I spent a significant part of my career in proximity to Fortran.... [remainder of irrelevant spam deleted]

This poster will be banned, pending approval from Mr Cox, for posting multiple copies of lengthy off-topic (Fortran vs C) ramblings. The OlbyLoons are desperate to bog down this site with spam, but they will not succeed.

Now this lunatic Keith Olbersmurf claims that Bill O'Reilly is "siding with the child molester."

Yeah, that's it, Keith! You're one sick bastard. The only thing(s) worse than you are the retards that defend you here. Oh, wait! They're all you and your imaginery friend!

Yeah, Olby's not politically biased. Just like he's not obsessed with BOR. What a liar this guy is.

Keith lying. Keith lying on tape. Nice JD. Very nice. Now where are all those little Keith apologists who believe he'd never, ever lie? Even his most loyal defender on these pages at the very least will usually admit Olbermann's bias. But not Keith himelf. Pathetic.

Not obsessed?- Every time Dan Patrick brought Oreilleys name up KO began speaking before DP finished. Hummina-Hummina-Hummina- AHhhhhh. KO peed himself

There is another lie in there. O'Reilly never defended the child molester.

"Now this lunatic Keith Olbersmurf claims that Bill O'Reilly is "siding with the child molester.""

I'd be more concerned with the fact that O'Reilly (who is not a lawyer) seems to think that Devlin doesn't deserve the right to a lawyer AS PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

"There is another lie in there. O'Reilly never defended the child molester."

Nope. he just blamed the victim

its amazing to me that he goes on espn radio and basically is allowed to spill the same crap that he spills from 8-9. what desperation, i mean come on your not politcally biased, yank this and it plays jingle bells geez. The man is a turd, and yet i watch, but the o reily obsession should stop, it just hasnt worked in any way shape or form for him

"i'm not politically biased, i'm just right."

how can he be a liar for telling everyone his opinion of himself?

"Nope. he just blamed the victim"

Then why did O'Reilly say that the perpetrator - if found guilty - should get life? (O'Reilly's against the death penalty).

If that's "blaming the victim" then you've got a different understanding of that phrase than just about every other human being who's ever lived.

It’s simply amazing the way in which Keith brazenly makes things up about O’Reilly. O’Reilly never said anything like what Keith accuses him of. Nor did he ever “defend the Nazis” as Keith claimed a few months back.

There are plenty of things that O’Reilly can be legitimately criticized for, but not this. The truth could set Keith free, if he only had the emotional maturity of say, an eighth grader.

"how can he be a liar for telling everyone his opinion of himself?"

Perhaps because right before the congressional elections he delivered a special commentary calling for a Democratic takeover of Congress.

Why would someone who is politically "neutral" or not "biased" be concerned about who won control of Congress this past November?

He's either lying or delusional.

How could KK conjour up the idea that BO defended the child molester? I heard BO say last night that the molester didn't deserve to live. How is that defending him? That has to fall in the category of a "spinmaster classic". KK is outdoing himself.

Nope. he just blamed the victim"

Then why did O'Reilly say that the perpetrator - if found guilty - should get life? (O'Reilly's against the death penalty).

If that's "blaming the victim" then you've got a different understanding of that phrase than just about every other human being who's ever lived.

That's not blaming the victim, saying that the victim stayled because he must have liked it is blaming the victim.

And I remember O'Reilly stating that what the perp did to these two boys was "pure evil".

How can NBC let KO get away with these outright lies? These idiots on the left actually believe him! Where does O'Reilly go to get vindicated?

And I remember O'Reilly stating that what the perp did to these two boys was "pure evil".

How can NBC let KO get away with these outright lies? These idiots on the left actually believe him! Where does O'Reilly go to get vindicated?

"That's not blaming the victim, saying that the victim stayled because he must have liked it is blaming the victim."

Don't be uncommonly silly.

If the "victim" freely stayed, he's not a victim.

In which case there's no perpetrator.

But O'Reilly said that perpetrator should be locked away for life.

Which, of course, means that there was a victim.

And, really, this is the level of discourse Olbermann reduces us to in his bizarre crusade to go after O'Reilly.

Jeebus Olbermann, get a life.

O'Reilly said that "there was an element here that this kid [Hornbeck] liked about his circumstances," and added: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted."

