I once called into work dead.

I got away with it because they said nobody ever used that excuse.

Meanwhile.......

Hillary says she's not gay.

Larry Craig said he's not gay.

Amarama Ding-Dong says there's no gay people in his country.

I wonder if Keith will have fair and balanced reporting about this?

Oh yeah! And Ted Kennedy is going to come out next and say he's not a drunk.

from one of the loons on special comment night

"TO, Marie, so insightful. He's probably on pain meds. However, at certain points during the SC, I regretted sleeping through history in high school. Sometimes, he's a bit too smart."

So they think he was spaced out on pains meds during the SC and they admit they know nothing about history. Nice

Why not wait til next weekend for this much wanted "review"???

This is absurd.

BRING BACK JOHNNY D ALL THE TIME!!!!!!

PLEASE!!

The ad, though sleazy in its use of Osama and Saddam, didn't question Cleland's patriotism. It questioned his political courage and judgment. It focused narrowly on his behavior in office and his actual votes against the Homeland Security Department. With images of Bin Laden and Saddam flashing onscreen, a narrator declared that, "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead." The ad then listed Cleland's votes against the Homeland Security Department and said he was stalling "the president's vital homeland security efforts." It concluded: "Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead, but the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading."
Unfortunately, Cleland did a lousy job of responding to such attacks. As he was pummeled on national security—clearly the issue of the day as war with Iraq neared, Cleland stuck to stale Democratic themes like Social Security. Occasionally, Cleland and his supporters counterattacked, but they were ineffective

From the Saloon article Johnny linked

The orange ten year old is back. And back with him are the Kos kid rants and the silly paranoid freak outs of the insecure and unbalanced putzes who write on the Huffington post. Where else would the most hated man at ESPN do his show prep? I can only imagine the orange hued putz sitting in his hospital bed---a bedside that I’m sure remained unvested owing to the putziness of its occupant, making his best Edward R face in the mirror in preparation to read someone else’s words in his special ed comment. I wonder if a build up of spray on tan can make an appy go hot.

Finally tonight, as promised, a special comment on Mr. Bush’s smear today of MoveOn.org, and in a larger context, his smear of criticism of his own political front men

Leave it to the orange putz. He would sooner chew off his limp and flabby arm—an arm that has never played any sport, despite Keithy making a living of snotty cheap shots comments on men who did have what it takes to play sports on a pro basis---then be critical in any way to his lefty masters at Can’t MOVE ON.org. Besides, only Keithy and the Kos kids can launch vicious attacks on other Americans. Only Olbytard can call a man who has spent his entire Adult life serving his nation, earning a bronze star with V clusters, and earning a PHD at Princeton (what did our hero Keithy get his degree in again????).Yup Keithy can call other Americans liars, killers, racists, sexists, woops-well only Keithy, the Kos kids, and now Can’t Move On. How dare anyone challenge Keithy’s rules, by saying Can’t Move On is as vile as they are vicious?

President Bush reflected on the ad:

I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military. And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. That leads me to come to this conclusion that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal.

Of course Bush is correct. The Democrats, of the DEMOCRAT party would like nothing better then to dig out their mood lamps, bongs, and “Hey LBJ , HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY” and call our troops baby killers and Nazis ( oh wait---Dick Durbin already did that). But that would cost votes and in olbyloon land, ethics and true feelings come second to votes and keeping power.

First off, it’s Democratic Party, sir. You keep pretending you are not a politician, so stop using words your party made up. Show a little respect.

Firstly----hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.Sorry. Secondly, why is the non political Olbytoon defending the democrat party? Why does old olby care what Bush and almost all of America calls the democrat party? Oh wait, Olbytoon is political, and deeply far, far, left in the democrat party. As for showing a little respect---hmm like refusing to refer to the President by his twice elected title? Like that orange Keithy?

Secondly, you could say this seriously after the advertising mugging of Senator Max Cleland, after the Swift Boating of John Kerry?

