Cecelia Calls This:

I can't make heads or tails of this blog anymore.

There's miles of white space, the shading of the fonts is so faint as to be unreadable, and there's all these ugly icons everywhere.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 29, 2007 4:07 PM

"...just non-political observations..."

That's funny, it reads a lot more like petty whining and complaining to me.

How and why has he avoided the Iran story? It's all over every other part of MSNBC's news coverage but not in Olbyland.

He doesn't want to offend his good friends in Tehran, that's why.

Brandon: "How and why has he avoided the Iran story?"

Have you tried picking up the phone and asking him?

How and why has he avoided the Iran story?

An AI's contestant's hair and old video are far more important in Olbyland, far more attractive to the key demo.

As far as the Iran situation goes, when you only can find 5 or 6 people to show up on your program and they all agree with the host what the hell would they talk about? The sad looking pancakes and grits the hostages were eating?

Olby will not have any of the Iran hostages from '79 on his show to explain how evil their captors were. Olby can't handle the truth.

Keith spewed "Houseboy" to Gonzalez
And "Monkeyman" to Chris Wallace
Mister Keith Xenophobe
Please remove frontal lobe
If you need a doctor just call us

I liked that one a lot, Ms. Turic. Well done.

Wrote down this bit of wisdom from the "conservative" Sullivan:

"If the war [Iraq] had been successul we were possibly on the way to a one party state because they [the Bush Administration] clearly were going to purge the government of all opposition."

There is zero - none, nada - evidence of this. And our intrepid reporter, Mr. Olbermann, somehow overlooked the need to ask Mr. Sullivan for such evidence.

Again: Purge the government of all opposition.

Ban the Democratic Party? And the Green Party, Libertarian Party et cetera?

Cancel all future elections?

In order to construct a one-party state, one must, of course, forbid the establishment of other parties. And cancel elections, et cetera.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that the Bush White House had any such plans.

Mr. Sullivan is, frankly, a nut.

"Ban the Democratic Party? And the Green Party, Libertarian Party et cetera?"

I seriously doubt if that is what Mr. Sullivan meant.

"Mr. Sullivan somehow overlooked the need to ask Mr. Sullivan for such evidence."

Since when is it necessary or expected for an interviewer ask for 'evidence' when a commentator they interview gives their OPINION?

"an empty suit"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Olbermann stealing from Michael Savage?

> Since when is it necessary or expected for an interviewer ask for 'evidence' when a commentator they interview gives their OPINION?

On OlbyPlanet, NEVER. Because the commentators he interviews give Olby's opinion.

I'd post a comment on the Countdown show blog but they don't allow any questioning or critique over there on that site.

4th place again? time to start attacking Nancy Grace?

"when is it necessary or expected for an interviewer ask for 'evidence' when a commentator they interview gives their OPINION?"

Seems to me that a good reporter would inquire as to how Mr. Sullivan came to such an opinion.

It's called news reporting. Challenging guests, probing their views, asking them to show how they form their opinions.

Mr. Sullivan has also stated that we live (right now) in a "thinly disguised military dictatorship."

A good reporter would ask Mr. Sullivan for evidence of such a dictatorship.

Things like, the arrest of political opposition members. The canceling of elections. The banning of political parties.

If Mr. Sullivan had claimed that the Democrats plan to establish a one-party state, don't you think a reporter should ask for evidence of such machinations?

Opinions without supporting evidence don't amount to much.

If I ran a website, I wouldn't let you on, Brandon. You said I used a bong.

On OlbyPlanet, NEVER. Because the commentators he interviews gives Olby's opinion."

Who said this was Olbermann's opinion....just because it was Sullivan's?

"I seriously doubt if that is what Mr. Sullivan meant."

How does one create a "one party state"?

Sullivan said the Administration planned to "purge the government" and create a "one party-state."

Historically, how have governments created such a political entity?

One party state means that you only have one political party in existence.

What less sinister explanation can there be? Mr. Sullivan is a learned person. Words are his livelihood.

He knows what the phrase "one party state" means. And it's clearly meant to be a smear againt the Administration.

Not surprising that Olbermann let the smear go. It's his M.O. too.

Well today Giliani decided his wife I dont know if he meant the 1 hes got now or the 1 hell have in a couple of months or the 1 hell after that 1 to be in his cabinet & that just shows what kind of man he is every thing is about him remember when he asked to continue to be mayor after his term expired so he could continue to be the big hero strutting around saying no need to try to save those fire men we need to tear tha building down all the while starting a security company with known crooks & liars to bilk people out of money & even making money from Hugo Chavez a COMMUNIST dictator in S America & how he doesnt take care of his kids I guess cause that interferes with his marriages & strutting around like the cock on the wall & crowing & dressing up in womans cloths so he can get a few laughts on tv from other perverts & living with homos when hes between marriages & all the other immorals he does why cant we get a strong man like J Bush or Brownback or Thomson who loves the U S of America & will do whats best for it & not for himself & no we dont want your wife whoever she may be now, past or in the future what to do cause she doesnt make good choices does she & I think Nathan doesnt sound liike a Christian name any way if we dont stand for MORALS & values & give the Pres to some 1 but him woe be to us cause the DemocRATS will run the country the rest of our lives & well all be poor perverts then.

Man, you guys ... isn't it awfull having your whole entire universe revolve around the - the - this one solitary human being? I know he did more for your cause than George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagen combined, but come on, find someone else. Anyone else. Please --- and find someone that will not embaress self infront of all mankind, like Ann Coulter.

Man, you guys ... isn't it awfull having your whole entire universe revolve around the - the - this one solitary human being? I know he did more for your cause than George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagen combined, but come on, find someone else. Anyone else. Please --- and find someone that will not embaress self infront of all mankind, like Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 10:34 PM

_________________________________________

Sorry but Im confussed whore you talking about?

Man, you guys ... isn't it awfull having your whole entire universe revolve around the - the - this one solitary human being? I know he did more for your cause than George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagen combined, but come on, find someone else. Anyone else. Please --- and find someone that will not embaress self infront of all mankind, like Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 10:34 PM

_________________________________________

Sorry but Im confussed whore you talking about?

I'm with Cecelia. The site is hard to use. I have problems with connectivity also. Perhaps we're just working with a limited budget.

"cause the DemocRATS will run the country the rest of our lives & well all be poor perverts then"

Damn....bummer! Not only will we all be perverts, but we're gonna all be POOR perverts to boot!

limba.

Why do Obama, Mike, et al come to this site? This is a site to pick on Olbermann. If you want to throw in politics, historical observations that have nothing to do with the subjects broached by Johnny Dollar's summations, be prepared for Rudy, Joker, et al. BTW, Olbermann isn't the only one spiking the Iran story. So is Matthews. (I have only seen Gonzalez Gate on Hardball. If he did cover the hostage situation, it was very limited.) He and Olbermann paired up the night of the President's speech and immediately pushed the theory that Bush was likely to provoke war with Iran. Now it looks like Iran is the one provocating. That doesn't fit in with their theory.

Limba: "A Loa Haitian Vondun who lived among rocks & eats passers-by."

Sharon: Rush Limbaugh was made tonight's worst preson in the world.

Mike: Add to that a nation of appostrophe forgeters.

How and why has he avoided the Iran story? It's all over every other part of MSNBC's news coverage but not in Olbyland.

Posted by: Brandon at March 29, 2007 9:10 PM
Those are obviously his allies, Ulbermahn defends Iran (by not reporting the hostage situation or anything that has anything to do w/Iran) and the Olbyloons defend him,but, they (loons) say they don't defend Iran. What?

"OLbermann isn't the only one spiking the Iran story. So is Mathews."

Viola! I believe you've got it now!

These two programs are primarily political news commentary shows, not all around hard news programs.

Mike: They can discuss Iran as discussion/commentary.

"political news commentary shows"

Countdown is advertised - and Mr. Olbermann says it is - as a "news show" with "news anchor" Keith Olbermann.

You mean Countdown is a commentary show?

I'll be damned.

Quick, contact MSNBC and have them correct this innocent error.

Obama: And we know a nation of appostrophe forgeters would become pure 'hell', instead of merely he'll"

Keith Olbermann stealing from Michael Savage?

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 9:55 PM
Bicker, does KK ever come up with anything original? The 60 Minute Cyclone is about as original as white paint. I'll have to e-mail the Sav and inform him, he will like this one.

"You mean Countdown is a commentary show?"

Some of us remain obsessed with what they call the show....and some of don't"

I'm with Cecelia. The site is hard to use. I have problems with connectivity also. Perhaps we're just working with a limited budget.

Posted by: ObserverDan at March 29, 2007 10:40 PM

Yep. The content is as as good as ever. Johnny is as flirtation worthy as ever. The problem is that the place looks like it has been decorated by the mental/emotional equivalent of a chicken blogger contestant on Trading Spaces.

Mike,

For various nights after the President's speech where he gave some strong statements about Iran aiding and abetting the terrorists in Iraq, Matthews and Olbermann provided nightly shows on the topic of Bush forcing a confrontation with Iran. Now that this hostage situation has occurred, no mention of Iran. Are you that naive? This hostage crisis is an incredibly important development.

Who said this was Olbermann's opinion....just because it was Sullivan's?

Posted by: at March 29, 2007 10:10 PM
If it wasn't Olby's opinion, Sullivan wouldn't be on, duh.

royslking ...

A) Michael Savage always goes on rants on others stealing his phrases.

B) Joe Scarborough also stole "Hollyweird" from Michael Medved.

C) Michael Savage is probably a posig liberal magnifying liberal sentiments of conservatives through exaggerated stereotyping of some conservative traits. In other words, he is a phony conservative. It is starting to come out, now ---

"ill have to e-mail the the Sav and inform him"

I'm sure he'll be quite pleased to hear from his most loyal groupee. He might even send you a lolipop!

You mean Countdown is a commentary show?"

Some of us remain obsessed with what they call the show....and some of don't"

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:07 PM

Commentary ....news analysis...especially when engaged in by professional pundit or journalist guests, .is certainly subject to questioning as in....what do base that opinion or deduction upon?....

"Some of us remain obsessed with what they call the show....and some of don't"

And some of us are concerned about dishonest journalism and some aren't.

Sharon to me: "are you that naive"

No, Sharon, not naive at all. Whats your point?

You're not joining the "he supports Iran because he doesn't attack Iran enough" crowd, are you?

No, Sharon, not naive at all. Whats your point?

You're not joining the "he supports Iran because he doesn't attack Iran enough" crowd, are you?

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:15 PM

huh?

I don't know how Olbermann personally feels about Iran. For him to not ask any of his usual guests (such as Richard Wolffe) about the crisis indicates .... what Mike? If you follow the format of Countdown, the first few segments are not tongue in cheek but serious news of the day.

Sharon: We do know how he feels about Iraq: keep on distracting and distracting the nation with phony conspiracies so we can not make it out in one piece.

DAMN YOU MicroSoft_NBC!!
DAMN YOU SECULARIST PROGRESSIVES!!

IF K.O. REFUSES TO COVER IRAN! EL BILLDO MUST DO IT!!

>...
After the revolution, the Islamic authorities continued to draw on national resentment at more than a century of British interference, damning Britain as the "little Satan" (the US was the "Great Satan"). Such feelings were further fed by London's support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, despite Baghdad having started the war and subsequently resorting to chemical weapons. London and Tehran were at loggerheads again in 1989 after the revolution's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa (religious edict) sentencing the British author, Salman Rushdie, to death for blasphemy over his novel, The Satanic Verses.

The antipathy resurfaced most recently in June 2004 in an incident with uncanny parallels to the current stand-off. Then, eight British sailors were seized and paraded blindfold on state TV after allegedly straying into Iranian waters in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the 15 currently in detention were intercepted and arrested last Friday. On the previous occasion, the Britons were released following an apology from the foreign secretary at the time, Jack Straw.

The Anglo-American invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan have once again brought British troops to Iran's borders. Although Iran opposed the invasion of Iraq, it gave the occupation forces few problems in the early years, as it built up its influence in the Shia areas controlled by Britain in the south. That has all changed in the past year or so, as Iranian-backed militias have increasingly challenged the British occupation forces, both politically and militarily.

The British RAF personnel and marines in Iran's captivity may well be oblivious to the long-accumulated resentments that have provided the backdrop to their detentions. Perhaps they are learning something of this tortured history from their captors.

more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2046290,00.html

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT!!

THE LBURL MEDIA IS MORE INTERESTED IN GONZO-GATE BECAUSE THEY HATE PRESIDENT BUSH!!

DAMN YOU MicroSoft_NBC!!
DAMN YOU SECULARIST PROGRESSIVES!!
EL BILLDO URGES HIS VIEWERS TO BOYCOTT!!!
BOYCOTT ARUBA NOW!!

Cecelia, regarding the Sullivan interview: He should have asked: "what do you base that opinion or deduction on?

I just heard the Sullivan interview, and I did not deduct that he meant Bush would have tried to outlaw other political parties at all.

I clearly took to mean all other parties were well on their way to being made irrelevant and ineffective by the political climate of the day...AND....by Bush's determination to purge his administration and party of all other influence.

Andrew sullivan is no radical, nor is he a liberal by any measurement. In fact, unlike me, he USED to support the war.

I don't know how Olbermann personally feels about Iran. For him to not ask any of his usual guests (such as Richard Wolffe) about the crisis indicates .... what Mike? If you follow the format of Countdown, the first few segments are not tongue in cheek but serious news of the day.

Posted by: Sharon at March 29, 2007 11:18 PM

Yeah...no problem doing stories on how Bush wants a confrontation with Iran, but when Iran does something truly confrontational and the only "commentary" then is............then it's "Oh, Countdown is just all fun and games and little ole personal opinions"....