Oreilly should be sodmoized

I'd be more concerned with the fact that O'Reilly (who is not a lawyer) (really! tell the class something we don't know!) SEEMS TO THINK! (get that folks,SEEMS TO THINK!) That Devlin doesn't deserve the right to a lawyer......

Bill didn't say it? He thought it?

Does E.E. work for the thought police?

Be careful what you think!!

I'm begining to rethink my thoughts about E.E.

Even Keith's hard-core lefty fans must cringe when listening to this tape.

"O'Reilly said that "there was an element here that this kid [Hornbeck] liked about his circumstances," and added"

No, O'Reilly said that he thought there _might_ be evidence of the kid liking the environment where he was - playing video games all day, not going to school - et cetera. The victim had, reportedly, several opportunities when alone to run to the police.

Why he didn't run can be speculated upon. My guess is he was afraid? Traumatized? Not sure what would happen? Who knows?

Bottom line: O'Reilly thinks the person who took this kid should be locked away for life.

Why would someone who is "blaming the victim" want to put the perpetrator away for life?

"No, O'Reilly said that he thought there _might_ be evidence of the kid liking the environment where he was - playing video games all day, not going to school - et cetera. The victim had, reportedly, several opportunities when alone to run to the police."

No he said, "there was an element here that this kid [Hornbeck] liked about his circumstances," That is a direct quote.

"Bottom line: O'Reilly thinks the person who took this kid should be locked away for life."

That is true he also blamed the victim.

"Why would someone who is "blaming the victim" want to put the perpetrator away for life?"

You can blame more than one person.

Is puck really this dumb?

"Bill didn't say it? He thought it?

Does E.E. work for the thought police?

Be careful what you think!!

I'm begining to rethink my thoughts about E."

Missy wants to know: "where does O'Reilly go to get vindicated?"

Lets see, let me think now...Letterman, The View, Colbert, Stewert, to name a just a few...then there's those 2.5 million or so fans that watch him most nights.

O'Reilly:

"This is a complicated, disturbing story that is important for all Americans. After teaching teenagers in high school, it is hard for me to believe that a NORMAL(caps added) kid would stay in a horrible environment when escape was easy, especially if the child had confidence in his parents"

"No he said, "there was an element here that this kid [Hornbeck] liked about his circumstances," That is a direct quote."

What part of the sentence did you cut off? You probably took this from Media Matters which has a nasty habit of not providing the full context of people's comments.

I heard O'Reilly discuss this at least once on the radio and he said that he was _wondering_ or speculating whether there was something in the environment that led to the boy not wanting to run.

He didn't state it as a fact. He raised the _possibility_ that there was something in this terrible matter that led to the boy's unwillingness to run.

Even IF the boy stayed because he liked to play video games, because of his age he was incapable of making an informed decision to stay.

It's not a question of blaming the victim since the victim was incapable of making sound judgments.

O'Reilly wants to lock the perpetrator up for life.

If Olbermann wants to ride this absurd smear for ratings, go for it. After all, who is surprised?

"that a NORMAL(caps added) kid would stay in a horrible environment "

Obviously the kid wasn't normal at the time. He was traumatized or scared or manipulated or brainwashed into staying when he had opportunities to run.

Why didn't he run? A NORMAL person would run.

But because of the environment he was placed under, he didn't act NORMALLY.

O'Reilly = easy target

Levin = feared monster!

Why didn't that flaming loser Patrick bring up Levin? Any guesses . . .

Uberloon sounds delusionally giddy on that clip.

KfK:

Because KO is afraid to take on Levin rhetorically or intellectually. BOR is a blowhard who puts his foot in his mouth on regular basis, while Levin (for all of his bombast and fire) is smart and a skilled debater.

I also get a kick out of the fact Media Matters once again has another clip of another BOR stupid clip about that Hornbeck kid, then KO conveniently picks up on it. I wonder if a WPITW or "Factor Fiction" is coming tonight on this deal.

All these "incriminating" O'Reilly quotes that people are citing. They come from the very first night of the story coverage, when the facts weren't known, and where O was, admittedly, speculating about what the victim did and why he may have done it. It was clearly speculation, and he had Greta there to come back at him with differing theories about the case.

