As I have said repeatedly, I'm no fan of O'Reilly's but Olbermann is just as bad and so far as I can see there is very little difference between the two of them except O'Reilly at least tries to have people on with opposite viewpoints than his own, Olbermann doesn't even pretend to do this. And while O'Reilly's show is clearly labeled as Opinion, Olbermann insists that his is a NEWS show and that he is NOT biased or political when his show should be recalled "Democratic Talking Points". THAT is my trouble with Olbermann.

    And bullshit Anonymous. Really just how far up your ass if your head? Don't recall seeing Bush court-martialed for "desertion" as you put it. Honestly, you people need to develop alternate sources for your news than Daily Kos, DU, and Olbermann. You might actually learn something.

    And re torture and forms of interrogation used by our country: yeah and so what? Other countries use far worse means to get information.

    And secondly: profiling? I'm all for it. And I guarantee you that 90% of the American public is all for it too. It may not be "politically correct" but I'll take being un-politically correct over getting on a plane that's going to be blown up, or hijacked by Arabic terrorists any day of the week. You don't see El-Al airlines being hijacked or any incidents on board their plane and they use the most thorough security means possible to screen their passengers. That's exactly what we need to do in this country, even if it means ethnic profiling.

    And secondly: profiling? I'm all for it. And I guarantee you that 90% of the American public is all for it too. It may not be "politically correct" but I'll take being un-politically correct over getting on a plane that's going to be blown up, or hijacked by Arabic terrorists any day of the week. You don't see El-Al airlines being hijacked or any incidents on board their plane and they use the most thorough security means possible to screen their passengers. That's exactly what we need to do in this country, even if it means ethnic profiling.
    _________________________________________________
    Brandon, i have to say I like Isreal's idea of airplane security:
    Putting a plain-clothes (and armed) air marshal on board every flight.

    And bullshit Anonymous. Really just how far up your ass if your head? Don't recall seeing Bush court-martialed for "desertion" as you put it.
    ====================================================
    You must remember Brandon, in today's world of "fake but accurate" a lack of evidence is simply evidence for that event.

    i.e. "Where's the proof that you DIDN'T beat your wife, sir?"

    "You don't see El-Al airlines being hijacked or any incidents on board their plane and they use the most thorough security means possible to screen their passengers. That's exactly what we need to do in this country, even if it means ethnic profiling."

    It doesn't matter what Israel does - in the United States it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to engage in ethnic profiling. It violates the Fourth Amendment (being of a specific ethnicity is not probable cause to be detained) and the Fourteenth Amendment (a government official cannot make determinations based upon race or ethnicity absent compelling state interests and only then if there are non-racial means of reaching the same goal).

    Brandon can you tell, just by looking at someone, if they are Arabic? That's what you're asking people to do. And I guarantee that people who "look Arabic" (which would be Hispanics and some Native American, Indian and light-skinned African-Americans) will get caught in this - so it is obviously not the most narrowly-tailored program because it sweeps too far.

    You O'Reilly defenders might wanna check out the Paris Business Review.

    hehehehehehehehehehehehe...
    It's Great!

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    Which is the greater offense: that we offend someone by racially profiling them or having a terrorist carry out an attack, possibly killing hundreds if not thousands? Perfect Olbyloon logic: let's not hurt someone's feelings even if they are trying to carry a plan for mass destruction and terror.

    Brandon,

    It not whether we offend one person. It's whether we offend every person of one race or religion. It is whether the consitantly treat people differently and whether prejudices are reinforced by these actions. It is whether this country can afford to abandon our morality in a time of attacks on our morality. It's not progress to racially profile, it is regression. Racial profiling is a step before concentration camps and ethnic cleansing. It is an excuse and a license to act immorally and illegally.

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    "Racial profiling is a step before concentration camps and ethnic cleansing. It is an excuse and a license to act immorally and illegally."

    Yeah i remember the trials of lefty gods FDR and
    Earl Warren for rounding up the Japs and putting
    them in camps......

    Good point Anonymous. That was a very sad time in American history. No matter who intiated it.

    And if we had been racially profiling on 9/11 there would be 3,000 Americans alive and well today who are now dead and gone. What do you think their families would prefer we do? Honestly, this hearts and flowers crap sounds just great but the reality is that this is a big bad world and we are dealing with enemies who racially profile US as Americans and are determined to kill us. They aren't worried about the "peace" and "love" their religion teachers so you know what? I'm not worried about their "rights".