Objectively, you are right Obama. I could not come up with a charitable explanation as to why Olbermann would spike a story concerning a subject (Iran) that not long ago, was an obsession. I thought Mike might have one. Being the human rights watchdog that Olbermann is, do you think he is concerned about what is happening to our fellow human beings? One of the Iranian hostages said that their captors probably took the food away as soon as the cameras quit rolling.

clarification- a hostage held in 1980 (not sure of date)

"I just heard the Sullivan interview, and I did not deduct that he meant Bush would have tried to outlaw other political parties at all."

Well, if Olbermann had followed up his comment with a question asking him to expand on that claim, we wouldn't be confused as to what Sullivan meant.

Would we?

What do the words "purge" and "one party state" mean to you?

To me, they imply a dictatorship where political parties are banned.

After all, historically how has a "one party state" been created?

By banning opposition parties. I know of no other way to establish such a unitary polity.

Instead of asking Sullivan to flesh out his charge, KO just went merrily along without any idea that possibly - just possibly - a followup question was necessary.

And why did he fail to do this? Because he's a hack journalist who runs a hack "news show".

You know damned well that if a guest claimed that Pelosi planned on creating a "one party state" he would have challenged that guest.

As he should.

Sharon: I can't explain or even defend the lack of coverage of the Iran story, except to say it's not really a political story....yet!

However, I don't believe it is nearly as major a story as you apparently do. If we were to over-react to the situation, or if Iran were to escallate the situation, only then WOULD it become the major story...in my opinion.

C) Michael Savage is probably a posig liberal magnifying liberal sentiments of conservatives through exaggerated stereotyping of some conservative traits. In other words, he is a phony conservative. It is starting to come out, now ---

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 11:10 PM
Bicker, I hope you are being sarcastic. If not, how could you think this?

Andrew sullivan is no radical, nor is he a liberal by any measurement. In fact, unlike me, he USED to support the war.

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:24 PM

That would make Sullivan extremely worthy of being challenged with his former statements of support for the war, etc.

Professional pundits and especially journalists should certainly be challenged to back up the basis of their opinions with reasoining based on evidence. You seemed to imply otherwise.

Well, Mike. Madeline Albright seems to disagree with you. SHe views this as extremely serious. (caught a little bit of Larry King).

"You know damned well that if a guest claimed that Pelosi planned on creating a "one party state" he would have challenged that guest."

Actually, I don't 'know' that at all. I've never heard Olbermann 'challenge' anybody during an interview.

Besides, how do you know Olbermann took Sullivan's comment the same way you did?

Keith Olbermann is not a true human rights anything. At least not to that vessel of trapped English mariners --- nope. What they are are political foder worthy of starting a war between Great Britain and Iran, and they may not come home in one piece if things turn grim. Then it will be a world wide story, then Keith Olbermann will do his show on the subject and do his little innuendo segues. "Those submariners may not be the only ones in deep. Pictures surfaced..." or "Speaking of close calls, the commander in chief had a close call --- with CONSERVATIVES!!!..." It is the same tired tirade, and we get Ol' Big Macc by now.

These two programs are primarily political news commentary shows, not all around hard news programs.

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 10:59 PM
You mean the Iran hostage situation isn't political? Wow.........olbyapologist.

"Besides, how do you know Olbermann took Sullivan's comment the same way you did?"

You're right. Unlike me, Olbermann just accepted the claim.

You seriously think that KO wouldn't have challenged a guest who claimed that Pelosi wanted to establish a one party state?

Really?

Geez, he would have named that person the worst person in the world on his next show.

Sharon: I can't explain or even defend the lack of coverage of the Iran story, except to say it's not really a political story....yet!

However, I don't believe it is nearly as major a story as you apparently do. If we were to over-react to the situation, or if Iran were to escallate the situation, only then WOULD it become the major story...in my opinion.

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:31 PM

You're kidding...right?

Royalking: The reason that I think that is primarily because he donated to the cause of some liberal saying that "you pick a winner." What an excellent reason to trade sides --- because they are "winner"s. Huh ha ha !!!!!

Additionally, Mike. I view the Brits as good friends. I am concerned that 15 of their honored service people have been captured and are being held hostage with no progress being made for their release. Especially when you consider that threats have been made to kidnap British and U.S. soldiers in retaliation for the defection of some of their people (whom the Iranian government claimed were kidnapped).

These two programs are primarily political news commentary shows, not all around hard news programs.

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 10:59 PM
A.K.A. propaganda/bull sh-t.

I am going to go now. Don't worry Mike. The anons are due to come in soon, support you, call everyone else vile names, you know the routine.
(you know you lost this one purely on the facts)

Goodnight!

You're not joining the "he supports Iran because he doesn't attack Iran enough" crowd, are you?

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:15 PM
Attacking and mentioning are entirely different. You have to mention something before you can actually attack it, I'm pretty sure, anyways....

Yeah...no problem doing stories on how Bush wants a confrontation with Iran, but when Iran does something truly confrontational and the only "commentary" then is............then it's "Oh, Countdown is just all fun and games and little ole personal opinions"....

Posted by: Cecelia at March 29, 2007 11:28 PM
This, also, is known as apologizing/apologist. Also, denial.

>These two programs are primarily political news commentary shows, not all around hard news programs.

EL BILLDO WILL AGAIN INFORM HIS LOYAL SUBJECTS, EHR, VIEWERS:

IT IS CALLED "INFO-TAINMENT"

WITH SO MANY NEWS OUTLETS, 24/7, IT IS HARD TO MAINTAIN THE OUTRAGED SANCTIMONY HARD-ON LONGER THAN 3 HOURS!

THAT'S WHY EL BILLDO DOES 2 HOURS IN THE MORNING, THEN EL BILLDO TAKES A BREAK, THEN RETURNS HOLIER AND FULLER OF OUTRAGE FOR ONE MORE HOUR.

UP NEXT!

THE LBURL WAR ON EASTER!!
WHY ARE THE PROGRESSIVE SECULARISTS HELL BENT ON DEBAUCHERY DURING HOLY WEEK?

(-What's that? It's called Spring Break?)

CUT OFF THE MIKE!! CUT OFF THE MIKE!! CUT OFF THE MIKE!!

Sharon & Cecelia: If you'll both review, I never said the hostage taking wasn't a very serious situation, nor did I offer that much of a defense for their lack of coverage, but it is not yet a political story...not on the American political scene anyway.

I for one am hoping that cooler heads prevail, but my fear is that some on the Neocon side are looking for an excuse to attack Iran...and for them, this might be exactly what they are looking for.

We have had these kind of things happen periodically involving Americans, and the situations were usually defused without resorting to war. Two similar situations that come to mind immediately are the Pueblo incident with North Korea, and the more recent siezing a US plane by China. If my memory is correct, we never even got the ship and plane back.

Actually, I don't 'know' that at all. I've never heard Olbermann 'challenge' anybody during an interview.

Besides, how do you know Olbermann took Sullivan's comment the same way you did?

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:35 PM

Well, doesn't that FACT make Johnny's list revealing the number of Democrats and known liberals appearing on Countdown as well as the knock that the few Republicans appearing are all criticising the Administration, just that much more significant?...

Royalking: The reason that I think that is primarily because he donated to the cause of some liberal saying that "you pick a winner." What an excellent reason to trade sides --- because they are "winner"s. Huh ha ha !!!!!

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 11:38 PM
lol

Mike writes: "Sharon & Cecelia: If you'll both review, I never said the hostage taking wasn't a very serious situation, nor did I offer that much of a defense for their lack of coverage, but it is not yet a political story...not on the American political scene anyway."

Mike, when the narrative has been that Bush is agitating for war in Iran, how can British soldiers being held prisoner with threats of trials, NOT be a "political" story?

Let me correct what I stated --- he did not donate to a "cause", he donated to acandidacy. Mark Levin Fan has the dirt.

"Don't worry Mike, the anons are going to come out soon, support you, call everyone else vile names, you know the routine."

Sharon, if you are actually inferring what I THINK you are inferring, then all I can say is that I THOUGHT you were a better person than that! But, hey....thanks for setting me straight on that point.

"(you know you lost this one purely on the facts)"....absolutely not. Thats merely your opinion.

Can't resist one last comment. This is a political story, Mike. Even if you don't believe it is, why wouldn't it get a mention on Countdown at least? Is American Idol a political story? How much political impact does the Anna Nicole Smith story have in our lives? How many times was that covered? You are in denial if you can't see that Countdown has a political agenda. He could at least have said "And a story that my producer is making me cover, ... "

Cecelia: The answer to your question at 11:57 is that Bush is not yet reacting to the situation in an aggressive manner.

Mike: He should ride this one out ...

Let me correct what I stated --- he did not donate to a "cause", he donated to acandidacy. Mark Levin Fan has the dirt.

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 11:57 PM
He donated to a local Democrat who is not a far leftist whom I won't name.

I have no idea what you are talking about Mike. Anyone who has been here in the wee hours knows what happens when the anons come out. Grammie hasn't been here today but she knows. The personal attacks, name calling,, etc. I really don't know what you were referring to.

royalking: Have not you learned anything from Olbermann Watch .com !?!? You do not support phonies !!!

Cecelia: The answer to your question at 11:57 is that Bush is not yet reacting to the situation in an aggressive manner.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 12:02 AM

What do you mean by "aggressive manner"? Bush has condemned Iran's actions now just as he condemned Iran's actions and rhetoric as to its nuclear ambitions. If Bush's remarks were worthy of conjectures on Countdown about Bush wanting to expand the war into Iran, why aren't they now?

Can't resist one last comment. This is a political story, Mike. Even if you don't believe it is, why wouldn't it get a mention on Countdown at least? Is American Idol a political story? How much political impact does the Anna Nicole Smith story have in our lives? How many times was that covered? You are in denial if you can't see that Countdown has a political agenda. He could at least have said "And a story that my producer is making me cover, ... "

Posted by: Sharon at March 30, 2007 12:01 AM
Great point, Sharon. Who, in their right mind, could say the Iran hostage situation is not political? That is known as a rhetorical question.....

Sharon: "why wouldn't get a mention on Countdown at least?"

I've already told you I don't know the answer to that question. I DID make a few hypothesis on the issue, and stated that, in my opinion, it is not yet as big a deal as you believe it is.

If you've noticed, I don't really spend a lot of time defending Olbermann. I enjoy and appreciate the show...despite any and all flaws it might have.

THAT, in some people's mind, constitutes 'defending' Olbermann, but not in mine.

Bicker, he donates to a moderate/dem because he is for border control and he is a phony? Come on, now.

Cecelia,

We just need youtube clips here, if they were available. I commented several times on this site how Olbermann and Matthews vehemently stressed that Bush appears to want a war with Iran. But I guess because Great Britain is so far away, it's not really political news for us.

Royalking: What about his presidential campaign run ?

>Mike: He (Bush) should ride this one out

Pres. Bush could make a few stern and comforting comments, but it is up to the Brits to raise hell.

Just as they are doing already.

Sharon:

Sorry....I have been accused more than once of BEING those name calling anons, and it is has gotten a little old.

In my experience, the name calling anons can come out any time of the day or the night, although the civility does drop notably late at night.

Royalking: What about his presidential campaign run ?

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 30, 2007 12:12 AM
He has over 5 million votes on his site,but, I don't believe he is serious.

I've already told you I don't know the answer to that question. I DID make a few hypothesis on the issue, and stated that, in my opinion, it is not yet as big a deal as you believe it is.

If you've noticed, I don't really spend a lot of time defending Olbermann. I enjoy and appreciate the show...despite any and all flaws it might have.

THAT, in some people's mind, constitutes 'defending' Olbermann, but not in mine.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 12:08 AM

Well, that's a cop-out. Not only have you defended Olbermann by saying that the story isn't "political" ---whatever the hell that means.... but at one point you've acted like it's even stupid to post questions about this on a blogboard about Olbermann and his show.

I have horses to tend to, nite all! Even you, Mike.

Outraged Sanctimonious Billdo glad to see we have another Liberal bowing to the great democracy of Iran. You can join your friend Rosie and Olbermann. The Guardian is a British liberal rag that makes the New York Times look like Fox News Channel. You captured the liberal agenda just right. Blame America, blame white people, and blame Christians. Did you ever stop and think that Iran captured hostages because the see the lefts drum beat against their own country and think it is a good time to take hostages. Did you ever think that the Muslims hate us because we are not Muslims? Just like they have hated non-Muslims for thousands of years. Do you think if we apologize and crawl into a hole that they will stop hating us. You are a trator and a disgrace.

Cecelia,

We just need youtube clips here, if they were available. I commented several times on this site how Olbermann and Matthews vehemently stressed that Bush appears to want a war with Iran. But I guess because Great Britain is so far away, it's not really political news for us.

Posted by: Sharon at March 30, 2007 12:12 AM

Well, you know... Iran already engaged in hostage taking in the late seventies....this latest gig is just boring old hard news to matthews and Olbermann... :D

Cecelia: I don't see it as a "cop-out" at all.

It is MY opinion that the story isn't political at this time. And I don't think it's 'stupid' at all for you to post questions about KO's ommisions of this story. All I did was offer up some theories about the reason...that are a less ominous than the "he supports Iran" crap that we often read on here.

It is MY opinion that the story isn't political at this time. And I don't think it's 'stupid' at all for you to post questions about KO's ommisions of this story. All I did was offer up some theories about the reason...that are a less ominous than the "he supports Iran" crap that we often read on here.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 12:23 AM

Well, neither Sharon nor I have suggested that theory. Neither had Brandon when you sarcastically told him to call keith when he asked what is afterall a relevant question for this blogsite.

Countdown and Hardball cover hard news stories of the day, all the time. So far, you've not defended your position, you've only restated it.