What mugging? Cleland lost—and to explain his loss the dems lied about why he lost (see above). As for John Kerry, hmmm, who knows more about that—John O’Neil who was there or little Olbyloon who only knows what he read while on a lefty blue blog? I’ll go for O’Neil. Hmmm, Keithy why no respect for vets who were there and saw exactly what Kerry did do in his four months in Vietnam?

That one was OK, Mr. Bush? Terrorizing your own people in hopes of getting them to vote for your own party has never brought as much as a public comment from you.

Why should it? It has no basis in fact, or reality. It’s another talking point Keithy picked up while surfing the far lefty smear sites, that olbyloons and democrats no deceive themselves into thinking true.

The Republican ham-stringing of Captain Max Cleland and the lying about Lieutenant John Kerry, those met with your approval?
Hmm, “ham-stringing”, sounds insensitive, and plainly vicious when describing man who lost the use of his legs, and an arm lost to an accident involving a dropped grenade? Oh wait, insensitive and vicious is what Olbytan is all about. Lying about John Kerry? Hmmm, what was Keithy saying about respect again?

But a shot at General Petraeus, about whom you conveniently ignore it, is you who reduced him from four-star hero to political hack, that merits this pithy, juvenile blast at the Democrats on national television?

Say baseball card boy, shouldn’t that be the Democratics, and not Demcrats? Come on Bathtub boy, show a little respect.

When George McClellan tried to make policy for the Union in the Civil War, President Lincoln finally fired his chief general, even though he knew McClellan could galvanize political opposition, as he did, when McClellan ran as Lincoln’s presidential opponent in 1864, and nearly defeated our greatest president.

Wow, Olbytard is a dope. Well, what do you expect----his major was communications. Lincoln dumped little Mac because he would not use the Army of the Potomac, and when he did he lost, and lost, and lost.

Even when the conduit flowed the other way, and Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear the Army because it would not defer the service of one of McCarthy’s staff aides, the entire civilian and Defense Department structures, after four years of fearful servitude, rose up against McCarthy and said enough, and buried him.

Yet, fifty years hence the Verona transcripts show Senator McCarthy was right, the Soviets did have moles.

The man does not understand that serving officers cannot double as serving political ops is not so much his fault as it is your good exploitable fortune. Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the general’s skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of the planted last question at a news conference to indicate, once again, that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party, in terms of character assassination, and changing the fabric of our nation, and no right for your opponents or critics to as much as respond.

Funny, when Olby’s man crush used General Wesley Clark as a prop, olby said not a word. Speaking of hiding behind skirts, where was Olby’s outrage when his boy crush Bill Clinton hides behind Janet Reno’s skirts as 87 Americans were immolated at Waco, Texas?

Excellent rebuttal to the inane Special Comment, billy. Olbermann shows his ignorance more and more with every one of his editorials.

this isn't as riveting as a Ko special comment but a fangirl has shared her dream about KO - don't read this on an empty stomach, or a full stomach:

"I had the most wonderful dream on Saturday night, and it continued last night. I don't think that has ever happened to me. And yes, it was about Keith. The best part..............I remember, vividly, how close we got. Very close. ahem. It was so real that I woke up feeling like I had cheated on my DH. It literally feels like I had my arms wrapped around that marvelous body. sigh. I never think of him like that when I am awake............honest. Makes me look forward to my next dream......."

What was KO's point about President Truman relieving General Macarthur of command? That was an example of our system of government working exactly as it was mandated to.

A very popular general who had a large part in leading our forces in the Pacific in WWII to victory defied the supreme authority of the President in these matters after the war. Just as it should have the President won and the General lost.

Is KO advocating that the military should be the supreme authority today? Does he advocate that we cast around for any powerful leader in the military who disagrees with the President to take control?

I have no idea what KO really wants to happen.

For myself, I'll stick with our history of our elected civilian government being the Supreme Commander of all our military forces.