    And concentration camps and ethnic cleansing? Hysterical much there are you? There is a huge difference between asking extra questions of and doing body searches & extra luggage searches on someone and locking them up in a camp and executing them. Come on, you're not even being reasonable or logic here in the least. As a frequent flier, I would welcome any and all improvements in air safety. Perhaps if you're unemployed or don't fly frequently it's no big to you but it's a big concern of mine.

    Looks like Bill O was victim of a botched fact. If he said, "Chegnogne" would anyone have a problem with that?

    (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre)
    "It was in the wake of the Malmedy incident at Chegnogne that on New Year's Day 1945 some 60 German POWs were shot in cold blood by their American guards. The guilt went unpunished. It was felt that the basis for their action was orders that no prisoners were to be taken."

    You're new here so I'll be kind and refer you to the FAQ's of this site. But for the record? Look at the title of the webpage. It's Olbermannwatch. Not Fox watch. Not Bill O'Reilly watch. Not Hannity watch. Not Limbaugh watch. Not Bush watch. Not GOP watch. What part of that do you people not understand?

    I know it's easier for you to throw up your oppositions to Fox TV and it's personalities. I know it's easier for you to object to President Bush and his policies. I know it's easier for you to find fault with the GOP. Because even the more misguided and ill-informed of you even admit what Olbermann himself won't: he's biased. And that's why this site exists, to document his bias and his inaccuracies and flat-out lies.

    When the name of the page is changed to O'Reilly watch I'll be more than happy to engage in a dialog with you re his faults. But I'm sorry, your excuses for Olbermann need to be more original than, "But Bill-O does. . But Fox does. . . ". This site isn't about what they do. It's about what Keith Olbermann does or doesn't do. What part of that is so difficult for you people to get?

    Honestly are you this stupid or just lazy?

    Remember how the Dems cut funding to force a withdraw from Vietnam?
    That cost them bigtime at the ballot box for years.
    They won't be as foolish this time.
    So Bush will have all the money he needs to continue.

    But for better or worse, public opinion is now firmly against the war -- 70% opposed.
    ( Unless you deny the polls : )
    Which you are certainly free to do.
    But the poll numbers do seem to have been pretty well corroborated by the midterms.

    Yes, we'll probably send in another 20-30K troops here shortly.
    But that's just a stopgap, and isn't likely to improve things on the ground all that much.
    Or more importantly, reverse public opinion.
    And we don't have enough resources to simply double our troop strength there.
    Even if we wanted to switch to an overwhelming-force doctrine now.

    Right or wrong, Bush and Cheney pushed hard for this war.
    Sure most Americans were all for it then -- but most are against it now, many feel duped, and some let down.
    Iraq has always been viewed as Bush and Cheney's crusade, especially now -- as it openly flies in the face of public opinion.
    And their continued resistance to the electorate will only serve to further reinforce that perception.
    Iraq will always be seen as a Bush/Cheney war, a Neocon war, a Republican war.

    Even if we do pull out over the next few years, it'll be from public pressure, not Democratic pressure.
    Remember: the Dems won't be cutting funding this time around.
    And whether we pull out or not, Iraq will likely worsen.
    ( Unless you deny the intel : )
    Which you are certainly free to do.

    So let me ask you this.
    With the public so adamant about leaving Iraq.
    And Bush and Cheney so adamant about staying.
    What do you think will happen as the cost in blood and treasure rises?
    As Iraq continues to worsen -- with us or without us.
    What do you think is likely to happen to politics in this country over the next decade as a result?

    "Honestly, this hearts and flowers crap sounds just great but the reality is that this is a big bad world and we are dealing with enemies who racially profile US as Americans and are determined to kill us. They aren't worried about the "peace" and "love" their religion teachers so you know what? I'm not worried about their "rights"."

    Brandon, can you tell if someone is Arabic BY SIGHT (as opposed to Hispanic, East Indian, or African-American)?

    The problem is that you are telling an entire class of people that they are subject to "heightened suspicion" BECAUSE of their race or ethnicity. It's BLATANTLY unconstitutional - read Justice Murphy's dissent in Korematsu v. United States:

    "The judicial test of whether the Government, on a plea of military necessity, can validly deprive an individual of any of his constitutional rights is whether the deprivation is reasonably related to a public danger that is so ‘immediate, imminent, and impending’ as not to admit of delay and not to permit the intervention of ordinary constitutional processes to alleviate the danger."

    The Korematsu decision cannot be used as precedent (it has been so strongly repudiated that no judge will touch it), but the dissents offer strong critiques.