The Factor:

>>Did you ever stop and think that Iran captured hostages because the see the lefts drum beat against their own country and think it is a good time to take hostages.

No. I think it is a stupid bluff that might go bad and hurt us all, including those in the middle who don't buy the "sprayin' freedumbs" and "caliphate"
from both sides of the extremists.

>>Did you ever think that the Muslims hate us because we are not Muslims? Just like they have hated non-Muslims for thousands of years.

Yes. Just like fundamentalist evangelicos that hate anyone that doesn't share in their lunacy.

DAMN YOU SECULARIST PROGRESSIVES!!

>>Do you think if we apologize and crawl into a hole that they will stop hating us.

No. But if one protects himself and leaves the demented religious nuts free to hurt themselves, they take care of the problem by themselves.

Mass suicides hoping for the Rapture, anyone?

>>You are a trator and a disgrace.

So, how can I join you Bush Supporters in your paranoia, sanctimony, and FAILURE.

Uh? How about if I claim to be a "REAL REAGAN REPUBLICAN"

Where does that leave the "legacy" of Pres. Bush?

LOL

Factor: "did you ever stop and think that Iran captured hostages because the see the left's drum beat against their own country and think it's a good time to take hostages?"

Yea, Factor, I thought about it...for about 1 second. Taking hostages because "the left" was "beating the drums against their own country" would actually be counter - productive for them. More likely, Iran has become emboldened because we have become weakened, NOT by the 'left', but because we undertook this stupid adventure in Iraq.... that hasn't exactly worked out so well for us.

Factor: "Did you ever stop to think that the Muslems hate us because we are not Muslems?"

Uh, yea, Factor, I've thought about that! Whats your point? I don't see how acting in a way that causes even MORE Muslems to become RADICAL Muslems solves our problems.

Factor: "Do you think if we apologize and crawl into a hole that they will stop hating us?"

Duh Factor...I haven't heard anybody suggest that we 'apologize', or "crawl into a hole". Nor have I heard anyone suggest there is anything we can do to stop many Muslems from hating us. All we on "the left" have been suggesting is that we stop reacting in such a way as to create even more problems for ourselves, which is exactly what we have been doing for the last 4 years.

If you were a Reagan Republican you would know that Reagan destroyed Iran's Navy when the tried to mine the Persian Gulf. If you were a Reagan Republican you would realize that Reagan would not give a sh-t what Iran said, he would do everything in his power to get those hostages home safe. He would not read some propaganda from some left wing rag that blames the British for getting hostages taken.

Cecelia: "So far you've not defended you position"

What exactly do I have to 'defend' here? I stated some opinions that basically boils down to a somewhat different view of both the crisis and the show's possible reasons for avoiding the story.

If I were making the call, I'd tell him to cover the damn story. I would like to hear exactly why he hasn't done so myself?

On the other side of the coin, I wondered why people like O'Reilly avoided the Libby and similar political stories like the plaque while they were front and center. No one is perfect.

As for my 'sarcastic' post to Brandon, it has much to do with his consistant put downs of us so called 'Olbyloons' in so many of his posts. You wouldn't find me reacting to you in that manner.

Factor:

"There you go again"

Reagan: negotiated with terrorists, propped up both Osama and Saddam.

>He would not read some propaganda from some left wing rag that blames the British for getting hostages taken.

Reagan: Took advice from psychics on matters of world wide influence.

Now, Mike already tore apart your original non-sequiturs.

Where is Pres. Bush's legacy when "Real Conservatives" COVER THEIR ASSES UNDER
"but I am a Real Reagan Conservative"?

It is MY opinion that the story isn't political at this time. And I don't think it's 'stupid' at all for you to post questions about KO's ommisions of this story. All I did was offer up some theories about the reason...that are a less ominous than the "he supports Iran" crap that we often read on here.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 12:23 AM
First, it wasn't political,now, it's not political "at this time", what's next? When would it be political?

Actually Factor, I WAS a "Reagan Republican". I voted for him twice and I was one of his biggest fans.

Overall, he was a good president. He would have been a GREAT president if he had not allowed himself to become obsessed with the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. You DO recall how Reagan was involved in selling ARMS to IRAN to help fund the Contras, don't you? You DO recall that this is how Oliver North got in hot water, don't you?

Also Factor, you DO recall how Reagan withdrew from Lebanon as a direct result of the Marine barracks bombing, don't you? You DO know that Osama Bin Laden took his famous lesson about "America's lack of will" from this very incident, don't you?

Yes Factor, Reagan was a good president, but he was not always the kick ass, no bullsh-t leader you people have him pegged to be, for reasons I don't understand at all. His GREATEST attribute was his skill as a diplomat, something Bush clearly is NOT.

Yea, Factor, I thought about it...for about 1 second. Taking hostages because "the left" was "beating the drums against their own country" would actually be counter - productive for them. More likely, Iran has become emboldened because we have become weakened, NOT by the 'left', but because we undertook this stupid adventure in Iraq.... that hasn't exactly worked out so well for us.
Posted by: Mike at March 30 Is Cindy Sheehan speaking for you? "Stupid venture". Wait, it's the cokehead, Bill Mahr, no the fat dyke? No, the other cokehead, Sean Penn?

Wow, looks like Olbermannwatch has dedicated a new page for keeping track of Ulbermahn's lie's for every single show, not including the one's Johnny points out. That can't be good for Olby. To think people actually take him for his word, pretty pathetic.

"is Cindy Sheehan speaking for you? Wait, it's the cokehead, Bill Mahr, no the fat dyke? No, the other cokehead, Sean Penn?"

I just love these highly provocative, intelligent, thought provoking responses.

Factor & Mike

>>Yes Factor, Reagan was a good president, but he was not always the kick ass, no bullsh-t leader you people have him pegged to be, for reasons I don't understand at all. His GREATEST attribute was his skill as a diplomat, something Bush clearly is NOT.

"I AM A REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE"
is the BUSHWIPE's anti-kryptonite shield.
And there in lies its weakness. It is a fake, artificial, poor excuse for the former BUSHWIPE LOYALISTS to depart from BUSHWIPE's FAILURE and retain (LOL) "conservative" credentials.

Newt - REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE
Hannity - REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE
Glenn Beck - REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE
Rush Limpo -REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE
Mann Coulter - REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE
and so on.

Then again, fewer and fewer Bush Supporters step up to the plate today and say
"BUT I AM A DUBYA CONSERVATIVE"!

I can't wait for them Bush Supporters to support Rudy because
RUDY IS A - REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE!

LOL

Mike,

Well, you could start by explaining why Olbermann has covered other hard news stories and explaining how an action by Iran that could be considered an act of war is not a "political story" when Olbermann has made the case the administration is trying to push Iran into a war.

UH! OH! OH! MY BAD!

I could safely add:

Robert Cox - REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE!
Johnny $ - REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE!
The Factor - REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE!
Rodent - REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE!
moronKing - REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE!

C'mon Bush Supporters!

STEP RIGHT UP!!

Trade in your old, devalued BUSHWIPE bumper sticker for a new, shiny,

RUDY - A REAL REAGAN CONSERVATIVE!

Cecelia, for reasons I don't completely understand, you keep trying to make me defend Olbermann. I'm not Dan Abrams, Olbermann, or even KO's producer....and I'm pretty sure none of them would take my phone call.

I've speculated all I can about why they might have done what they did, and why they might have done it.

I'd like to go on the record on 'Why hasn't Keith covered the hostages in Iran.'

I don't know.

Seems like he should.

Is there a secret treatise between MSNBC and IRAN that states whenever Iran does something bad that Countdown won't cover it?

Uh, maybe, but I'd doubt it...

Is it because he is liberal? I'm really not sure what that has to do with it. Why would it? Liberals aren't talking about Iran? I see liberals talking about Iran as much as conservatives.

It's not like Keith has segments dedicated to and promoting Iran. In fact, with all the oddball segments that seem to come from the middle east, he sort of paints it as a freak show.

Rudy_Ramirez,
The only Republican who can win is Rudy Giulliani. If the GOP runs another Social "Christian" Conservative, get ready for Hillary's Stalinist regime and submission to Islam.

Other that that I think you're a retared idiotic fool.

"Does anyone know what "retared" means?"

I meant retarded you clown.
What are you an editor now?

Is it because he is liberal? I'm really not sure what that has to do with it. Why would it? Liberals aren't talking about Iran? I see liberals talking about Iran as much as conservatives.

It's not like Keith has segments dedicated to and promoting Iran. In fact, with all the oddball segments that seem to come from the middle east, he sort of paints it as a freak show.

Posted by: The Righteous Brothers at March 30, 2007 2:01 AM
Go check out the huffington post, moveon.org, dailykos, alfranken.com. newyorktimes, latimes, airamerica.com (if it still exhists) and tell me where they are talking about Iran.

royalking,

I went over to Newsbusters and saw that Rosie O'Donell was defending Iran again today.

Cecelia, for reasons I don't completely understand, you keep trying to make me defend Olbermann. I'm not Dan Abrams, Olbermann, or even KO's producer....and I'm pretty sure none of them would take my phone call.

I've speculated all I can about why they might have done what they did, and why they might have done it.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 1:52 AM
I don't think she is "making " you defend olby, she just asked why you think the Iran hostage situation isn't a "political story." That's all.

I went over to Newsbusters and saw that Rosie O'Donell was defending Iran again today.

Posted by: Rodan at March 30, 2007 12:16 PM
Shocker...........pandering to the far left loons.

I am guessing that Olby will get around to discussing Iran soon. The questioning will start off about Bush using the hostages for political gain and if this is the opening for Bush to attack Iran. Next will be how Bush ignores the Geneva conventions and how that caused Iran to kidnap soldiers. Keith will pretend that Iran was the poster child for Geneva conventions. Most likely Olby will finish with comparing America treatment of prisoners with Irans treatment of prisoners. Olby will show classic blame America first mentality.

Rudy_Ramirez,
You a wast of a human being. You're the poster child for why abortion is legal.

I've speculated all I can about why they might have done what they did, and why they might have done it. (Mike)

The two speculations read as follows:

1) These two programs [Hardball Countdown] are primarily political news commentary shows, not all around hard news programs.

Both shows cover hard news.

It is MY opinion that the story isn't political at this time. (Mike)

Sorry, Mike, but that is just asinine. You refuse to even acknowledge that Olby has an agenda and he won't cover something that contradicts his agenda until he can find a way to spin it. Olby covered Iran numerous and I mean numerous times when he wanted to promote his belief that the Bush administration was beating the war drum. Why was that a political story? There was no act of war undertaken by the Bush administration. Now, an act of war has taken place. That is not political?

WATERGATE! NIXON!! WATERGATE!! NIXON!

How was I not able to work in references to my favorite smackdown last night? I'll make up for it tonight. Trust me.

Rudy_Ramirez,
You obviously are a prankster. Go to Comedy Central's forums and post there. You're a waste of humanity!

Sharon,

"Now, an act of war has taken place. That is not political? "

It was done by Iran so Ulbermahn won't condemn it. He supports Iran's move and will not discuss it.

March 30, 2007 1:32 PM ,

Who asked you. Go to a mosque and hang out with your peoples!

"I guess you could be Republicans and just want to stay in the comfort and safety of your own homes, rant and rave, and wave flags."

I already served you fool. It's funny how Leftists like to surpress people's opinions with ridiculous statements. I guess the other people who aren't in the military because maybe it wasn't their calling aren't allowed to have an opinion.
But Pro-Islamic loons like Rosie O'Donnel are alllowed.
Stalinism at it's finest!

"Also Factor, you DO recall how Reagan withdrew from Lebanon as a direct result of the Marine barracks bombing, don't you? You DO know that Osama Bin Laden took his famous lesson about "America's lack of will" from this very incident, don't you?" Mike

You left a little detail out. Reagan sent an aircraft carrier to the region and had F18's bomb the hell out of Lebanon. Reagan's diplomacy was not the same as your hero Jimmy Carter's appeasement. Reagan backed his diplomacy up with military might.

You Rethugicans have crossed a line. Olbermann and Rosie have every right to support Iran. The Iranians are a peace loving people. The British troops are agressors and Iran did what was appropiate.
I salute the Ayatollahs and wish them well!

"I don't think she is "making " you defend olby, she just asked why you think the Iran hostage situation isn't a "political story." That's all.
Posted by: royalking at March 30, 2007 12:18 PM"

I have a history of similar back and forths with Mike that we just saw illustrated with Mike and Cecelia.

Mike makes a very strong statement with no honest wiggle room.

He is called on it.

Mike then gives an answer with a teeny weeny little wiggle to it.

Mike is called on the wiggle.

Mike then gives another answer with another iddy biddy wiggle.

Mike is called on the wiggle.

Mike then gives another answer with another itsy bitsy wiggle to it.

Mike is called again on the wiggle.

And there we all are. Mike self rightously then proclaims that he has been unfairly backed into a corner. In his mind his words have magically metamorphed into whatever he wants the final form to be.

The next step, which is optional for Mike, is to declare that his opponent takes things too personally.

Just like KO, words and ideas to Mike are malleable and changeable. 'Purge' and 'one party state' have no real meaning, or just as importantly, connotation. Stalin's purges, Bush's purges, the one party state of the Communist USSR, Hitler's Nazi Germany, Bush's conservative dictatorship are all one and the same to him.

If it sounds good and feels good because it reinforces his deeply held beliefs he will fully embrace it. He has enough sense, though, to not embarras himself completely when other's point out the obvious flaws in his position.

Mike views politics just as I view flying. Intellectually I know that flying across the country is a helluva lot safer than driving across the country. But when push comes to shove I get on that plane knowing I am safer, but convinced in my heart of hearts that I am dead. And just so, Mike believes in his heart and soul that he lives in the most repressive heinous regime in history, but can be pushed kicking and screaming to acknowledge that it is not.