Grammie

"I have no idea what KO really wants to happen"

I am not sure exactly what KO actually said regarding Truman and MaCarthy, but I'm pretty certain that what KO "wants" is the same thing I want for my country, .....a competent president and commander in chief.

expanded dialog on Olbermann calling Republicans racists (blog comments overall are worth a read if you have the time):

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/09/24/olbermann-suggests-white-wing-gop-candidates-racist-want-re-segregate

Posted by: news you can use at September 24, 2007 11:43 AM

This is must read stuff for anyone who has any question about whether Olbermann is a "news" man and a "journalist" as he claims to be. In the link above, Olbermann purports to be conducting a "news" interview. What he is actually doing is accusing Republicans of being racists and having plans to get rid of federal judges who won't impose segregation (I'm not making this up). Here's Olbermann:

"When the Republican presidential candidates refuse to debate at black or Hispanic venues, why are they not being asked if they're as racist as that seems?"

and then this whopper:

"Is it possible they're [Republicans] actually hoping to move backwards in this, that there is some part of the Republican party that says, you know, we got to roll back, those activist judges in Brown versus Board of Education, we got to get rid of them?"

So, a student of journalism might ask, what evidence does Olbermann have to point to that Republicans chose to skip the minority sponsored debates because of the race, color or national origin of the sponsors? Was any Republican asked whether race was a factor in skipping these debates? Was any person who might have fact based knowledge of the motivations of the Republicans in skipping these debates asked about this? How is it that "journalist" Keith trots out a notoriously liberal, anti-Republican who screams "racism" at the drop of a hat to answer questions about whether racism against minorities has occurred? Does the interviewee possess some special knowledge about the motivations of these Republicans in skipping this debate? Are there other reasons besides racism that could plausibly account for the Republicans missing these debates? Did "journalist" Keith investigate any other possible reasons besides the race angle to find out why the Republicans skipped the debate?

What about the "Republican" plot to oust federal judges who won't support segregation. Exactly what is the plan to force them out? What is "journalist" Keith's source for getting the lowdown on this plot?

I would be interested in hearing from any one who seriously contends that Keith is a competent "journalist" to please weigh in on these questions.

And then putting Petreaus out like the god of all knowledge and information, ( while everyone knows the White House wrote his script, weeks before )

Posted by: at September 25, 2007 7:01 PM

"Everyone?" Really? You know this, how? Olbermahn say so? Daily Kuss? Puffington? Crystal ball?

Chicken Blogger, so your solution to this problem you perceive is what?

As I said earlier "For myself, I'll stick with our history of our elected civilian government being the Supreme Commander of all our military forces.".

I'm sorry a basic tenet of our government given to us by our Founding Fathers doesn't meet with your approval. Take it up with them if you ever run into them.

Grammie

Who said anyhting about fences?

You're not sly, philby/9:19. Transparent, in fact.

RK, your post reminded me that I wanted to ask what, if anything, happened to the Flucker that he doesn't seem to be darkening our doorstep anymore.

Grammie

RK, your post reminded me that I wanted to ask what, if anything, happened to the Flucker that he doesn't seem to be darkening our doorstep anymore.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at September 25, 2007 9:59 PM

Different meds? Different dealer? I don't know. You could ask one of his personalities, but, I don't think you'll get a straight answer.

Thanks, RK. I was out of everything for over two weeks and didn't know if it was perhaps a Patsy or River Dog thing.

Grammie

Did you see the part where the moron paranoid Bovine, once again, tried to pin on me someone else's post?

Posted by: EXCUSE ME YOU TWO MYOPIC DUMBSHITS! at September 25, 2007 11:29 PM

What are you referring to, patsy? Clarify, please. As far as river Dog, can't say for sure, but, where is riverdog now? Vanished in the mist? By the way, with this last one you are up to 47, give or take a couple.

patsy, you got nothing, as usual. Desperate and psychotic, indeed.

Hey look, it's the classic "you got nothing, as usual" play made famous by the infamous deplorable Jeff.

Hey, look, it's mike. Defending another psychotic olbyloon (like himself) with absolutely nothing but "chirp, chirp."

Jeff, you got nothing, as usual, Desperate and phychotic, indeed.