    "A majority of the Court has validated only two circumstances where “pressing public necessity” or a “compelling state interest” can possibly justify racial discrimination by state actors. First, the lesson of Korematsu is that national security constitutes a “pressing public necessity,” though the government's use of race to advance that objective *must be narrowly tailored.*" - Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger. (emphasis mine)

    There's a long line of cases (starting with Whren v. United States) that state a police action SOLELY on the basis of race is inherently unconstitutional. And again, how can we determine who is Arabic and who is not? You can't make that determination by sight - so the profile would sweep too broadly. Thus, the national security exception Justice Ginsburg mentions is not applicable.

    My point is that EVERYONE should be carefully screened before boarding a plane in this country, and yes, that applies to Arabs, Muslims, Jews, Irish, French, Black, and Hispanic. And if someone gets offended and THINKS they're being profiled? Tough shit.

    You, on the other hand, apparently have no problem with terrorists boarding our planes and are far more concerned with the "rights" of people like Jose Padilla. Sorry sister/brother, not me. I'm more concerned with me and my right to stay alive.

    Brandon, you're being dishonest. That;s not the argument you originally stated.

    Originally you said you were for profiling, but because I pointed out that profiling is unconstitutional, you've shifted to saying that "everyone" should be screened regardless of race. So which is it?

    Are we going to get to the point where it's a 5 or 6 hour security screening to board a flight (like it was in London when liquids were banned)? At that point, you can kiss the airline industry goodbye.

    Brandon,

    I have no problem with tough screening for everyone. I have a problem with profiling. That is tough screening based on the appearance or religion of a person. Make all the rediculous arguments you want, but at best it's unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent.

    Justifying it by invoking pre 9-11 screenings and stating it would have saved three thousand lives is ludicrous. It would have saved three thousand lives as well if we had just had all Muslims in jail too. Should we do that now?

    It's not an overstatement, it is fundamentally unamerican to remove inalienable rights afforded us by our constitution for the unforseeable chance to possibly save lives. How on earth would you know?

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    Actually Cee. I think we could agree on one thing.That you're an ass kissing Bush apologist.

    I actually used you ( and people like you) as an example in one of my seminars of someone who is educated, but not "smart."
    I encourage my students to think for themselves, to challenge the established way of thinking, including anything I say.
    I explain to them that our forefathers not only approved of dissent and challenging the government, they said it was our duty.
    When you don't hold your government to be accountable , you end up with calamities as has been documented thruout history.

    To be a good citizen , you have to be vigilant and when the times come , critical of your elected leaders.You label that a secular humanist( which you call me).
    No, Cee, it's called being a good American.
    Blind patriotism (like Cee) is not the trait of being a good American.

    There has been a multitude of dangerous policies that have been either proposed or instituted under George Bush.
    His domestic policies have caused an untold amount of suffering as the gap between the rich and poor in this country as widened and deepened.His environmental policies have allowed more mercury in our air and water.
    His allegiance to big business and the big Pharma has hurt many seniors who can't pay for their meds.
    He has destabilized the Middle East with a war that even many on the right are turning against.

    The honorable republican senator from Oregon, Gordon Smith, who has been a supporter of the war in Iraq, said the U.S. military's "tactics have failed" and he "cannot support that anymore."
    Smith said he is at, "the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up the same bombs, day after day.
    "That is absurd," he said. "It may even be criminal."

    Rep. Smith kept his eyes open, evaluated what was happening and didn't let party politics get in the way of his judgement.
    He demonstrated integrity.He was willing to admit he was wrong.
    That's what I call being "smart"...and a good American.
    The righties at this site that continue day after day following the party line,reveal that they put party over country.
    To stand silent and not criticize this president is unpatriotic.You don't have to dismiss everything he has done, but for Christ's sake to think THE LIBERALS are the problem ,who haven't been in power, and not blame Bush, is just being a blind patriot.
    Actually it's being a coward.
    Admitting you are wrong does take some courage, and that courage is woefully lacking with many on the right.
    Cee is their poster boy.

    "... it is fundamentally unamerican to remove inalienable rights afforded us by our constitution for the unforseeable chance to possibly save lives."

    very nicely stated.
    the Founding Fathers would be proud
    (and would tar and feather Brandon just for the fun of it).

    very nicely stated.
    the Founding Fathers would be proud
    (and would tar and feather Brandon just for the fun of it).
    ***************************************************

    Wouldn't that be in violation of Brandon's freedom of speech and thus a removal o fhis inalienable rights afford to him by our constitution?