Grammie

The Factor,
You are a chicken hawk! You advocate war with a peace loving nation as Iran. Well I'll tell you 30% Bushbots something. The majority of Americans support Iran and Al-Qaeda. That's why we voted for the Democrats, we're tired of war vand want peace.
Ahmadinejad is admired by the population of America and is respected.
Why do you think the media praises him?
The American people support Al-Qaeda and Iran!

Oh, Mike, Sharon did not accuse you of being one of the late night anons. And I am convinced that you well knew that.

I am also convinced you well know the types of comments she was referring to.

Grammie

Oh, Mike, Sharon did not accuse you of being one of the late night anons. And I am convinced that you well knew that.

I am also convinced you well know the types of comments she was referring to.

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at March 30, 2007 2:42 PM
She was referring to the "anons" that mysteriously appear to defend Mike's posts when he digs himself deep in a hole, as he often does.

Mike forgot about ole peanut carter's administration, also. 400 some odd days of a hostsge situation was fixed in 8 minutes after Reagan took office. A monor detail, also overlooked. Bush couldn't hold a candle to Reagan, unfortunately.

"minor detail", thumb got in the way, I know how a certain person loves to call people on typo's.......

"Well, you could start by explaining why Olbermann has covered other hard news stories and explaining how an action by Iran that could be considered an act of war is not a "political story" when Olbermann has made the case the administration is trying to push Iran into a war."

I'd say the answer is obviously for the same reason Sean Hannity avoids certain topics on his weekly show, or why Bill O'Reilly avoided Scooter libby and other topics. He didn't want to give the other side plitical capital.

I suppose it is fair to say that Keith may, (emphasis on may, I'm just speculating) feel that (perhaps even much more than the mainstream press) that the Iraq war began under false pretenses, and that it would be dangerous to give the Bush crowd ammunition to fire off another war.

"I'd say the answer is obviously for the same reason Sean Hannity avoids certain topics on his weekly show, or why Bill O'Reilly avoided Scooter Libby and other topics. He didn't want to give the other side plitical capital." craigs

More lies by liberals. What a suprise. Actually O'Reilly and Hannity cover the Scooter Libby trial extensively and had opposing opinions (Juan Williams NPR) on to debate it. Did Olby? You might want to watch the show's you are lying about.

How exactly would Olbermann be giving the Bush crowd ammunition by covering a legitimate news story about an ally of the Untied States. Plus, no one in the "Bush Crowd" watches Olbermann.

"More lies by liberals. What a suprise. Actually O'Reilly and Hannity cover the Scooter Libby trial extensively and had opposing opinions (Juan Williams NPR) on to debate it. Did Olby? You might want to watch the show's you are lying about. "

Great, a moron has posted. now run along little factor.

I suppose it is fair to say that Keith may, (emphasis on may, I'm just speculating) feel that (perhaps even much more than the mainstream press) that the Iraq war began under false pretenses, and that it would be dangerous to give the Bush crowd ammunition to fire off another war.

Posted by: craigs at March 30, 2007 3:22 PM
False pretenses? Supplying terrorists with bombs and bomb making material, Rocket propelled grenades, Snipers, etc. Now, taking hostsges. False pretenses? All acts of war on THEIR part, not ours.

"More lies by liberals. What a suprise. Actually O'Reilly and Hannity cover the Scooter Libby trial extensively and had opposing opinions (Juan Williams NPR) on to debate it. Did Olby? You might want to watch the show's you are lying about. "

Great, a moron has posted. now run along little factor.

Posted by: craigs at March 30, 2007 3:47 PM
What's moronic about facts? Because they prove you wrong, they're moronic? Hmm.

I have to run along because you posted? You are a moron but I think a better term is coward.

*sigh* I didn't say a Iran conflict would be under false prentenses stupid. I didn't even say the Iraq war was under false pretneses. I speculated that Keith Olbermann might feel that the IRAQ war started under false pretenses and that might be why he is not covering Iran.

"What's moronic about facts? Because they prove you wrong, they're moronic? Hmm."

Posting a fact (if indeed it is such, he offered no proof) is not moronic, completly missing the point of something is.

What kind of proof do you need? Should Hannity show up on your door step and tell you face to face? I watch Hannity and O'Reilly and they both covered the Libby Witch hunt. Hannity covered it more than O'Reilly,but, they both covered it. If you don't watch either one of them how can you say they didn't cover it?

So what should Bush do if he is ask by Tony Blair to aid them in military action against Iran? Tell him to go @#$% himself or tell him to have the French help.

Hate plus fear, it appears .... I guess the two do go together. On some primal level the raw, ugly hatred of Muslims can be understood I suppose, on the basis of crippling and irrational fear, but this hatred of television personalities is bizarre. Loathing shouldn't produce hatred, so I suppose it has to be fear, also. What do you suppose Rosie and Keith are going to do to you? Make you listen to the Bill of Rights being read? Suggest an alternate analytical method? It looks as if we have some real misanthropes here.

Posted by: at March 30, 2007 4:01 PM
How ironic, you're here!

Oh what the hell, If I was bored enough to respond to the other moron I might as well respond to the factor.

"How exactly would Olbermann be giving the Bush crowd ammunition by covering a legitimate news story about an ally of the Untied States. Plus, no one in the "Bush Crowd" watches Olbermann."

Well Stupid, If your premise is right that Keith's purpose is to misinform the liberals, then maybe giving the left information that would tilt them to the right's point of view (such as possible justifcation for an attack on Iran) would be bad. Secondly how do you know what the Bush crowd watches?

"More lies by liberals. What a suprise. Actually O'Reilly and Hannity cover the Scooter Libby trial extensively and had opposing opinions (Juan Williams NPR) on to debate it. Did Olby? You might want to watch the show's you are lying about. "

Now here is the closest you come to making some sort of point (although you provide no evidence mind you) It is possible I was incorrect about Bil O'Reilly not covering Scooter Libbly (assuming your not just lying)but I made no claim on whether Hannity covered it or not. I said why Hannity didn't cover some things.

Oh and I watch the shows fairly regular. How often do you watch Olbermann?

and you're still a moron.

"What kind of proof do you need? Should Hannity show up on your door step and tell you face to face? I watch Hannity and O'Reilly and they both covered the Libby Witch hunt. Hannity covered it more than O'Reilly,but, they both covered it. If you don't watch either one of them how can you say they didn't cover it?"

I noticed you just left the Iran thing alone. Don't blame you after making such a fool of yourself on that point.

In regards to Hannity and O'Reilly I do watch their shows fairly regularly, you presume I don't, knowing nothing about me. Perhaps I missed Bill talking about the Scooter Libb but I made no claim regarding Hannity on the that matter. Finally the proof I need is a transcript. Got one?

What do you suppose Rosie and Keith are going to do to you? Make you listen to the Bill of Rights being read? 4:01 pm
I don't think Rosie or Olbermann would be reading us the Bill of Rights. She might not like this one.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
They would also have to look for that invisible right to privacy and separation of church and state.

Oh and I watch the shows fairly regular. How often do you watch Olbermann?

and you're still a moron.

Posted by: craigs at March 30, 2007 4:19 PM
Johnny watches for me so I don't have to clean up puke off of my floor every night. You must not be very observant if you claim to watch Hannity and O'Reilly and claim they didn't cover the Libby witch hunt. Or, you just like lying.

craigs, foxnews.com has all the proof you need. Enjoy.....

"Johnny watches for me so I don't have to clean up puke off of my floor every night. You must not be very observant if you claim to watch Hannity and O'Reilly and claim they didn't cover the Libby witch hunt. Or, you just like lying."

Can you read stupid? I never said Hannity didn't cover Libby, I saw him do that I have now said that over four posts. If you are so f---ing dumb that you can't read then I have to stop talking to you. I answered a question regarding possible motivations regarding Olbermann. I did not intend to spend four posts explaining something to someone who can't comprehend the written word.

"craigs, foxnews.com has all the proof you need. Enjoy....."

So you don't have transcripts. I figured as much.

> I wondered why people like O'Reilly avoided the Libby and similar political stories like the plaque...

> Bill O'Reilly avoided Scooter libby and other topics...

> the proof I need is a transcript.

Logic lesson #1: The burden of proof is on the accuser. Two people said O'Reilly avoided the Libby case. When called on it, all of a sudden the burden of proof which is theirs--they made the claim--gets shifted to the oppostion! Sorry, pals. You make a claim, you level an accusation, the burden is on you to back it up. And you can't.

It took me all of, what, two minutes to find O'Reilly covering the Libby matter repeatedly, as far back as October 2005 and as recently as March 2007. So someone is not telling the truth here, eh?

I surely hope none of us takes anything Beck, Colmes, Coulter, Grace, Hannity, Limbaugh, Olbermann, O'Reilly or Scarbrough say seriously. They are entertainers and personalities. They are not journalists.

Posted by: at March 30, 2007 4:37 PM

So Olbermann, Maher, and Rosie are Journalists?

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. Do you really think we don't know your IP address? Do you really believe that you can hide the fact that you and Mrs PHilby have the same IP address? Hmm? And then there's the elusive "M Schultz" as well.

Hope you enjoyed your little role-playing game.

Aww, that's so cute. The Factor has a big brother.

"Logic lesson #1: The burden of proof is on the accuser. Two people said O'Reilly avoided the Libby case. When called on it, all of a sudden the burden of proof which is theirs--they made the claim--gets shifted to the oppostion! Sorry, pals. You make a claim, you level an accusation, the burden is on you to back it up. And you can't."

Given that you have never provided one transcript on this site regarding Olbermann, I don't think you really want to go there.

It took me all of, what, two minutes to find O'Reilly covering the Libby matter repeatedly, as far back as October 2005 and as recently as March 2007. So someone is not telling the truth here, eh?

Given that you have never provided one transcript on this site regarding Olbermann, I don't think you really want to go there.
Posted by: craigs at March 30, 2007 5:07 PM
What transcript have you provided. You just said you read "a" transcript. You didn't say what transcript. Since the Libby trial went on for months, you would need months worth of transcripts. Are you prepared to provide that? I have read every transcript of Olbermann's show. The proof, is the same proof that you provided for you fairy tail that you read a transcript of months worth of O'Reilly's shows.

"What transcript have you provided. You just said you read "a" transcript."

Your either a liar or can't read. I never said that.

Royalking The factor, I am becoming gravely concerned by your lack of readingskills. Please, I urge you to visit the link below. It is never too late.

www.hookedonphonics.com

"She was referring to the "anons" that mysteriously appear to defend Mike's posts when he digs himself deep in a hole, as he often does.
Posted by: royalking at March 30, 2007 2:52 PM"

RK, it was a bit more than that that Sharon was referring to and I know Mike and EE showed up once or twice and made a brief post condemning their behavior.

A few, in their own minds only, big tough he men types (and Codas hiding behind dear Donora) wishing pain, suffering, illness and death in the vilest gutter terms imaginible. Fake obits and some gossamer veiled personal threats against Sharon and I.

Typical Olbyloon liberal tolerant and loving expressions of endearment.

They come out and run in packs in the dark and slither back to their safe little havens when they are outnumbered. As I said earlier, whining little wimps who like to play pretend I'm a big bad HE MAN as long as there is no chance a real man might show up.

Grammie

Damn Janet, why don't you try attacking every argument you claim I ever made at a time when I am actually here and can respond accordingly?

And why don't you back off trying to psychoanalize me as well?

If you want to join the argument fine...but what in the hell is all this psychoanalysis? You cannot get into my mind, so please stop trying.........deal?

Where exactly did I claim that "I had been unfairly backed into a corner"?...or is this another case of your personal interpretation of something I said....to suit your own purposes.

You call what I said last night 'wiggling' all you please, but that is YOUR biased interpretation only. I don't feel like I 'wiggled' on anything. I stated opinions and made some speculations about the possible motives of someone I clearly have no control over. I stand by everything I said.

That said, how about you telling me exactly what it is you think I 'wiggled' on, and then 'wiggled' a little more on?

And WHY would you even post something so wrong, stupid, and ridiculous as I "believe I live in the most repressive heinous" society in history? What possible basis would you have for saying something so utterly ridiculous?

As far as I could tell, the sum total of your posts today were attacks on my psychology at a time when I haven't even been on this board for over 17 hours....even though YOU were never even involved in ANY of the original discussions, nor did I mention your name in any of them.

Now Janet (Grammie or whatever): do you have something you would like to discuss or debate with me?...or do you just want to make claudestine hit and run attacks, thinking you are somehow clairvoyant enough to peer deep within my psychology?

"Mike forgot about peanut Carter's administration".

No, I didn't 'forget' about Carter at all. We were'nt talking about Carter's administration...the discussion was clearly about Reagan's tenur only.

You also forgot to repeat that I was a fan of Reagan at that time....yes, I was a real "Reagan Conservative"! However, he wasn't that kick ass, no compromise, absolute hero you people love to credit him as being,..and I posted just a few examples as to why.

"Typical Olbyloon liberal tolerant and loving expressions of endearment."

Got to love a lady who complains about terms of endearment while name calling.

Johnny, I made reference a while back that some posts read like the ole "schultzy" and certain people started the "paroniod" mocking. So, lil mikey's hero, socialist philby isn't really traveling the world as she says? She doesn't watch Ulbermahn in her "media room?" Not surprised one bit. I am curious, where is "bushkillspa" lurking?

I surely hope none of us takes anything Beck, Colmes, Coulter, Grace, Hannity, Limbaugh, Olbermann, O'Reilly or Scarbrough say seriously. They are entertainers and personalities. They are not journalists.

Posted by: at March 30, 2007 4:37 PM
You are, sadly, mistaken.

Wait a minute, what's Colmes and Grace doing on that list? Those, I agree with you.