A lot has changed since that first day, and there are a lot more facts now. I think O'Reilly did a little too much speculation at first, but that's what it was. It was never presented as fact, or as anything other than a possible theory of the case. So it will be interesting to see how Olbermann smears him tonight. I think it's likely that he'll focus on these first O'Reilly reactions to the situation, and downplay or flat-out ignore anything he's said about it in recent days. And, unless Dan Abrams tightens his leash again (like when he made Olby cancel another Fox-bashing segment on Insight magazine), we can expect to see the infamous, deplorable one telling more lies like O'Reilly "defended the kidnapper".

I think O'Reilly's initial comments were uncalled for. He was attempting to key in on the syndrome where the victim identifies with the captor, stating that it was premature to assume that, but then he veered into making personal judgments without the facts. What he needs to do is retract what he first said. He spoke without having all of the facts, as Greta kept trying to point out to him (he was speaking to her in that segment). I don't think there is any question that he now is not on the side of Devlin. AFter that segment with Greta (I believe the very next night and likely based on a huge negative response), he said that the Factor researched the issue and he believed that Matt fell more into the category of an "acceptance" response; that is, the victim has been traumatized and made to feel helpless so the vcitim then just accepts his fate. Olbermann never followed up or refused to acknowledge what transpired after those first comments. What has he done lately to help victims?

Oh, and KO attacking/mocking another woman? What a shock!

puck, stop acting like you're an idiot. It's undignified.

O'Reilly had Greta Van Sustren on last night and his comments seemed to indicate that O'Reilly believes that Devlin shouldn't have a lawyer, that if O'Reilly was a lawyer he wouldn't want the case, and that any attorney who got assigned the case should either refuse to take it or do a piss-poor job because Devlin is clearly guilty and should be locked up forever.

And if O'Reilly ISN'T trying to lay some blame on Hornbeck, why is he planning a segment on kids who escaped from their abductors? That seems to create an implication...

"What part of the sentence did you cut off? You probably took this from Media Matters which has a nasty habit of not providing the full context of people's comments."

I didn't cut anything off than indicates a different opinion from O'Reilly who also said: "This is a situation here for this kid that looks to be a lot more FUN( caps added) than he had under his old parents."

"I heard O'Reilly discuss this at least once on the radio and he said that he was _wondering_ or speculating whether there was something in the environment that led to the boy not wanting to run."

He is spinning. he said he flat out does not believe in the Stickholm syndrome and put forth the hypotheiss that the kid didn't run because he was having a grand old time(fun is the actual word he used just so you don't accuse me of misquoting).

He didn't state it as a fact. He raised the _possibility_ that there was something in this terrible matter that led to the boy's unwillingness to run.

He said the kid was having "fun" not going to school. When Greta van stern suggested that some kids like school Bill said "I don't beleive this kid did"

"It's not a question of blaming the victim since the victim was incapable of making sound judgments."

No he blamed the victim for not running. Implying the kid enjoyed his circumstances. he is also does want to lock the perpetrator up.

"Obviously the kid wasn't normal at the time. He was traumatized or scared or manipulated or brainwashed into staying when he had opportunities to run."

he clearly wasn't brainwashed, at least according to o'Reilly because the Stockholm syndrome does not exist.

Olburmann showd that O'riley is bad and should be shut down. Olburrman shows that O'Riley defends molesters and that O'Riley defends Nazis. This is a fact that Keeth proved on his show. He tells the truth about O'Riley you right wingers can't handle it. Everything Keeth say about O'Riley is true because keeth gets it off the internet.

"All these "incriminating" O'Reilly quotes that people are citing. They come from the very first night of the story coverage, when the facts weren't known, and where O was, admittedly, speculating about what the victim did and why he may have done it. It was clearly speculation, and he had Greta there to come back at him with differing theories about the case."

He was giving his opinon on the matter, which was that brainwashing does not exist and then offering up the hypothesis that the kid must have been having a whole lot of fun to stay. No facts have come out that should have changed that view. Only a whole lot of critsism of that view.

"A lot has changed since that first day, and there are a lot more facts now. I think O'Reilly did a little too much speculation at first, but that's what it was."

new facts regarding the existence of the Stockholm syndrome have not come out to my knowledge.

"It was never presented as fact, or as anything other than a possible theory of the case."

No, it was ALWAYS just his awful opinion on the matter.

"So it will be interesting to see how Olbermann smears him tonight. I think it's likely that he'll focus on these first O'Reilly reactions to the situation, and downplay or flat-out ignore anything he's said about it in recent days."

He remains unapologetic.

"Olburmann showd that O'riley is bad and should be shut down. Olburrman shows that O'Riley defends molesters and that O'Riley defends Nazis."