    Orange Boy is a hoot. He takes Tony Snow to task because he responds to some questions by honestly answering "I don't know", but Olby completely overlooks the attempts by the incoming head of the House Intelligence Committe to feign knowledge of our Islamofascist enemies.

    Rep. Reyes (D)was asked whether al Qaeda is a Sunni or Shiite organization. At first he tried to claim that it is "both", then changed his anwer to "probably Shiite". That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

    Reyes could also not answer questions about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon and tried to deflect the questioner by asking if could answer "in Spanish".

    In the world of Orange Boy a Republican who admits he doesn't have the answer deserves scorn, while a Democrat who tries to feign knowledge about something he doesn't know, gets a pass.

    More gerbils tonight on Meltdown!

    When I first heard President Bush accuse Democrats of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq, I knew that America was going to cut and run from Iraq. When a war turns so bad that an American president feels compelled to start warning against cutting and running, the clock starts ticking on when we actually will cut and run. The Nixon administration spent five years figuring out how to cut and run from Vietnam and managed to get more American soldiers killed during Kissinger's utterly pointless "peace" negotiations and the withdrawal period than were killed during Lyndon Johnson's full-on war period. There has been much speculation about how smart George W. Bush is, but not even his most adamant defenders have ever suggested he is smarter than Nixon. So, we have every right to expect that Bush will not be even as good as Nixon at cutting and running. Bush will leave the end game to his successor who, with the American people's approval, will cut and run by following some variation on the Iraq Study Group's report. All hell will break loose when we leave Iraq no matter when that occurs. But within Bush's life time, other American presidents just might visit Iraq as routinely as they now visit Vietnam if we manage the long term aftermath of our exit as well as we did in Southeast Asia.

    The real tragedy in all of this is as the "Decider Who Dares Not Decide" diddles around, attempting to cover his ass, brave American soldiers are DYING!! How did we ever get to the point where their deaths are so inconsequential to those in power (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, McCain, Lieberman, Graham, etc., etc., etc.)! The sad truth is that these days, our citizenry and soldiers are not even CONSIDERED when decisions in Washington are made. Is THIS democracy? I THINK NOT!

    Wouldn't that be in violation of Brandon's freedom of speech and thus a removal o fhis inalienable rights afford to him by our constitution?

    I was speaking rhetorically : )

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- TJ

    Brandon and the boneheads here certainly support tyranny and despotism.
    Hey, you can vote however you like.
    But make no mistake about it,
    If a Founding Father met you in a dark alley in Philadelphia,
    And knew the crap you spew herein,
    He'd kick the living shit out of you.
    And gladly do the jail time.


    All hell will break loose when we leave Iraq no matter when that occurs. The real tragedy in all of this is as the "Decider Who Dares Not Decide" diddles around, attempting to cover his ass, brave American soldiers are DYING!!

    Unfortunately, it's worse than that.
    The neocons and bush/cheney have screwed up the WOT itself.
    It'll take quite a while to get back on track.
    And to get the necessary allies back on board in earnest.
    And to pay for this administration's trillion dollar fiasco.
    And to restore the public's resolve to wage war in the right direction, after going in the wrong direction for so long.

    Some think racial profiling at airports is bad but racial profiling for college admissions is alright. If it is ok to deny somebody college admission based on race them it is acceptable to deny a person a seat on a plane based on race.

    "In the world of Orange Boy a Republican who admits he doesn't have the answer deserves scorn, while a Democrat who tries to feign knowledge about something he doesn't know, gets a pass."

    hank, Tony Snow is the Press Secretary. That means he's supposed to know what the President is doing, where he's supposed to be, etc. In other words, he's the connection from the Oval Office to the outside world. How can we get an objective idea of what is happening in the "People's House" when their designated spokesperson goes before the reporters and cannot answer questions?

    "Some think racial profiling at airports is bad but racial profiling for college admissions is alright. If it is ok to deny somebody college admission based on race them it is acceptable to deny a person a seat on a plane based on race."
    And thus the reason why liberalism is rightfully classifies as a mental disorder.
    Give up Anon @ 5:41 you are not fighting rational people or a rational ideology. Liberalism is not coherent or cognitive thought.
    there is no reasoning with liberals, no discussing, no talk of compromise. The only thing to do is to fight liberals, liberalism and it's ugly socialist stepsister " progressivism" and of course ALWYAYS question and destroy politicall correctness wherever you find it.

    "Some think racial profiling at airports is bad but racial profiling for college admissions is alright."