Grammie said: "The next step, which is optional for Mike, is to claim that his opponent takes things too seriously"

Janet, I'm pretty sure the only 'opponent' I made that claim about was YOU.

On one hand you say you "took this to heart", and now here you are right back on the defensive about it....MANY weeks after the fact. Does this mean that you didn't really "take that remark to heart" after all?

The main rational for that was a an innocent groupee comment I made right after you made what seemed to me to be an overly friendly post to Johnny.

99% of the population would have taken that little comment in it's proper spirit, laugh, and move on. I would say something like that to my best friends if the opportunity presented itself.

YOUR reaction was to keep making defensive references to that quip for the next week or more. Often I had to think hard just to figure out what it was you were reacting to. It was kind of freaky, to be honest.

"I am curious, where is "Bushkillspa" lurking?"

What difference does it make? Why do you remain so obsessed with personalities, when what is really important...is the arguments?

If Philby REALLY was lampooning as Rudy, I offer no defense for that. Johnny and Bob are the only ones here who can look at Ip's, so I have no choice but to take their word for that.

Uh oh, the ole puffington post and the daily kos is under fire from Bill. There goes lil mikey's theory "we're not like that" right out the window. Posting horrible crap about Tony Snow. I think socialist philby said "only conservatives were like that, hateful and vile." I don't think we will be hearing from philby, rudy or schultzy any more,at least, not under those names.

"wait a minute, whats Colmes and Grace doing on that list? Those I agree with you"

Does this mean that you actually ARE calling Beck, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Olbermann, O'Reilly, and Scarborough 'journalists?

RoyalKing AKA Jeff:

Why can't you make an argument without throwing in something about a liberal internet blog?

You want to find insensitive freaks and idiots....you'll find PLENTY on BOTH sides, but I'm never going to let that distract me from reality, the way your side is so prone to do.

Mikey, I was only pointing out one of your comments, you are the one that said "we're not like that" remember? Why do you get so defensive when I was just quoting you?

I stand by that "we're not like that" comment. Nothing you have said or done disproves it. Quoting some freaks on the internet doesn't prove or disprove anything. You name the opinion....and I will find you people on the internet who believe it.

By the way, my name isn't 'mikey'. Your apparent blogosphere IQ would go up a solid 20 points if you stopped mangling people's names as if you believe doing that somehow bolsters your point, or diminishes your opponent's.

""Typical Olbyloon liberal tolerant and loving expressions of endearment."

Got to love a lady who complains about terms of endearment while name calling.

Posted by: craigs at March 30, 2007 7:47 PM "

Craigs, as someone who loves to name call yourself you do come across above as an absolute ass.

I described the statements and behavior of a few Olbyloons who obviously are whining, wimpy cowardly bullys.

If you are unable to recognise SARCASM (the ultimatein irony) perhaps you should follow your own advice and educate yourself.

Grammie

"Craigs, as someone who loves to name call yourself you do come across above as an absolute ass."

Grammie! I'm gonna have to wash your mouth out with soap! No I really don't come across as that much of an ass, because I never cried about name calling, while name calling in the same sentence. I'm afraid you look much more like a ass than I.

craigs, you really are a BIGGER ASS than I first thought.

And that is NOT sarcasm!

Grammie

Grammie, I knew you were little slow, but I didn't think you were outright dumb. Let's deconstruct what you wrote:

"Typical Olbyloon liberal tolerant and loving expressions of endearment"

Now the "loving expresions of endearment" actually does qualify as irony, because you obviously don't think the liberals you were refering to to were giving you terms of enderment. They were name calling, hence the irony on your part.

The reason you are a complete and total jackass, however, is because the purpose of the irony was to be sarcastic and rail against the name calling on their part You (in the same sentence mind you) called those folks on the left olberloons, meaning you were complaining about name calling, in the same sentence in which you were name calling.

Which means you look like an ass. Thank you for playing though.

Anyway this may be above your head, but I'm hping you will understand this time.

Johnny,

Wow! I had guessed that Rudy R. is a performance artist, but I hadn't imagined that he is also our elite grammarian and Giuliani-averse Mrs. Philby!

I am pretty sure that Rudy also was "Proud to be a Liberal" who posted quite often in a foul mouthed manner. I pointed out over a month ago that I noticed an overuse of the & sign for both names. Not that it really matters. I'm just thankful that Johnny $ has taken care of Rudy. I hope you unmask others who are playing that game but not to the point of total censorship.

Sharon,

You've got an awesome eye and ear!

Mike, I was thinking about your claim that I backed you into a corner and you had no choice but to call me inhuman. Just as this implies the same sentiment re Cecelia: "Cecelia, for reasons I don't completely understand, you keep trying to make me defend Olbermann."

You made every effort to defend KO re his indefensible TOTAL lack to even mention in passing a subject that he has pounded on for months, if not years, because this story doesn't fit his laboriously crafted house of cards.

And I feel compelled to point out to you that you were the one who felt compelled to give a long and very personal farewell speech.

Grammie

Way to go me. I think I missed my calling.

I suspected that Mrs A R Philby might be the distaff side of M Schultz. But Rudy?

Sharon, you are the best. Next time, don't keep us in the dark.

Grammie

I noticed that Hardball covered the Iran story today, but Mike Barnacle was guest hosting. Immediately after the Pres. speech, the two of them, Matthews and Olby, were on the fast track to be "the first" to call the next war. Neither of them want to take on any debate until they have a chance to figure out how to spin this. It will happen. They are just waiting for the right facts. Now that the Gonzalez story is on the backburner until our hard working Congress' vacation, Olby has to beat to death the Tillman story.

vacation is over I should say

Grammie,

It's not like he doesn't know... Mike only tries to appear to be walking a fine line. It's not like he's really aghast when it's pointed out to him that's he's gone out into left field for Olbermann. He just rersorts to staying something as inane as "you keep trying to make me defend Olbermann". That he had already made a defense for why Olbermann hasn't covered the Iran hostage story, and was being asked to defend the premise of THAT defense....just rolls off his back.

The only surprise was that he didn't mention Fox News in his defense.

Janet: I never claimed "you backed me in a corner", and you know it. You hardly "backed me in a corner". What you did is inject yourself personally into what was a non-personal debate about the humanity of our leaders, whose humanity I continue to question. You called yourself 'inhuman', not me....I guess because you couldn't defend the 'humanity' of the situation using logic.

Next, in a debate you were never involved in, you accuse me of "defending Olbermann's decision". Only a passionate and totally unobjective Olbermann hater could come to that conclusion. I was presenting theories as to why he hasn't jumped on this story. I also stated that I personally would have preferred that he had. I also stated that I don't think it's that big of a deal that he didn't, and I defended that position as well. There was no contradictions or 'wiggling'....except in your mind.

As for my "farewell" speech...I meant it when I made it....and quite frankly, my wife wishes I had stuck to it. That said, is this going to be something you keep bringing up forever? Or are you going to let bygones be bygones and discuss issues?

Now please go back to my first post and explain your need to keep trying to psychoanalyze me instead of addressing points that were discussed? Will you address some of the questions I raised about why you seem to think you can get into my mind....or why that is even a worthy subject of discussion on this blog?

The fact that so many of you are seemingly SO obsessed with the WHO, rather than the what, is probably why some choose to post anonimously, and with different names.

I would prefer to go forward and not do so much looking back....why is that a problem for you?

"Anyway this may be above your head, but I'm hping you will understand this time.
Posted by: craigs at March 30, 2007 9:55 PM"

I suggest that you make an effort to be coherent when pretending to instruct others from your lofty perch.

What does one do when one is 'hping'?

As I said earlier, craigs, you really are a BIGGER ASS than I first thought.

Grammie

While we're on a roll in giving you much deserved kudos, Sharon, let me say that your statement below is so dead-on and so insightful as to their frame of mind, that...well... I wish I had said it:

" Neither of them want to take on any debate until they have a chance to figure out how to spin this."

"Next, in a debate you were never involved in, you accuse me of "defending Olbermann's decision". Only a passionate and totally unobjective Olbermann hater could come to that conclusion. I was presenting theories as to why he hasn't jumped on this story. I also stated that I personally would have preferred that he had. I also stated that I don't think it's that big of a deal that he didn't, and I defended that position as well. There was no contradictions or 'wiggling'....except in your mind."

Oh right, Mike, and if one of us threw out "theories" as to why Fox did such and such in response to some criticism I'm sure you'd characterize that as a non-defense....

Typical, crap. You wish he had covered Iran but don't feel it's a big deal that he didn't.... Well, then why do you wish he had? Because it's newsworthy? Because it's an act of war? Because he has spent weeks characterizing Bush as looking for a pretext to war?

Nah.... What you're really saying is..... "Sharon, Cecelia, Grammie... go away with this criticism...you bother me.... but I'm going to try to look like I'm not defending Olbermann against you and that really don't care in the long run...yawn...stretch....because that's the way I play things here...."

Well, you made the "not a political story" argument, how about defending it, starting with why does Olbermann cover hard news about bank robberies, automobile industry scandals, and the housing market, but can't cover what happened in Iran? How can Olbermann postulate that Bush wants war in Iran and then ignore a story about what is essentially an act of war?

Sharon: You USED to be much more objective and not so one sided as you seem to be today.

Was that all an act, or was there another Sharon?

I stand by that "we're not like that" comment. Nothing you have said or done disproves it. Quoting some freaks on the internet doesn't prove or disprove anything. You name the opinion....and I will find you people on the internet who believe it.

By the way, my name isn't 'mikey'. Your apparent blogosphere IQ would go up a solid 20 points if you stopped mangling people's names as if you believe doing that somehow bolsters your point, or diminishes your opponent's.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 8:57 PM
Do you hear yourself? The puffingtons and the dailykos whacks proved you wrong, I didn't have to. You really shouldn't try to speak for millions of people, it will bite you in the ass every time. Lucky for you, I won't forget.......

"Now about Janet's 'answer'...THIS is a little more complex; First off, I NEVER called her 'inhuman'. However, I did finally say "then yes, I do question your humanity", but only AFTER she insisted on trying to back me into a corner by specifically asking me to judge HER humanity because she feels differently about the war, and the loss of lives of individual soldiers. In short, SHE INSISTED on framing an unneccessary question in such a personal manner.

This was all in response to my well known very strong personal moral conviction about lives being lost in a war for no apparent reason, that I strongly feel never should have happened. My position on this is well known on this blog, and if somebody is going to INSIST that I either back down from that conviction, or hurt their feelings, then sorry, but their feelings are going to get hurt evey time!

Rico, I'm pretty sure you have noticed Janet's unfortunate tendency to inject herself personally into debates. I don't know why she insists on doing that, but that is what happened, and that is where that 'inhuman' MISQUOTE came from.
Posted by: MIke at February 22, 2007 10:31 PM"

Mike, this took only a few minutes to find:

"However, I did finally say "then yes, I do question your humanity", but only AFTER she insisted on trying to back me into a corner "

I told you before when you claimed to have not asked me a question that you had posted the day before, I am the one who should be having these senior moments.

This is all part and parcel of what I've said in different ways at different times. You revel in the over blown hype and when questioned about it you start to back up, or wiggle, a bit at a time.

Words and ideas have meanings. They are not made out of play dough to be reshaped and formulated and then declared to be the only shape they ever had.

Grammie

Sharon: You USED to be much more objective and not so one sided as you seem to be today.

Was that all an act, or was there another Sharon?

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:01 PM

So it's not "objective" to point out that Olbermann is spiking the Iran story...

Damn Cecelia, we really CAN'T move on , can we.

You are becoming almost as bad as some you claim to disdane when you claim someone else's arguments are 'crap'. Have you seen me calling any of YOUR arguments 'crap'? When you start resorting to that kind of demening language, it's a sure sign that you are losing the argument.

Can people on your side understand 'nuance' at all? Is EVERYTHING black and white with you people?

I was very neutral in my discussion of Countdown's decision, and I see no malice in their choosing to do what they did, even though I would have preferred that they did cover the damned story, as I said at least three times.

No, Cecelia, you CAN'T turn me against Olbermann because he didn't cover a story you thought he should cover. It seems like a condemnation of KO by me is the only thing that will satify you. Have you ever heard of agreeing to disagree?

Now for the "Fox defense" you disdain, I have personally witnessed them doing this kind of thing themselves OFTEN, and I'm sure I'm not going to turn YOU against Fox because of that either.

"So it's not objective to point out that Olbermann is spiking the Iran story?"

You've pointed it out!....and pointed it out!.....and pointed it out!.....and pointed it out!.....and pointed it out!....and point.................................................................................................................................................................................

Words and ideas have meanings. They are not made out of play dough to be reshaped and formulated and then declared to be the only shape they ever had.

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at March 30, 2007 11:06 PM

Well, it's not like he's even any good at remolding them. I confess I've read his posts and simply shrugged rather than respond because they can usually be boiled down into "I know Fox News is...but what is Olbermann...."

I regret that. I'm going to make it a mission to point out his crap every time.

Mike, I have to point out that the words Keith Olbermann and nuance are diametrically opposed.

Grammie

Mike, what if the soldier being forced to wear the headscarf in the video was your sister or maybe a friend? Would it be a "story" then, worth reporting?

So it's not objective to point out that Olbermann is spiking the Iran story?"

You've pointed it out!....and pointed it out!.....and pointed it out!.....and pointed it out!.....and pointed it out!....and point.................................................................................................................................................................................

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:13 PM

Because you kept restating your objection.....and restating your objection....and restating your objection....

and when it was countered....you just kept on restating but not defending your objection....and restating but not defending your objection....and restating but not defending your objection...

OK Damnit Janet: I see it's back to the archives for you! Do you need crutches in real life too?