Make an argument or get the hell out of here.

Have everyone noticed KO is a psychopath? Everything he said on the clip was a lie.....eveything was spun to what HE wanted you to think or to make him look better in the eyes of the audience, it is all about him or his position...... no less than 8-9 lies in rapid fire... BO throws softballs to his guests, BO lives in a bubble, never goes anywhere, (Iraq?) he wanted you to think BO proteceted the child molester.....BO is a pervert.... BO blamed the victim..... he wanted you to think he is not biased.....he wanted you to think he is always right....WOW! (I may have missed a few more)

I hope Olburmann does a Speshul Komment on o'riley tonite he deserves it. anyone who defends nazis, child molesters should get it good from the truth teller Olbermunn. I wish Olburmann would spend more time on O'riley, especily since Olbermunn now gets better ratings in the age group that watches most.

Bill Oreilly blamed the victim

Back in the 70's, a very similar tragedy happened to a boy named Steven Staynor. (His brother Kerry is the Yosemite Park serial killer convicted some years ago, very strange). I watched a made for television movie starring Corin Nemec). Not that I buy into television productions for the facts but the presentation does shed light on the current case. Steven Staynor was so ashamed of what happened and did not want his father especially to know the sordid details. He denied the sexual abuse at first. His father could not understand how he Steven could let the abuse happen (he was gone for 7 years and when the pervert who kidnapped took another child, he finally escaped and took the boy to the police station). It's too complicated to explain all the details and there are differences in some of the facts, but it is a movie that always disturbed me (I Know My First Name is Steven").

"Make an argument or get the hell out of here"

Olburmann already made my argument. When he goes on his Countdown show, he gives the evidence for that scumbuket o'riley. Keeth is always prepared with evidence that o'riley is a bad person. he showed that o'riley defends nazis when he talked to wesly clark last year. Look it up. Keeth stuck it to him good.

"Olburmann already made my argument. When he goes on his Countdown show, he gives the evidence for that scumbuket o'riley. Keeth is always prepared with evidence that o'riley is a bad person. he showed that o'riley defends nazis when he talked to wesly clark last year. Look it up. Keeth stuck it to him good."

O'Reilly Blamed the victim

> new facts regarding the existence of the Stockholm syndrome have not come out to my knowledge.

Why do people have to lie to make their case? Maybe this is Keithy Boy posting here as nobody. O'Reilly never said it didn't exist. He stated, quite accurately, that it is RARE. The FBI sez 92% of cases don't show evidence of SS. On this point, new facts are not needed, because O was right.

Johnny,

Even if you provide the sound bites, some people will never get it.

** Have everyone noticed KO is a psychopath? ** - DUGUN

Sounds like it's no wonder the libs and the moonbats and the George Soros dupes so worship him.

I don't know Johnny why do you have to lie to make your case?

"O'Reilly never said it didn't exist. He stated, quite accurately, that it is RARE. The FBI sez 92% of cases don't show evidence of SS. On this point, new facts are not needed, because O was right."

O'Reilly said "The stockholm syndrome thing I don't buy it I've NEVER bought it I don't think it happend in the Patti hearst case, i don't think it happend here."

I just heard on Fox that 700 people and $700 million will be cut at NBC. Maybe "needle dick the bug f---er" keith will be one of them? That explains why he wasn't on the air last night. He has been in meeting with the top brass. I am sure that Zucker is warning "needle dick" to stick to the news and to stop his lies. They are all panicking at NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC. What happened "needle dick"? I thought that your ratingS were going through the roof?????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

** Have everyone noticed KO is a psychopath? ** - DUGUN

Sounds like it's no wonder the libs and the moonbats and the George Soros dupes so worship him.

O'Reily hates kids

> i don't think it happend here."

I will accept your quote as accurate if you tell me what the next sentences after "I don't think it happend [sic] here". Don't give me three dots, give me what O'Reilly said next. That's your assignment.

I cannot believe the falsehoods that are attributed to O'Reilly. Unbelievable nonsense.

O'Reilly never said that the Stockholm condition doesn't exist. He said that he was told by an FBI specialist that it was a much rarer condition or syndrome than most people believe. And that is was a much more complicated syndrome to affect than most people believe.

Brainwashing is, of course, not the same thing as the Stockholm Syndrome.

It was silly and irresponsible for O'Reilly to speculate on such things. He messed up.