    Read the exceptions stated in Grutter v. Bollinger - an exception exists if the decision based on race is to compensate for prior racist actions. It is acceptable to use race as a factor for college admissions because of the decades-long practice of racial exclusion that colleges used in the early part of the 20th century.

    OK Brandon, according to you, all we should be talking about is a clearly flawed but somewhat charismatic Cable TV pundit who has controversial views, and is not afraid to say them publicly. So this is ALL we are supposed to talk about on this site? We are NOT supposed to discuss the controversial views he puts forth by actually debating the relative MERITS of what he is saying? No, not according to you!

    It seems to me that any conversation limited to this one relatively minor but controversial TV personality is doomed to be a short and very boring one. There is only so much that can be said and refuted, and then all the arguments repeat and become circular....pretty dull stuff! There might be 5 or 10 folks here who might want to keep doing that over and over again.

    On the OTHER hand, there are some pretty interesting and intelligent debates that occasionally develope on this site concerning REAL issues. These usually occur once the name calling and labeling stops, and everyone, including you, could actually learn something from these.

    But according to you, we are only supposed to talk about a second rated TV pundent....whatever!

    Hey Josh,

    While you're referring to the PBR, why don't you check a favorite Olby refereence, the Hoosier Gazette, which Olby used as the basis for an entire segment not long ago. You can find the story in the OW archives.

    Great fun was had by all.

    Lets have race be a factor for plane admission. Age and gender are other factors that can be used.

    "It is acceptable to use race as a factor for college admissions because of the decades-long practice of racial exclusion that colleges used in the early part of the 20th century."

    How many more years should race be used as a factor in college admissions. Why punish young Americans for something they had no part in? Is this so some people feel better about what thier ancestors were involed in?

    "How can we get an objective idea of what is happening in the "People's House" when their designated spokesperson goes before the reporters and cannot answer questions?"

    This is silly. Snow answers scores of questions on a daily basis and is a very smart man, but no one knows everything. So, Orange Boy goes to his video editing bag of tricks and culls out only those questions that Snow answers "I don't know".

    Democrat Reyes on the other hand shows fundamental ignorance about our enemies. This is how the Dems show they are serious about addressing the issues in Iraq-- by installing an ignoramus as the No. 1 guy on Intelligence? Even more amazing is that Olbermann won't even touch it. Somebody try and convince me that Orange Boy's passiing on this story is a shock.

    If a Founding Father met you in a dark alley in Philadelphia,
    And knew the crap you spew herein,
    He'd kick the living shit out of you.
    And gladly do the jail time.

    Ain't it the truth !

    TDF

    What rights does our constitution grant to people who are not from this country? Here's a hint. NONE.

    No amendment gives any rights to someone from the middle east who boards our airplanes. They should be monitored more closely than anyone.

    "Democrat Reyes on the other hand shows fundamental ignorance about our enemies."

    So do most of the top counterterrorism people at the FBI, and two Republican members of the same committee (both of whom had more seniorty than Reyes). So did President Bush (as demonstrated two months before the Iraq war began). The question is whether Reyes will remain ignorant or actually LEARN about our enemies.

    Second-rated? How about third-fourth and even fifth on some nights? And yes, it seems that some of you can't argue that Olbermann isn't biased and therefore try to change YOUR arguments to talk instead about Fox News and Bill O'Reilly or whatever your own most-hated television commentator happens to be then expect us to defend said commentator even though the name of this site is clearly Olbermannwatch. And when really challenged what is your all-purpose answer? "Then don't watch him." As if not-watching him will somehow make his clear biases go away.

    Profiling makes sense and you know it. But you people seem to think that we ought to give terrorist "rights", even when they aren't even citizens of this country. Under profiling, the 19 hijackers from 9/11 would have been closely scrutinized because they weren't citizens of this country, not because of the color of their skins. But let some of you liberal pussies have your way and oh no, can't question someone who clearly fits a terrorist profile or any other profile for criminal activity because that would be "violating" their "rights". Never mind that it's a sensible, common sense thing to do. You want to use an example of how someone could be educated and not smart there Mr. Liberal? Look no further than your own kind and this argument. And yes, please explain to me how it is that we'd be discriminating against someone to interrogate them before they got on board a plane but if their skin is the right color, they automatically get preferential treatment in the workplace, at school, and every where else in this country? Oh, I get it, we're supposed to give them preferential treatment too! Hell, why don't we just automatically hand over all of our airplanes to them and just let them use them as weapons against us? Arabic? From a country with known terrorist ties? Why please have this complimentary 747 to fly into a building, on us! Because we'd hate to violate your rights!