WHAT exactly did you think you just proved with that cut and paste????? Do you think "trying to back me into a corner" is the same thing as claiming you actually succeeded in "backing me into a corner". The key word here is 'TRYING' Janet!

You might want to go to the dictionary and look up the meaning of the word 'trying', before lecturing me on the meaning of words.

I stand by everything I said and it in NO way contradicts anything I have said tonight.

NOW will you go back to my first post of the evening and address you apparent pathological need to try to psychoanalize me and others, rather than focus on issues?

Cecelia: That's because I thought we had agreed to diagree....and agreed to disagree....and agreed to diagree....and.........................................................................................................

Yes, I know, thats 'disagree'.

"was very neutral in my discussion of Countdown's decision, and I see no malice in their choosing to do what they did, even though I would have preferred that they did cover the damned story, as I said at least three times. "
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:11 PM

What are your reasons for perferring that Oblermann have covered the story about Iran taking British soldier hostages?

"No, Cecelia, you CAN'T turn me against Olbermann because he didn't cover a story you thought he should cover. It seems like a condemnation of KO by me is the only thing that will satify you. Have you ever heard of agreeing to disagree?"
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:11 PM

You were just bemoaning me trying to force you to "defend" him, now you're bellyaching that I'm forcing you to condemn him and trying to turn you against him?!

"Now for the "Fox defense" you disdain, I have personally witnessed them doing this kind of thing themselves OFTEN, and I'm sure I'm not going to turn YOU against Fox because of that either."
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:11 PM

I don't watch Fox News. You can try to turn me against them all you like. Again, it's interesting that merely asking you to defend your ....eh....nondefense.... of Olbermann... that the Iran story is ...."nonpolitical".... is tantamount to attempting to forcing you into things!

Cecelia: That's because I thought we had agreed to diagree....and agreed to disagree....and agreed to diagree....and.........................................................................................................

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:27 PM

"Agreeing to disagree" in Mike's World:

I (Mike) counter your claim that Olbermann spiked a story by saying it was because the story was "nonpolitical". You act nice by not asking me to defend my assertion...

RoyalKing: I see it's now four on one...but thats OK.

To begin with, if it "were my sister", that would make me English, which I'm not. I also don't think I would be all that concerned if an American political news commentary show had reported on it or not. I think I'd be more concerned about what was going to happen with my sister.

I think I'd be more concerned about what was going to happen with my sister.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:33 PM

So you don't think shining a spotlight on Iran for the world to watch helps the soldiers being held over there?

Cecelia:

OK, now for the summary...lets review:

- Olbermann apparently didn't cover the story...I kinda wish he had but it's not that big a deal that he didn't. You disagree.
- I think it's a non-political story at this time, you think it is. I think this means we disagree.
- I think speculating as to why someone didn't do something is not the same as 'defending' them, you disgree.
- On the whole, I like Olbermann's show, despite it's flaws, you don't.

It's called agreeing to disagree.

Now, I'm going to step off of this circular argument, whether you choose to or not.

"don't you think shining a spotlight on Iran for the world to watch helps the soldiers being held over there?"

Not necessarily. I'm pretty certain they are actually reveling in the spotlight, and it's not necessarily helping. What they are probably trying to do is embarrass Great Britain, and us in the process.

Mike, I asked this question yesterday and you never answered it, What would have to happen to make the hostage sit a "political story?" Just curious.

Now for the "Fox defense" you disdain, I have personally witnessed them doing this kind of thing themselves OFTEN, and I'm sure I'm not going to turn YOU against Fox because of that either."
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:11 PM

This has to be the most telling statement I've seen in a long time.

Sharon makes an observation about Olbermann spiking the Iran story after hammering his audience that Bush is trying to start a war over there.

Mike could just ignore it... not say anything... but he doesn't....he takes THIS as an attempt to turn him against Keith Olbermann... "No, Cecelia, you CAN'T turn me against Olbermann because he didn't cover a story you thought he should cover.".... but he doesn't play it that way.... he's just neutral observer...who isn't defending Olbermann....he's just venturing a reason as to why Olbermann spiked it (nonpolitical story).....but when pressed to defend how the Iran thing could possibly be "nonpolitical" or to defend why Olbermann has covered other stories that truly ARE nonpolitical...he resorts to bemoaning that he is being made to DEFEND Olbermann...scolds Sharon for not being "objective".... and then finally drops his whole noncaring facade and adds that we're trying to turn him against Keith Olbermann!...

How could we do that, Mike. You weren't even trying to defend him....

don't you think shining a spotlight on Iran for the world to watch helps the soldiers being held over there?"

Not necessarily. I'm pretty certain they are actually reveling in the spotlight, and it's not necessarily helping. What they are probably trying to do is embarrass Great Britain, and us in the process.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:47 PM

Meanwhile the spotlight has won them most of the world's approbrium and kept all eyes on the condition of the hostages...

Cecelia:

But you ARE trying to turn me, along with everyone else, against Keith Olbermann.... one little punch at a time. That's the whole purpose of this blog.

Trust me, I understand Johnny and Bob's passion!...after all, I wish Fox would go away as passionately as they wish Olbermann would go away.

Too bad "philby's" not here to bail Mike out, or, try to. Just a joke Mike, don't get all nutso cuckoo.

Mike,

The point that you refuse to admit is that Olby spiked the story because he has his own agenda. When a major story such as this one has occurred, it is usually covered unless there is a reason not to. To claim it is not a major story just defies common sense when you peruse day to day headlines on any given day. Walter Reed? Covered by Countdown. Scooter Libby? Covered. Anna Nicole Smith case? Covered. Alberto Gonzalez? Covered. Prince Harry? Covered. Iran commits act of war by seizing marines/sailors of our strongest ally? Not covered.

I don't know why you felt the need to condemn me twice now. First you accused me last night of attacking you and now you claim that because I have taken a logical position on something that I have demonstrated some kind of insincerity. I have not called you names. I have not used vulgar language. I merely debated. SO who is being insincere?

Cecelia:

But you ARE trying to turn me, along with everyone else, against Keith Olbermann.... one little punch at a time. That's the whole purpose of this blog.

Trust me, I understand Johnny and Bob's passion!...after all, I wish Fox would go away as passionately as they wish Olbermann would go away.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:56 PM

In other words, you're here to defend to Olbermann.

But approbrium won't necessarily win their release.

Mike, you sure reacted like someone who was backed into a corner and not as someone who was the object of a failed sttempt to be backed into a corner.

You seem to be taking things so personally these days. I described your behavior and words. I did not categorize you in any terms, pathological or otherwise.

Why are you continually trying to back me into a corner and force me to pseudo analyze you? Think Dana Carvey as President Bush 41: Not going to do it, wouldn't be prudent.

Grammie

Mike, just so you know, I doubt if the hostsges are actually "reveling" in the spotlight, a poor choice of words.

Sharon: "The point is that you refuse to admit that Olbermann spiked the story because he has his own agenda"

I've never denied Olbermann has an agenda. However, I can't really see how spiking this particular story might have served that agenda?

Mike,

Since you're here to defend Olbermann and to stop me from turning the world against him, don't you think you started doing a better job of it?

Why is the Iran story suddenly "nonpolitical" after Olbermann has relentlessly implied Bush is pressuring for war in Iran?

Why are "nonpolitical" stories Countdown genre when it has covered other hard news stories?

Why do you think Olbermann SHOULD have covered the story in the first place?

RoyalKing:

It troubles me that I have to explain everything to you. I stated the captors were 'reveling' in the spotlight, not the captives.

10:1 Cecelia, Janet, and Sharon got it the way I meant it.

Does anyone remember if KO covered the US capturing some Iranians in Iraq earlier this year? And if he did, what was his spin?

Grammie

Cecelia, I've already told you I'm not going to stay on this circular argument with you any longer.

However, if YOU want to do it all over again, you can go back to the top and review....and then go back to the top and review again....and go back up to the top and review again....and go back...............................................................................................................

But approbrium won't necessarily win their release.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 12:02 AM

Allowing them to operate in obscurity is even riskier. If Iran cares enough about world opinion in order to attempt to embarrass Britain and the U.S., then Iran cares enough to not wish to give credence to its enemies accusations.

You also condemn Fox News as a whole, maybe assuming it's all about O'Reilly and Hannity. I watch all of the networks at various times. I have never liked Shaun Hannity and I have now lost all respect for him after his treatment of Father Euteneuer, a priest who heads up Human Life International. Greta's show has no political agenda. Neil Cavuto has guests from all points of view and is very polite to all. I think Larry King is a sweetheart, Anderson Cooper I respect because he travels to the story. I like Tucker Carlson who gets a bad rap but is not the joke that he is made out to be. Joe Scarboro at least presents both points of view. I don't like Olbermann. He is dishonest and if you can't see that, you are blind. This from Johnny's summary today, information that Olby purposefully left out about the Tillman story:

White House spokesman Blain Rethmeier said Friday that a review of records turned up no indication that the president had received McChrystal's warning.

How can you deny that Olby is dishonest? That is not Johnny $'s spin!

wiggle, wiggle,wiggle

"I suggest that you make an effort to be coherent when pretending to instruct others from your lofty perch."

I was perfectly coherent, you are just dumb.

"What does one do when one is 'hping'?".

Ahh isn't that cute. Grammie, doesn't understand what irony is. nor does she recognize her own hypocrisy. But she can catch a spelling error. if there is one vowel missing, she won't figure it out though, not bright enough for that.

"As I said earlier, craigs, you really are a BIGGER ASS than I first thought. "

And you're a bigger moron than I first thought.

Cecelia, I've already told you I'm not going to stay on this circular argument with you any longer.

However, if YOU want to do it all over again, you can go back to the top and review....and then go back to the top and review again....and go back up to the top and review again....and go back...............................................................................................................

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 12:12 AM

The only circular arguments are the one you've made:

You've moaned about being forced to defend Keith olbermann and then moaned about being forced to disavow Keith Olbermann.

We've already established that you're here to answer the charges of those who wish to make the world hate Olbermann. So defend your own assertions.

Why is the Iran story suddenly "nonpolitical" after Olbermann has relentlessly implied Bush is pressuring for war in Iran?

Why are "nonpolitical" stories Countdown genre when it has covered other hard news stories?

Why do you think Olbermann SHOULD have covered the story in the first place?

I haven't seen Iran do anything particularly logical yet regarding world opinion.

We've seen stories like this play out before...I just hope it doesn't escalate into something much bigger, because frankly, it won't help us or Britain one bit if it does.

It looks like at least some of the captives have already been forced to (falsely, I presume) 'admit' they were in Iranian waters. That has usually been the pretext for release in similar situations....but....the current Iranian regime DOESN'T seem to follow conventional logic.

Mike,

I thought the agenda has been made pretty clear as to why Olby spiked the story. Olby spoke numerous times in an ominous tone about how Bush was going to lead our country into another preemptive war. Right after Bush's speech in January, he and Matthews prodded Barak Obama for a reaction to the Pres. revealing that two war ships were sent to the Gulf to keep an eye on Iran, which was aiding and abetting the insurgency in Iraq. Obama's immediate reaction was that it was acceptable to monitor Iran for any "mischief." This response was not accpetable to Olby and Matthews. They ran with the theme that Bush was going to provoke a war. Low and behold, who has been the provacateur? Iran. That goes against Olby's (and Matthew's) theme. They both hit that theme hard.

I've never denied Olbermann has an agenda. However, I can't really see how spiking this particular story might have served that agenda?

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 12:07 AM

So what is Olbermann's agenda?

OK Damnit Janet: I see it's back to the archives for you! Do you need crutches in real life too?

WHAT exactly did you think you just proved with that cut and paste????? Do you think "trying to back me into a corner" is the same thing as claiming you actually succeeded in "backing me into a corner". The key word here is 'TRYING' Janet!

You might want to go to the dictionary and look up the meaning of the word 'trying', before lecturing me on the meaning of words.

I stand by everything I said and it in NO way contradicts anything I have said tonight.

NOW will you go back to my first post of the evening and address you apparent pathological need to try to psychoanalize me and others, rather than focus on issues?

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:25 PM
The "cut and paste" caught you bullsh-tting, to put it nicely, actually, lying more on target.

OK Damnit Janet: I see it's back to the archives for you! Do you need crutches in real life too?

WHAT exactly did you think you just proved with that cut and paste????? Do you think "trying to back me into a corner" is the same thing as claiming you actually succeeded in "backing me into a corner". The key word here is 'TRYING' Janet!

You might want to go to the dictionary and look up the meaning of the word 'trying', before lecturing me on the meaning of words.

I stand by everything I said and it in NO way contradicts anything I have said tonight.

NOW will you go back to my first post of the evening and address you apparent pathological need to try to psychoanalize me and others, rather than focus on issues?

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:25 PM
The "cut and paste" caught you bullsh-tting, to put it nicely, actually, lying more on target.

the current Iranian regime DOESN'T seem to follow conventional logic.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 12:21 AM

Even more reason to keep the world watching.

"Why is the Iran story suddenly "nonpolitical" after Olbermann has relentlessly implied Bush is pressuring for war in Iran?"

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You are upset at Mike because when asked to answer a question about the motivations of a person he does not know and has not met, He responded with a couple of possibe rationals that you didn't like?

"How can you deny that Olby is dishonest. That is not Johnny $'s spin"

Oh boy do we disagree here!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've already attacked Johnny's comic book style 'recaps' here many times, and I don't want to start that argument again.

Great thanks!

You have it straight Craig!

Furthermore, you may think it is more beneficial to the hostages for the press to keep a low profile (which it is not, only Olby is spiking it). That is not the reason why Countdown spiked it. Showing pictures of Abu Graib a million times certainly didn't help our soldiers!

We've made some progress. Mike has essentially admitted he was defending Olbermann from we who would have the world hate him. He's admitted we weren't trying to "force" him to defend Olbermann, as he had claimed.