But to say he was "blaming the victim" is a smear. O'Reilly has been on the forefront of going after child abusers and other scum.

"That explains why he wasn't on the air last night."

He had a cold, you moron. He STILL sounds a little "off" today on the radio.

Besides, if you'd bothered to READ the reports, most of the jobs that will be lost in the shift are duplicated positions that won't be needed when MSNBC's facilities are consolidated with the ones at CNBC and NBC.

Maybe Keith's defenders can't defend him anymore. Another one of Olbermann's fan sites has bitten the dust. For the record, that's apparently the third or the fourth such site to meet a similar fate. Maybe it's just temporary or maybe the three or four faithful who comprised this particlar site forgot to pay an internet bill, which wouldn't be shocking considering how a couple of them posted 24/7 and didn't seem to have a life or a job outside of Olbermann. Maybe they finally figured out what we've known about him all along: he lies.

"I will accept your quote as accurate if you tell me what the next sentences after "I don't think it happend [sic] here". Don't give me three dots, give me what O'Reilly said next. That's your assignment."

No that is your job. I quoted the relevant part of the sentence. but just so you don't dismiss it I will go ahead and do your job for you. The next thing Bill says is "two late developments" then Greta speaks.

Now since you agreed to accept my quote if I provided the next sentence (which by the way was a seprate sentence and therefore not a dot dot dot) we have it on record I am right. Don't worry johnny no apology is neccasary for calling me a liar.

Keith spins O.R.'s words to suit his obsession. Keith wants O.R. silenced, fired, done away with. Keith is for censorship when it comes to his rival who drums him into the ground daily by about a six to one margin. Keith is a pear shaped fascist.

Did you hear the air go out of KO's sails when DP mentioned watching to BoR? He knew that his viewership dropped by a third without D.P. watching his show.

DP might even make the Worse Person in the World for saying that. He should watch his back...Limpy seems to be getting crazier by the day.

"O'Reilly never said that the Stockholm condition doesn't exist. He said that he was told by an FBI specialist that it was a much rarer condition or syndrome than most people believe. And that is was a much more complicated syndrome to affect than most people believe"

O'Reilly said "The stockholm syndrome thing I don't buy it I've NEVER bought it I don't think it happend in the Patti hearst case, i don't think it happend here. Two late developments"

BUNGLING BUSHCO STRENGTHENS AMERICA`S ENEMIES IN IRAQ

-- Richard Clarke, Colin Powell, Wesley Clark: "We Told You So" --

-- Irrational Right Vows To Deny Truth of Iraq Clusterf--- Indefinitely --

BAGHDAD, Iraq (McClatchyNews) -- The U.S. military drive to train and equip Iraq's security forces has unwittingly strengthened anti-American Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been battling to take over much of the capital city as American forces are trying to secure it. U.S. Army commanders and enlisted men who are patrolling east Baghdad, which is home to more than half the city's population and the front line of al-Sadr's campaign to drive rival Sunni Muslims from their homes and neighborhoods, said al-Sadr's militias had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police and army units that they've trained and armed. "Half of them are JAM. They'll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night," said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army's 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia's Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. "People (in America) think it's bad, but that we control the city. That's not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It's hostile territory."

"Johnny"

"even if you provide the sound bites, some people will never get it"....

Trust me Sharon...we get it! Johnny is paid to trash this man every day. Would you REALLY expect any objectivity here?

ANY public figure can be trashed. They're ALL imperfect.

It seems to me that you are the one(s) who doesn't get it.

"Another one of Olbermann's fan sites has bitten the dust. For the record, that's apparently the third or the fourth such site to meet a similar fate."

If you are referring to keitholbermann.org, we are undergoing a server move and the "redirect" command from that domain name expired. We still exist, but not at that address.

Trekkie,
KO.O Moderator

> I quoted the relevant part of the sentence.

Relevant to you, but not to the entire context. And I don't accept your claim that the next thing he said was "two late developments". Of course if you give us a link or source for that claim I would be more convinced. But there's a reason why the three dots always come where they do.

6:20 post-
Awesome- I seriously wonder how his ratings would fare if (the people on this blog, Keith's pre-adult lady friend, and his mom) stopped watching. He may slip to fifth in the news ratings opposite CSPAN senate cam reruns at 9.

> I quoted the relevant part of the sentence.