    And it's ridiculous to say that such screening would take "5 to 6 hours". El Al does it regularly and their planes depart in a timely manner. Another liberal lie exposed.

    And re my right to freedom of speech and right to free thought, well welcome to Liberal America where they would deny anyone who didn't agree with them the right to free speech (see the leading liberal websites for proof) and where we have to be so frigging politically correct that we have to be extra careful NOT to violate the "rights" of terrorists take precedent over the citizens of this country.

    "What rights does our constitution grant to people who are not from this country? Here's a hint. NONE."

    And again, how can you tell ON SIGHT ALONE who is and is not from this country? Or who is here legally and who is not?

    And yes, visitors to this country do not receive the "full panopoly of rights" that a citizen recieves under the Constitution, but that does not mean they are devoid of its protections completely. That would be absurd - and the law is designed to avoid absurd conclusions.

    "And again, how can you tell ON SIGHT ALONE who is and is not from this country?"

    An orange jumpsuit would be of great help.

    They're called PASSPORTS and they denote the country of one's citizenship. Really have you ever actually even been in an airport anonymous?

    "And it's ridiculous to say that such screening would take "5 to 6 hours". El Al does it regularly and their planes depart in a timely manner. Another liberal lie exposed."

    Look at what happened when liquids were banned - wait times doubled (and even TRIPLED in some areas), and that was a relatively MILD security measure compared to what you suggest.

    Racial and ethnic profiling is UNCONSTITUTIONAL - it cannot be done AT ALL. DO YOU NOT GET THAT? And you're hyperbolic ranting about "coddling terrorists" is BULLSHIT. It's about respecting the RULE OF LAW - the very foundation of this nation. If we can discard the rule of law when it becomes convenient or because we're scared of the "big bad threat", then we've already lost.

    I think Scarborough Country is becoming even a better show than KO's.
    There's some realistic talk about the war, and how it could ruin the republican party for the next 20 years.
    Meanwhile Hannity keeps interviewing disgraced members of the Bush Administration.
    ANything but to talk about this Godforsaken war.
    While OReilly continues his "War on Christmas".
    You just can't make this stuff up !

    Again. People who are not citizens of the U.S. are NOT entitled to rights under our constitution.

    Just like terrorists who do not represent a recognized state, do not wear a uniform and who kill citizens intentionally should not be afforded rights under the Geneva Convention.

    You try to act like you're some sort of constitutional scholar, but you sure don't know much about the constitution.

    "They're called PASSPORTS and they denote the country of one's citizenship."

    But you only present your passport when you are ASKED to. And many LEGAL RESIDENTS of the U.S. still have dual citizenship, which means they may be a U.S. resident but carry a Canadian or Israeli passport, for example. So again, ON SIGHT ALONE, how can you tell if someone is an alien or not?

    Some insight into liberal-Olbyloon thinking:

    Nation-building is humanitarian and just unless it is undertaken in Iraq.

    Anyone who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war was lying, unless his or her name is Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen, John Kerry, or Joe Lieberman, or is a Democratic senator.

    George Bush is a manipulative genius who led the United States into war but he's also an idiot.

    The U.S. military is overextended but it's size should be severly reduced and it's funding cut.

    Unilateral U.S. diplomatic pressure is always wrong, unless it is against Israel.

    Big money corrupts politics, unless it is big money raised by democrats.

    Election returns are always flawed unless a Democrat wins.

    That groping is a minor offense unless a Republican candidate is the groper.

    Independent-counsel investigations are travesties of justice, unless they are probes into a Republican White House.

    It's evil to be wealthy, unless you got that way by marrying Teresa Heinz or were born into it, like Ted Kennedy.

    Upper-crust Northeastern elite are always out-of-touch with the average guy unless they are named Howard Dean.

    "Again. People who are not citizens of the U.S. are NOT entitled to rights under our constitution."

    They are IF THEY ARE ON AMERICAN SOIL, nimrod.

    Again, anonymous reveals themselves to be an idiot of the highest order. The delays in the airport lines in the UK and US were because these bans on liquids were put in place overnight and there wasn't ample security personnel to screen passengers. Changes in laws to the way in which passengers and luggage are screened are long overdue in this country and presumably, if passed, would coincide with the hiring of more personnel to do screenings which would NOT delay airline passengers in this country. The fact that you want to see terrorists board our planes says far more about you than any insult you could hurl my way. If you had your way, terrorists would be coddled like babies and given rights they weren't guaranteed if they weren't citizens of this country. And it seems that you would rather guarantee their "rights" than to preserve lives in this country. How do I respond to a stupid-ass theory like that one exactly other than to laugh and shake my head about the stupidity of the poster? Bottom line, you seem to think that these terrorists are just terribly misunderstood and if we hold their hands and treat them really well they'll stop trying to kill us. Un-freaking-believable.