So again, let's hear you explain your own assertaions, Mike:

Why is the Iran story suddenly "nonpolitical" after Olbermann has relentlessly implied Bush is pressuring for war in Iran?

Why are "nonpolitical" stories Countdown genre when it has covered other hard news stories?

Why do you think Olbermann SHOULD have covered the story in the first place?

What is Olbermann's agenda?

"So what is Olbermann's agenda?"

This is an interesting question. Since Mike does not answer it (obviously he can't read Olbermann's mind like some) I will answer it for him.

Olbermann decided today, while going for his daily walk, that it would be really funny if he didn't mention the Iranian story. That's it, nothing else to it.

I Carnac the Magnificent, have revealed the secret that Mike, who cannot read the minds of other was unable to tell.

I've already attacked Johnny's comic book style 'recaps' here many times, and I don't want to start that argument again.

Great thanks!

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 12:30 AM
Does this answer any questions anyone might have? The truth is a bitch. He doesn't defend Ulbermahn? LMAO!

"So what is Olbermann's agenda?"

This is an interesting question. Since Mike does not answer it (obviously he can't read Olbermann's mind like some) I will answer it for him.

Olbermann decided today, while going for his daily walk, that it would be really funny if he didn't mention the Iranian story. That's it, nothing else to it.

I Carnac the Magnificent, have revealed the secret that Mike, who cannot read the minds of others, was unable to tell.

Mike, I have to second Cecelia's question.

It cuts through everything and goes to the essence of KO and his claim to be an unbiased newsman.

If you recognize, which you have, that KO has an agenda than you should be able to articulate that agenda to at least some degree.

Grammie

"Why is the Iran story suddenly "nonpolitical" after Olbermann has relentlessly implied Bush is pressuring for war in Iran?"

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You are upset at Mike because when asked to answer a question about the motivations of a person he does not know and has not met, He responded with a couple of possibe rationals that you didn't like?

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 12:27 AM

No, we merely asked Mike to defend his reasoning behind asserting those rationales....as in Olbermann has covered other nonpolitical stories, why can't he cover this "nonpolitical" (Mike's assertion) story?

We're UPSET with him because in the process of being asked to defend his assertion he claimed he was being forced to "defend Olbermann" and then later turned around and claimed he was being forced to turn against Olbermann.

OK RoyalKing: "The cut and paste caught you bullsh-tting"

No you MORON! On the contrary, her cut and paste proved I NEVER said what she accused me of saying.

YOU try explaining how Janets repost caught me 'lying'. What is it about the word 'trying' that you don't understand?

You and Janet now have something in common...you both have now reposted something that proved my point, instead of whatever it was you were TRYING to prove>

Notice that word funny little word 'TRYING' again. Look it up.

MORON!

Craigs,

Mike's rationale: 1) Countdown does not cover hard news. Check out Countdown's first few segments on any night to see that is not true.

2) the story is not political. That has nothing to do with liking or disliking. It is just a ridiculous comment.

Additionally, Craigs, speaking of irony:

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You are upset at Mike because when asked to answer a question about the motivations of a person he does not know and has not met, He responded with a couple of possibe rationals that you didn't like?

So, you are upset at Janet, a person you do not know and have not met who responded in a manner that you didn't like?

Mike,

I've already attacked Johnny's comic book style 'recaps' here many times, and I don't want to start that argument again. You are shying away from a relevant debate. This is Johnny $'s site, first of all. Secondly, do you think it is honest journalism to leave out facts, i.e., the press release states that there is no evidence that the president knew the facts behind Tillman's death? I don't see that as comic book material.

Mike, why won't you answer my post asking why you keep TRYING to back me into a corner and pseudo analyze you.

You notice I said TRYING, because you have not backed me into a corner and I have not responded as if you did.

Grammie

PS I don't need crutches, either literally or figuratively.

Craigs writes "This is an interesting question. Since Mike does not answer it (obviously he can't read Olbermann's mind like some) I will answer it for him."

Actually, Craigs, Mike explicitly said he's never denied Olbermann had an agenda. I have no doubt that Mike would find it entirely reasonable to then turn around and says.... he has one ...no doubt.... I just don't know what it is....

But since you are able to "read Olbermann mind", as you characterized it, thank you for your imput. Whether Mike will consistently agree with you that this is indeed Olbermann's agenda, that he either doesn't know, or won't tell, in the first place.... is just all in a day's work...

Do you people always confuse persistance with "winning an argument"? Do you people REALLY think twisting and turning words around into something that were never said somehow makes a valid point in your favor?

Cecelia, you just did it again when you claimed that I claimed "he was being forced to turn against Olbermann". Thats the whole point Cecelia. You CAN'T turn me against Olbermann. The more you twist and turn my words, the more you make my arguments.

"So, you are upset at Janet, a person you do not know and have not met who responded in a manner that you didn't like?"

Uhh, Sharon, I don't care if YOU, JANET, Or Cecilia are mad at Olbermann for not reporting the story. I just think it is absurd that you are asking Mike to justify the motivations of a man he does not know and has not met (How can he possibly do this?)

That is a little different than me being upset at Janet's inability to recognize her own hypocrisy.

Mike, if you think that Grammies "cut and paste" proves you right, you are very screwed up. Hence the term-olbyloon.

Craigs,

Maybe you don't care about British hostages. I don't know. Most decent people would. Olby has not covered the story since it broke. Not even to say something in support of their plight. He is a journalist. He was obsessed with Bush initiating a preemptive war with Iran.His campaign suddenly stopped when Iran committed an act of war. We who come to this site analyze issues that others don't contemplate. That is why we come. Don't act like it is a sign of mental deficiency to challenge Olbermann here on this site.

Cmon Janet:

You made the choice to repost something I said that actually made MY point, instead of your own....and now I see you have the site moron cheering wildly in your corner about it.

Please explain to me again how "I claimed you backed me in a corner", when your repost proves I said no such thing! YOU brought it up!

I really don't have a clue why you chose to cut and paste something that dissproved your own point, so please explain it to us?

Or does your side also think just ignoring a valid point somehow makes it invalid?

I think Craigs is on to something.

Mike is sure Olbermann has an agenda...he just doesn't know what it is...

Mike thinks Olbermann didn't cover the Iran story because Mike thinks it is a nonpolitical story but don't ask Nike to defend or explain his assertion that the story is nonpolitical or to explain why Olbermann has covered other nonpolitical stories.... because he can't read Olbermann's mind....

Yes, this certainly all sounds like Mike.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 12:51 AM

Kidding!

Craigs,

I am not asking Mike to justify Olby's lack of integrity. There isn't any justification. That is the point.

RoyalKing AKA MORON: I just asked both you and Janet how my saying "you are 'trying' to back me in a corner" is the same thing as saying that "I claimed you backed me in a corner".

OK moron....YOU explain to me how those two phrases have the same meaning!

MORON!

Cecelia:

I was just about to ask why anyone thought stealing my name when I am already going 4 against one constituted fair play?

And Janet, why do you keep ignoring my questions? YOU chose to make that repost!

Uhh, Sharon, I don't care if YOU, JANET, Or Cecilia are mad at Olbermann for not reporting the story. I just think it is absurd that you are asking Mike to justify the motivations of a man he does not know and has not met (How can he possibly do this?)

That is a little different than me being upset at Janet's inability to recognize her own hypocrisy.

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 12:46 AM

Oh, we didn't ask Mike to justify Olbermann's motivations. He did it voluntarily and with no encouragement whatsoever.

The outrageous and unreasonable thing that we've done is to ask Mike to defend his assertion about Olbermann's motivation.

So far the only question he's answered the one you answered for him.

I guess Mike there are only a bunch of morons here in your mind. You don't seem too happy here; maybe OW is too deleterious to your health. I hope you don't have coronary disease. You seem ready to explode at any moment. Seriously.

Cecelia:

I was just about to ask why anyone thought stealing my name when I am already going 4 against one constituted fair play?

And Janet, why do you keep ignoring my questions? YOU chose to make that repost!

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 12:58 AM

Nike why do you keep ignoring my questions?

CEcelia:

If you really think I haven't answered all your questions, it's because you haven't reviewed.

C'MON JANET! Defend your repost!

Does this mean I can go back and repost anything you said and just CLAIM that it means whatever I SAY it means?

Mike, how can you say that Ulbermahn isn't a fat ass lier? Johnny proves it night after night with links and facts to prove every one and you deny it? In other words, defend him? (Ulbermahn)

Sharon, I didn't call anybody here a moron but RoyalKing, and you know it. I do that only because Jeff (RoyalKIng) actually IS a moron.

I guess Mike there are only a bunch of morons here in your mind. You don't seem too happy here; maybe OW is too deleterious to your health. I hope you don't have coronary disease. You seem ready to explode at any moment. Seriously.

Posted by: Sharon at March 31, 2007 1:01 AM
He's a glutton for punishment, as I have said before....

"Mike, how can you say that Ulbermahn isn't a fat ass lier?"

Easy! I'd rather call YOU a fat ass liar, but I'm not sure if your ass is really fat or not.

Mike,

I made the same observation as Royal at 1:04 a.m. Your response:

I've already attacked Johnny's comic book style 'recaps' here many times, and I don't want to start that argument again.

You may disagree with $'s analysis but you cannot deny that Olby leaves out facts that completely change the story, as in tonight.

Mike=olbypologist, since he can't answer a simple question from a "simpleton". lmao, again.

"Maybe you don't care about British hostages. I don't know. Most decent people would."

Sharon this is a red herring.

"Olby has not covered the story since it broke. Not even to say something in support of their plight. He is a journalist. He was obsessed with Bush initiating a preemptive war with Iran.His campaign suddenly stopped when Iran committed an act of war. We who come to this site analyze issues that others don't contemplate. That is why we come. Don't act like it is a sign of mental deficiency to challenge Olbermann here on this site."

Mike has already agreed that he wished Olbermann would have covered the story.

You are asking him to deconstrcut the motivations of Olbermann, and seem upset that his view of the matter (which he clearly states is just speculation) does not jive with yours.

What makes you think that ANYTHING he, or you, or me, come up with as a motivation is correct? The only person who knows for sure why he didn't cover the story is Keith Olbermann. I realize you are interested in figuring this out, and you might even have the rationale that makes the most sense, but I don't see why you need Mike to agree that your SPECULATION is any more correct than any other.

Also, for the record, I think the kidnaping of the Britsh is a reckless move on the part of the Iranians; and I hope the british get soon without this thing escalating. Not becauae I give two sh-ts about Iran , but because I think war would be bad for America.

Just roll over, Mike. Say it. Olby is a liar. A rose is a rose and a lie is a lie. Leaving out facts is a form of lying. Olby spikes stories if they make him look like the biased "journalist" that he is. Besides the recent Iran story, there is also the Gitmo case he covered and covered, until the Supreme Court found no violation of the Constitution.

Sharon: "I hope you don't have coronary disease. You seem ready to explode at any moment"

A direct result Sharon, of having my words twisted into something I didn't say over and over again, and having to point that out, over and over again.

That is probably exactly what KO thinks if he every reads Johnny distortion's 'recaps' about his show.

To lighten things up a little....you can't accuse me of being LIKE Olbermann, because we all know he doesn't like to debate. I don't think you can say that about me.

Mike, I have answered and then reiterated part of my answer. I also asked an additional question of you. So far, I have no answer other than your complaint that I haven't answered your question, twice.

So I'll cut and paste them all:

"Mike, you sure reacted like someone who was backed into a corner and not as someone who was the object of a failed sttempt to be backed into a corner.

You seem to be taking things so personally these days. I described your behavior and words. I did not categorize you in any terms, pathological or otherwise.

Why are you continually trying to back me into a corner and force me to pseudo analyze you? Think Dana Carvey as President Bush 41: Not going to do it, wouldn't be prudent.

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at March 31, 2007 12:03 AM "

The next post I addressed to you was:

"Mike, I have to second Cecelia's question.

It cuts through everything and goes to the essence of KO and his claim to be an unbiased newsman.

If you recognize, which you have, that KO has an agenda than you should be able to articulate that agenda to at least some degree.

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at March 31, 2007 12:37 AM "

Then this one:

"Mike, why won't you answer my post asking why you keep TRYING to back me into a corner and pseudo analyze you.

You notice I said TRYING, because you have not backed me into a corner and I have not responded as if you did.

Grammie

PS I don't need crutches, either literally or figuratively.

Posted by: Grammie at March 31, 2007 12:44 AM "

I think the phrase is the ball is in your court and has been for a while.

Grammie

Cecelia, you just did it again when you claimed that I claimed "he was being forced to turn against Olbermann". Thats the whole point Cecelia. You CAN'T turn me against Olbermann. The more you twist and turn my words, the more you make my arguments.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 12:45 AM

Here's what you said:

"No, Cecelia, you CAN'T turn me against Olbermann because he didn't cover a story you thought he should cover."
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:11

THIS is your respond to being asked to defend YOUR OWN assertion that you voluntarily made as to why Olbermann didn't cover the story.

"It seems like a condemnation of KO by me is the only thing that will satify you. Have you ever heard of agreeing to disagree?"
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 11:11 PM

No, I just wanted you to explain how you guaged the story as being nonpolitical and why you felt that Olbermann would ignore a nonpolitical story when he's covered hard news stories in the past.

I've rolled my eyes mostly at your stuff, and wondered why people tood you seriously enough to get upset at your silliness. Not anymore. You think you've had trouble with Jeff on this board, you ain't seen nothing yet, you liar.

"The outrageous and unreasonable thing that we've done is to ask Mike to defend his assertion about Olbermann's motivation."