Relevant to you, but not to the entire context. And I don't accept your claim that the next thing he said was "two late developments".

Well as usual, you are wrong. And no it is not out of context at all when the next thing he says is. 'two late developments" which has nothing to do with the quote i gave you. Stop spinning. admit you are wrong!

"Of course if you give us a link or source for that claim I would be more convinced."

Lucky for me that whole segment unedited is on crooksand liars. For those who don't trust any source that cuts out "two late developments"

http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/fox-news/bill-oreilly/

"But there's a reason why the three dots always come where they do."

Yes, to indicate the omission of quoted material in a sentence. Not in the case of a new sentence that was not included.

An example of Benson's fuzzy math: 700,000 - 2 = 350,000.

Good one Mikey... A little exaggeration for effect on my part.

> Well as usual, you are wrong.

Well not about that. I asked for documentation and you provided it. I didn't say you were wrong, I wanted to see the whole thing for myself. And you proved your quote to be accurate. Now if only Olby's research skills were as good as your.

JD. I have been here for months and have NEVER had an Olbyloon admit to being in error. Its refreshing to have someone that can see a counterpoint without concocting some bizarre apologist rationale to defend their point of view. Bravo.

If you were a lefty- you would just sign off or change the subject.

If no one can find your forum, you don't exist. But it's probably a wise idea to move without a forwarding address since you had all of what-3 real posters there? Anyway, the important thing to take away is that there are only two kinds of Keith Olbermann fan forums, those that are out of business and those that eventually will be. All of his fans fall out of enchantment with him sooner or later. Time and time again, Olbermann's fan groups have gone belly up. Why could that be exactly? His repeated assaults (both physical and verbal) on women? His long history of lying (see audio clip above)? Or maybe it's his repeated slams against his co-workers? And then there's the way he shows his appreciation to his fans (other than spilling merlot on them and having bad sex with them)--the DUmmies are still crying over their buying him two birthday ties last year that he never wore on air. Way to acknowledge your fans KO! I guess the estrogen-challenged over 50 crowd at DU don't count to him because they're not young, attractive, and willing to spill merlot with him.

Brandon- I went to school with someone who worked at ESPN and the stories of KO's pompousness are legendary. He is such a fringe figure that they have not been aired publicly. But anyone who knew KO, either gaves him space or ignored him. Sounds like an a--hole to me.

"If no one can find your forum, you don't exist."

Stunning logic.

"But it's probably a wise idea to move without a forwarding address since you had all of what-3 real posters there?"

We had a forwarding address. But when the domain name expired, the forward expired along with it. Someone is in the process of getting the redirect reestablished.

And for your information, our "regular" contributors are roughly the same number of "regular" contributors here on OW.

Trekkie,
KO.O Moderator

Brandon: "there are only two kinds of keith Olbermann fan forums, those that are out of business and those that eventually will be"...

I don't have a clue whether that quote is correct or not, but if what you say is true, there is a very good reason; Most of us who like and watch his show are not 'fans' of this man...we simply like what he is saying, how he formats his program, and want it to continue pretty much in the same way.

I for one, am not really a 'fan' of any other human being on this earth. We are ALL flawed and therefore unworthy of undulation by other humans. That is why America's celebrity worship obsession baffles folks like myself.

I wonder what looney left gay white male (with thick eyebrows) keith will have on his show tonight to support his cockamamie conspiracy theories? Or is keith still in meetings with zucker who is warning him to stop his lies and his obsession with his competitor O'Reilly?

Keith is not gay, he sleeps with your wife.

You little punk-ass conservatives are so funny -- the only reason you do not like Keith THE MAN (Stephanie Miller's future husband ;-) ) is because he regularly bitch-slaps you all around, as well as bitch-slapping the truth-impaired bastards that spread lies to try to build up republikkkans. Heck, the only thing better than Olberman bitch-slapping O'Liar is The Magnificent Stephen Colbert nailing him twice in one day one-on-one - INCLUDING ON O'REILLY"S OWN SHOW. IMAGINE HOW MUCH WORSE THE UNEDITED VERSION MUST BE. Konservatives, roll over and bite the pillow. You have been screwing America (the Land We Dems love more than you, because we actually believe in her constitution) for six years. Now its America's payback time!

what he was trying to say was that o'reilly is... oh wait.... mslsd.... i just got it. bwahahahaha. bwahahahahaha! oh man, that's just fantastic. really.