    "Again. People who are not citizens of the U.S. are NOT entitled to rights under our constitution."

    They are IF THEY ARE ON AMERICAN SOIL, nimrod.
    =====================================================
    Ummmm....... since when? Can someone point me to that article in the constitution?

    Or maybe it was a supreme court ruling. Anyone recall which one?

    No, you're the nimrod. If you're here illegally, you do not have those rights. If you were here legally and your visa expired, you don't have those rights. And even if you're an alien and here legally, you are required by law to carry your alien identification and registration documents with you and present them to appropriate law enforcement officers upon request.

    Also, have you never flown on a plane? Every time before I go through security, I have to show my driver's license.

    That's not racial profiling. That's common sense.

    And ratings don't matter unless someone manages to come in second in the all-important "demo".

    Coming in second in the all-important "demo" is to be pointed to as a point of pride, not seen as the ratings defeat that it is.

    It's okay for Olbermann to exhibit liberal bias when his show is labeled as a Newscast but it absolutely deplorable that Bill O'Reilly expresses an opinion which his show is clearly labeled as an Opinion show.

    It's okay to accuse O'Reilly of being a sexual degenerate based on a case that never made it into court but wrong to question Olbermann's personal life after it's been written about in two national newspapers (NY Daily News, NY Post).

    It's okay for Olbermann to call women hags, bags, shrews.

    It's okay for Olbermann to lie about his ratings gains.

    It's okay for Olbermann to lie about the stories he covers and to edit pieces to make them more favorable to liberals after they've aired on the network's sister (NBC) just so long as it makes the Dems look great and conservatives look bad.

    Since when did being a Liberal/Olbyloon have anything to do with common sense?

    Oops, forgot one! It's absolutely hilarious when Keith ridicules male celebs dating much-younger women but when Keith, nearly 48, takes up with a 21-year old recent college graduate, it's his private business and shouldn't be discussed.

    Wait, there's more!

    It's okay for Keith to use tabloid newspapers as a source for his nightly "Keeping Tabs" segments. When Keith quotes these tabloid sources, said sources are vaid and reliable. Except when those very same tabloids write about Keith's personal life in which case those same tabloids aren't to be believed.

    Misspellings on air done by other networks is worthy of them landing as one of Keith's WPITW nominess but spelling errors made by MSNBC personnel on his very own show shouldn't be apologized for or in fact mentioned because that would be petty.

    "Keith's a Fraud".. you're on a roll!

    It's okay to ridicule Rush Limbaugh's possession of Viagra but not okay at all to bring up the fact that Keith allegedly needs performance-enhancing drugs himself, even when he himself has alluded to such on both his television and radio programs.

    It is wrong for O'Reilly to make a mistake about an obscure incident from World War II, even after O'Reilly apologizes for said incident, it is then okay to ridicule him for it.

    It is okay to flash a Nazi-salute just so long as you CLAIM to be mocking O'Reilly.

    It is okay to slam O'Reilly repeatedly but very wrong to ever critizie Keith for his own hypocritical ways.

    Brandon said: "as if not watching him will make his clear biases go away"

    Are you on a mission to make biases you don't agree with go away? Cmon, get real, the world is full of biases.

    Why do you think you need to make his 'biases'go away? It is his American right to be biased, even if he is a TV pundit...and it is your right not to watch. For God's sake, What is the problem??

    Live and let live!

    To Keith's a fraud:

    It's OK to criticize ALL of those guys, including Keith....and it's OK for them to criticize and mock each other if they want to....and it's OK if you or I choose to watch them or tune them out.

    This is AMERICA!

    Your obsession with this is baffling?

    "They are IF THEY ARE ON AMERICAN SOIL, nimrod."

    Huh?

    Aliens on American soil don't have the right to vote, do they?

    Or run for office. Et cetera.

    Before calling people "nimrods", I'd be sure I knew what I was talking about.

    Aliens have _some_ constitutional rights but not all of the ones that citizens have.


    Olbermann's show is being labeled as a NEWS show. It is not a news show, it is minimally a news show and a majority OPINION show but it is not being labeled as such. Meanwhile, even though his rabid acknowledge and believe Olbermann is a liberal, he still maintains he is non-partisan and unbiased. THAT is the problem. For as much criticisim as Fox gets, at least they correctly their opinion shows as such.