Yes, but how can Mike possibly do that. I mean it's not like he can say, "I think Keith felt it was best for the British family to not see the story." and then call Keith to verify he is correct. Anything Mike, or you, or I, say is speculation and until Keith makes a comment on the matter there is no way of being certain. and since you don't trust keith at his word, that wouldn't even settle the matter.

I mean, not trying to be snarky, how is mike suppose to defend tha,t and would you accept anyhting he says other than keith had a dark motive?

CEcelia:

If you really think I haven't answered all your questions, it's because you haven't reviewed.

C'MON JANET! Defend your repost!

Does this mean I can go back and repost anything you said and just CLAIM that it means whatever I SAY it means?

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 1:03 AM

I just got through reviewing. Evidently, I'm going blind... Please cut and paste your answers to these questions:

Why is the Iran story suddenly "nonpolitical" after Olbermann has relentlessly implied Bush is pressuring for war in Iran?

Why are "nonpolitical" stories Countdown genre when it has covered other hard news stories?

Why do you think Olbermann SHOULD have covered the story in the first place?

What is Olbermann's agenda?

Sharon: "leaving out the facts is a form of lying"

Lets assume your INCORRECT premise is actually true, and expand on it...then it also means:

- Shaun Hannity is a liar.
- Bill O/Reilly is a liar.
- Glenn Beck is a liar.
- Rush Limbaugh is a liar.
- Michael Savage is a liar.
- The entire Fox 'News' network is a liar.
- I could go on and on.

And yes, Sharon, if ALL the above are liars simply because of story ommisions....then Olbermann is too.

Happy now?

Craigs,

I am not upset in the sense that I will dwell on the topic after I log off (which has to be soon). There is reasonable speculation and then there is ridiculous speculation. I have already addressed why Mike's two reasons are not reasonable. I guess there could be some unknown factor: maybe Olby is so concerned about the welfare of the hostages that he feels he may breakdown if he even broaches the subject. Maybe it is the result of some kind of post traumatic stress he experiences based upon some repressed childhood event. There, I have speculated and provided a reason for spiking the story.

Cecelia: Defend how you just called me a liar!

Janet: Defend how your repost contradicted me!

Mike, I'm going to bed now. I am sure you will answer at least this post:

"Mike, I have to second Cecelia's question.

It cuts through everything and goes to the essence of KO and his claim to be an unbiased newsman.

If you recognize, which you have, that KO has an agenda than you should be able to articulate that agenda to at least some degree.

Grammie

Posted by: Grammie at March 31, 2007 12:37 AM "

No accusations, no exhortations. Just a straight forward question that if you perceive an agenda you have to be able to articulate to some small degree what the agenda is.

Grammie

I gave you specifics, Mike. If you read what I posted about Hannity abovem you'll see that I won't be coming to his defense. If you read what I wrote about Fox News (for example, have you ever watched Greta? She is no liar. She has never presented a political agenda.)

I need to go to bed. I didn;'t even finish that above but you get the point.

Craigs: "would you accept anything he said other than Keith had a dark motive?"

Hell no she wouldn't!

It's not clear to me why she can't just agree to disagree either.

She also needs to prove why I am a liar, or prove herself a liar.

One last thought. Think about Janet's question. You did state (according to Janet and/or Cecelia- they probably have your comment) that Olby has an agenda. What is it?

Yes, but how can Mike possibly do that. I mean it's not like he can say, "I think Keith felt it was best for the British family to not see the story." and then call Keith to verify he is correct. Anything Mike, or you, or I, say is speculation and until Keith makes a comment on the matter there is no way of being certain. and since you don't trust keith at his word, that wouldn't even settle the matter.

I mean, not trying to be snarky, how is mike suppose to defend tha,t and would you accept anyhting he says other than keith had a dark motive?

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 1:20 AM

What do you mean "how can Mike possibly do that"? Mike DID that. He made an assertion.... He thinks Olbermann didn't cover it because it is a nonpolitical story.... There's no doubt that's an opinion....as you say we don't have Olbermann's word on it.... but speculations and opinions have to be informed by some sort of logic and realism.

It's not unreasonable of us to ask Mike why he thinks the Iran situation is a "nonpolitical" story. MIKE characterized it that way. It's not unreasonable of us to ask Mike why he thinks Countdown doesn't deal with nonpolitical stories when it has in the past. MIKE characterized it that way.

In the process of being asked to defend the logic of MIKE'S own opinion he cried that he was being forced to defend Olbermann (he had done that voluntarily) and then later that he was being pressured to denounce Olbermann!

THIS over simply being asked to logically explain an opinion MIKE had voluntarily given!

Sharon: Greta may not be a liar by the dictionary's definition, but she sure as hell is by the definition you just gave...by omitting important stories!

Mike, this is the last for tonight. Defend WHAT?

Grammie

Janet: I think you just like to see me go on and on.

You made a repost implying I said something you claimed I said that I DIDN'T say at all.

Once again, how is saying you are"trying to back me in a corner", the same thing as "claiming you backed me in a corner"?

Mike,

I am going to have to hold myself back from name calling here. First, Olby did not present the statement from the press release that there is no evidence that Bush knew the facts behind Tillman's death. I don't know if you have children or not, but I tell mine that leaving out a key fact is lying!

Additionally, I said that spiking stories (for an agenda- previously discussed) makes him biased. READ BELOW:

Olby spikes stories if they make him look like the biased "journalist" that he is. Besides the recent Iran story, there is also the Gitmo case he covered and covered, until the Supreme Court found no violation of the Constitution.
Posted by: Sharon at March 31, 2007 1:14 AM

Craigs: "would you accept anything he said other than Keith had a dark motive?"

Hell no she wouldn't!

It's not clear to me why she can't just agree to disagree either.

She also needs to prove why I am a liar, or prove herself a liar.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 1:32 AM

How specious! If by "agreeing to disagree" you mean would I simply ignore any opinion you happened to venture as to Olbermann's agenda, no I would not.

All day, everyday here we all give our opinions. You're here doing that among people that you characterize as being here in order to turn the world against Olbemann. You're not here agreeing to disagree anymore than Craigs is now.

If I venture an opinion based on misperceptions, illogic, a lack of information, you're going to question it. You're going to ask me to defend it. That's why you're HERE!

So let's just dispose of the "agree to disagree .... it's unreasonable of you to ask me to defend an assertion that I volunteered".... b.s., shall we.

Cecelia:

I really didn't realize until the last hour or so what a total BITCH you are!

You just called me a 'liar' but you can't back that up!

You keep saying I have to 'defend' my opinions, my assertions, or my speculations to you simply because you weren't satisfied with my previous explanations. Thats YOUR problem I don't owe you a damned thing, you sanctimoneous bitch!

From Sharon: "The Supreme court found no violation of the constitution":...That doesn't mean I have to agree with the Supreme court does it? It only means I have to accept it.

"Additionally, I said that spiking stories (for an agando - previously discussed) makes him biased": I have NEVER said Olbermann wasn't 'biased'. What I HAVE done is defend his right to be biased.

Cecelia didn't deserve that. If you feel you don't owe her an explanation, then don't give her one. You are slopping up the board.

Cecelia:

I really didn't realize until the last hour or so what a total BITCH you are!

You just called me a 'liar' but you can't back that up!

You keep saying I have to 'defend' my opinions, my assertions, or my speculations to you simply because you weren't satisfied with my previous explanations. Thats YOUR problem I don't owe you a damned thing, you sanctimoneous bitch!

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 1:45 AM

I don't have to back anything up, remember. It's merely my opinion. Let's agree to disagree...

You lie when you say your words are being twisted and you lie when you say you're being coersed to say things you don't feel when all you're being asked is to defend your own assertion against logical and realistic challenges.

You are losing it Mike. You said that I defined lying as omitting whole stories. I didn't. If you feel that is acceptable to spike stories that don't coincide with your mindset, even if they are newsworthy and maybe even beneficial to others, then you have defined yourself.

"I really didn't realize until the last hour or so what a total BITCH you are!"

Oh, you're going to be more and more acutely aware of that everyday you post on this board. Your b.s. is over, my friend.

Maybe it is his right to do it. The KKK has a right to hold rallies.

Cecelia called me a liar. I had said or done nothing to deserve that. I may be wrong. I may be opinionated, but I'm NOT a 'liar', and everyone who knows me would tell you that.

Sharon, just go back and look at that contentious 1:19 post, especially the last part, and tell me again that Cecelia "didn't deserve that"!

I appreciate your aplomb Cecelia but I hate it when a man resorts to calling a woman a bitch. It is the sign of a lowlife,, in my opinion. Use a thesaurus Mike.

Adieu to you and you and you and you ...

Cecelia: Your definitions of my so called lies are LIES....and you Cecelia, are nothing but one FIRST CLASS SELF SERVING BITCH!!!!!

"Additionally, I said that spiking stories (for an agando - previously discussed) makes him biased": I have NEVER said Olbermann wasn't 'biased'. What I HAVE done is defend his right to be biased.

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 1:51 AM

And here everyone thought you were being forced to defend him....,

Cecelia: Your definitions of my so called lies are LIES....and you Cecelia, are nothing but one FIRST CLASS SELF SERVING BITCH!!!!!

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 2:01 AM

First class all the way...

I appreciate your aplomb Cecelia but I hate it when a man resorts to calling a woman a bitch. It is the sign of a lowlife,, in my opinion. Use a thesaurus Mike.

Posted by: Sharon at March 31, 2007 1:59 AM

Now, Sharon. Don't try to be generous and act like you, of all people, weren't well aware he's all veneer...and well aware of it before any of the rest of us.

See you tomorrow, Mike....

"First class all the way..."

Glad you admit it.

You people seem to believe that 'winning' an argument means trying to hammer your opponent into submission...when that doesn't work....call them a liar and make idle threats.

For me, I'll just stick with facts .... you bitch!

"see you tomorrow, Mike...."

No you won't!

Well, seems like we all could use a good laugh. go to www.crooksandliars.com (You on the right ignore everything except the dailyshow post) and watch John Stewart on the iran crisis... Very funny!

Craigs: Thanks for backing me up. My mistake was allowing myself to become distracted trying to deal with four different 'opponents', which I never should have tried to do. I guess piling on is considered perfectly fair in the blogosphere.

Hell, I never claimed to be a pro at this.

One thing is perfectly clear. The Olbermann haters are every bit as biased as he is. In short, they ARE him!

"Craigs: Thanks for backing me up."

No Problem at all.

"My mistake was One thing is perfectly clear. The Olbermann haters are every bit as biased as he is. In short, they ARE him!"

No Doubt. I think Olbermann is quite biased but it seems many on this site are just fine with Johnny Dollar spinning right and smearing himself

Cecelia,

I moved over to the March 30 post.

Craigs: Thanks for backing me up. My mistake was allowing myself to become distracted trying to deal with four different 'opponents', which I never should have tried to do.

I guess piling on is considered perfectly fair in the blogosphere.

Hell, I never claimed to be a pro at this.

One thing is perfectly clear. The Olbermann haters are every bit as biased as he is. In short, they ARE him!

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 2:32 AM

More claims that opponents have aimed to put you into an unfair position, even if you add that you "allowed" it.

I'll say you're not a "pro". You can't even argue the assertions YOU make when those assertions are challenged with relevant questions.

As to your ridiculous point that Olbermann nonfans are "biase"....well, hello!.....
Who here has claimed not to be biased in the sense that they hold an ideology and would like to see that side represented on a "news show" when Olbermann colors the issues in one color or makes his usual accusations and insinuations such as the one that Bush is pressuring Iran into war?

That it would never occur to you that by comparing the bias of bloggers to the bias of a news anchor is precisely agreeing with the contentions of we "biased" people here, doesn't surprise me.

The only person who makes a stab here at pretending to be nonbiased until put into a corner...and then tries to wiggle out by saying...ah..hem.....

"Oh, yes, I'm biased. I like Olbermann, just as.YOU like O'Rellly (not that you know at all that you're talking to an Ol'Reilly fan, it's just a underhanded slam on your part), so don't try to make me denounce him!"---

THAT person is YOU.

"Craigs: Thanks for backing me up."

No Problem at all.

"My mistake was One thing is perfectly clear. The Olbermann haters are every bit as biased as he is. In short, they ARE him!"

No Doubt. I think Olbermann is quite biased but it seems many on this site are just fine with Johnny Dollar spinning right and smearing himself

Posted by: craigs at March 31, 2007 3:24 AM
Get a room, boys! I beg to differ, I don't think very mant people here actually "hate" Ulbermahn, "despise" might be a better word. I despise his show and it's contents, mostly. We are not "him", we support our troops and our president, big difference, boys.

You keep saying I have to 'defend' my opinions, my assertions, or my speculations to you simply because you weren't satisfied with my previous explanations. Thats YOUR problem I don't owe you a damned thing, you sanctimoneous bitch!

Posted by: Mike at March 31, 2007 1:45 AM
one word, classy. Gets his ass handed to him by a woman and he calls names. "We're not like that" says he.....

"I really didn't realize until the last hour or so what a total BITCH you are!"

Oh, you're going to be more and more acutely aware of that everyday you post on this board. Your b.s. is over, my friend.

Posted by: Cecelia at March 31, 2007 1:57 AM
Looks like Mike will have to change his name, again.....not pro olbermann- just anti-hypocrisy was a good one, ironic,but, a good one, since you are actually pro olbermann and a hypocrite!

"Get a room, boys! "

Why would I do that? I have your girlfriend and mom to service me.

Mike "traitor" Ware heckles and mocks McCain during news conference in Bahgdad while talking about progress being made. A "disgrace" as quoted by a Bahgdad official, afterwards. Also, Ware confessed to "staying drunk" while in Bahgdad to Bill Mahr and they both have a nice laugh. A good chance for Ulbermahn to slam Communist Network News, will he? Or, will he ignore it.