Another lie by Olbermann was when he said he didn't hate O'Reilly but I specifically heard him say that he hated him when he was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno early last year.

Come off your high horse there Trekkie. We all know that your forum leader was using fake registrations to boost his membership totals and that your true membership is about a half-dozen. A half-dozen members who seem very fond of posting explicit sexual fantasies regarding Mr. Olbermann but yet don't want to see his uh, shortcomings discussed here. I guess it disrupts your fantasies about him. Anywho, the traffic numbers here at Olbermannwatch easily drwarf any three of the Olbermann fan forums/sites put together. I just saw where there were 23 visitors online here at Owatch. In your forum's owner's wildest dreams he couldn't begin to hope for even half of that traffic total altogether per day at your invisible forum, let alone at one time.

And Mike, it's absolutely true. There have been two Yahoo groups, two QT forums, plus at least two websites dedicated to Olbermann that have turned toes up. And I assure you from my time spent investigating these Keith-cult havens that they were very much fans of the man, not the show. But for some reason (his arrogance, ego, or oafish behavior off camera), all of them came to a grinding halt.

"Trust me Sharon...we get it! Johnny gets paid to trash this man everyday."

Proof? Pay Stubs? Billing records? Or just fuzzy thoughts from a fuzzy brain?

By the way anybody find me two copy's of "Culture Warrior" for $25? on Amazon?

By the way did anybody see Ms. Stewarts numbers from last night? 600,000! Not bad eh?

"Most of us who watch and like this show are not fans of this man."

So if an ax murderer hosted Countdown you would be okay with it?

Or because as someone says that they "enjoy the format of the show"?

One-sided thought process? Yeah, don't want to clutter the brain with such non-important stuff like BALANCE!

"Not fans of the man."

Is that a statement saying this is the weasel way of throwing somebody under the bus in case 22 days from now somebody's security pass doesn't get them into 30 Rock?

Okay so somebody says that Johnny Dollar gets paid to trash Olby, but doesn't say who pays him or can't produce a pay stub as evidence.

Can't produce two copy's of "Culture Warior" for $25.

Coming on here and defending Olby, but is now saying it doesn't matter who hosts the show because its the format of the show.

Oh and numbers don't mean a thing.

Well my work is done! I'm going back to watching Rangers- Devils.

Bye-Bye!

Olburmann needs to do a Spechul Komment on Dan Patrick for asking if he was political bias. What the hell? Everybody know that Olburmann is most objective than any news person on cable. He tells the truth and and only talks about what's important not conservative lies. Why should he have conservative yellers who just lie anyhow, therefore that keeth is not bias, and Dan Patirck is a fool for asking him and should get his ass burned with a Spechul Komment.

Like I said earlier, this 'Puck' fellow just loves to take up gobs of Robert's bandwidth, but he never actually says anything. I'm beginning to think he's just a cartoon character.

I fail to see what the problem is with O'Reilly asking what everyone in their hearts was asking when they heard the story. That is, what caused this kid to stick around when he could have gotten away.

No lighting bolts fall from heaven over asking the obvious. No, I'm not an O'Reilly fan either. I don't watch him.

It makes me wonder how such taboos come about that one can't ask what is an obvious question without more heat being generated to that than towards the actual kidnapper.

It's not O'Reilly's job to make sure that the victim doesn't face any sort of question or implication that is uncomfortable. The victim has been through hell, but this is a crime, that must be investigated top to bottom. O'Reilly is supposed to get to the fact, so ignoring the elephant in the corner or simply falling back onto an assumption of some psychocological disorder like S.S. is the sort of illogical propriety that substitutes political correctness for thinking.

Speaking of thinking, it's pretty myopic too, to assume that such a question solely implies that the victim was complicit. There certainly could have been family dynamics that came into to play within the psychological profile of the crime.

To see this sort of hand-wringing over an attempt to understand information and to call it "blaming the victim" when someone asks the obvious question, ought to send everyone's b.s. detectors into overdrive.

"I guess it disrupts your fantasies about him."

Too bad this site can't print a hand gesture...

Brandon, I don't give a flying flip about Keith personally. Considering that O'Reilly and Hannity fill me with the urge to throw my shoe at the TV, and Limbaugh and Savage make me wish I was deaf, Olbermann is about the ONLY news program I can stand.

Now, Kathryn Erbe in a slinky cocktail dress...

Trekkie,
KO.O Moderator