    But Olbermann's fanatical fans don't see the contradictions in their Olbyloon logic. They want the right to silence his critics while they retain the freedom to hurl insults at other, far more successful broadcasters. And Olbermann himself is a hypocrite, making fun of others for doing the exact same things he is doing.

    "Aliens have _some_ constitutional rights but not all of the ones that citizens have."

    Which is WHAT I SAID in the first place - "visitors to this country do not receive the "full panopoly of rights" that a citizen receives under the Constitution, but that does not mean they are devoid of its protections completely. That would be absurd - and the law is designed to avoid absurd conclusions."

    First of all, it isn't racial profiling to have extra screening for non-American citizens. It's perfectly ok in fact, considering that the whole process of having a passport is meant to serve exactly that purpose. So what the hell are you neocons babbling about? Yes, they are not afforded the rights under the US constitution, but that does not mean they have no rights. In some cases they have rights that are not available to everyday citizens.

    Secondly, racial profiling is unacceptable. It is purely and wholly unamerican. Bigred's rediculous assertion that liberals would see terrorists coddled is treacherous, devisive, stupid, and wrong. There are ways to objectively and decidedly taylor programs to find potential terrorists without alienating the rights of any citizen.

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    "Oops, forgot one! It's absolutely hilarious when Keith ridicules male celebs dating much-younger women but when Keith, nearly 48, takes up with a 21-year old recent college graduate, it's his private business and shouldn't be discussed. "

    I don't think I've ever seen Olbermann comment in any way on anyone's opinion of his own personal relationships. You guys are a bunch of wilting-violet pussies! You say "ridicule", I say "joke".

    Bob,

    The "smart" people do not simply critique and condemn activity of their elected representatives...they offer good solutions that will SOLVE the challenges and also help to implement them.

    You accuse me of blindly following Bush....no, I agree with George Bush. In my opinion, the present challenges we face in the Middle East are not his fault. This idea that Bush caused the hatred that can justify terrorism to kill our military and civilians is absolute stupidity. The challenges are there because of an enemy that greatly desires to defeat The United States by any inhumane means necessary. I want this enemy vanquished and fully support The President in his view that this goal must be achieved. If he acquiesces to the pressure from people like you, Bob, I will no longer support Bush and seek leaders who have alternatives I believe will stop militant islam from gaining more power.

    The other issues you bring up with regard to economic policy, etc. are also OPINION....The talking points you use are indicative of conventional Democratic party attacks and show no original thought on your part.

    My support for Geroge Bush's decisions on Iraq since 2000 may shock you as an elitist secular humanist, but yes, I agree with The President on almost every issue, I TRUST George Bush to do what is right for me and my family, and finally, I am fully aware of the alternatives to his policies and attitude. I reject those views because, after much thought and research, it is my OPINION the other alternatives are not honorable or right.

    You say that Bush has made and continues to make mistakes on a whole host of issues and because you voice opposition to them, you are, "smart." No, you are not smart....you simply have another opinion which is wrong and would result in tragedy.

    It always amazes me when people (usually liberals) claim a conservative is simply following someone else when he/she supports a particular individual's point of view, but the liberal has always arrived at their opinion on their own.....NONSENSE! If point of fact, your arguments are VERBATIM from any of a host of media and liberal advocacy sites and is actually more "conventional"/representative of a sheep herd mentality than arguments I have posted.

    This is a typical liberal attitude towards anyone with a more traditional world view....the conservative is a follower who does not ask questions and blindly supports the leader.....NONSENSE! This attitude alone shows how uninformed and uninquisitive you are, Bob.

    At least Sir Loin of Milquetoast comes to this site with some challenging and provocative lines of inquiry to posters with whom he disagrees. I also miss Colbert's challenging, although frequently condescending, posts.

    I offered to participate in a deep and interesting debate between your secular humanist world view that derives from foundations of failed ideologies and my world view based on Judeo-Christian respect for God's authority over creation...including His absolute authority, just commands and available grace to all of humankind. You returned my offer with the insult that I am "patriotic," (I am amazed how that term became a pejorative in liberal circles), and "not smart." Well, I think your response says much more about you than you realize.

    Have a pleasant weekend.

    Cee,

    What's happenning now is a tragedy. You don't have to wait for the Democrats to screw it up.

    Sincerely,
    Josh

    That sounds like the "party of ideas" and of "posetivity"...