Mike,

Take a look at my post above from September 24, 2007 11:53 PM on this thread. Olbermann is a left wing idealogue, which means his attempt to pass himself off as a mainstream "news" anchor and "journalist" is a hoax and an affront to responsible jouralism? Do you agree? If not, why not?

Hank, I have NEVER defended Olbermann as a straight up news journalist. If you think I have, then you haven't been reading my posts. I don't really know or care what MSNBC supposedly calls him on it's website. I keep seeing references to him on this blog as a "journalist", but I don't see these claims on his show, or in it's advertisements.

Yes Hank, he is biased, and I've said that before, but I don't believe he is a "hack" either.

That said, I very much appreciate Olbermann for what he actually is, and what any intelligent person who watches him regularly understands him to be:....A sorely needed voice for the opposition that is largely absent on television news, .... the same television news that ironically has an over - abundance of similar voices from the right that in my opinion, exibit even more bias than Olbermann does, thanks largely to Fox "News".

Mike,

My problem with Olbermann, Mike is that he pompously recites the left wing playbook but won't allow scrutiny of his ourageous accusations. If he wants to say that Guiliani, McCain and Romney are racists, that is a very serious accusation (just like Olbermann's phony "O'reilly supports Nazis" crap) as is the alleged Republican plot to get rid of judges who won't buy off on segregation.

If Olbermann says it, he should back it up, don't hide behind parrots who nod their head and dutifully agree with everything you say.

Olbermann likes to talk tough, give stupid condescending "Speshul Komments, scowl sternly at the camera and remind us that pro athletes fear to take him on because he would make them pay ("I have never gotten a pie in the face or someone swearing at me. I have heard from others there have been players that have thought about it but when they see -- I am their height or bigger -- they decide maybe this confrontation is not really worth it."), but will never sit down with anyone from the other side of the political spectrum and allow his views to be challenged else he be exposed as for the lightweight he is.

This is just the cartoonish behavior of a buffoon. It is beyond me why anyone would give credence to such a delusional smear merchant.

Finally, how can you say that "voices from the right" (whoever you are referring to here) are more biased than Olbermann? Olbermann is THE ONLY cable news host who will not allow opposing opinions on his show!

"Olbermann is THE ONLY cable news host who will not allow opposing opinions on his show."

Yes, but that also makes him THE ONLY cable news hosts who will not allow opposing talking heads to shout down each other to the point where the viewer often doesn't really know what any of them actually intended to say.

While I don't necessarily condone his never having opposition voices on the show, I DO approve of allowing whoever is on to finish a thought in depth rather than be forced to respond to endless beside the point innuendu being thrown at them from either the host, or another guest.

Hank, in the end, I suspect what your real problem is with Keith Olbermann is that you are or the right and you don't agree with what he says.

That's like saying I have the best tv in the world. The picture is never off-color, never snowy or distorted. That's because it has no picture tube!

"That's like saying I hav the best tv in the world. The picture is never off-color, never snowy or distorted. That's because it has no picture tube!"

By far the silliest metaphor I've ever seen you use Johnny.

Makes sense, to me.

(*){-}[^]----(){+}{+}{+}[=][=][=]

-------Oh, really?

That's like saying I hav the best tv in the world. The picture is never off-color, never snowy or distorted. That's because it has no picture tube!"

By far the silliest metaphor I've ever seen you use Johnny.

Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2007 5:04 PM

It's a perfect metaphor.

If you turn a news analysis show into a one-sided one-opinion DNC fest, it's certainly true that you run no risk of anyone talking over anyone else (snow, static, tint problems).

Of course you also don't have the full picture of an issue or anything that challenges preconceptions or truly informs (no picture tube) either, which is rather the point of journalism and news analysis in the first place...duh...

(*){] Zactly.

Cecelia: "it's a perfect metaphor"

Well, I wouldn't really expect you to disagree with Johnny about anything.

Now, about the metaphor:

First, lets ignore today's obvious reality that the best tv's in the world today DON'T, in fact have picture tubes and pretend they still do.

To equate Olbermann with getting no picture at all is obviously wrong. Maybe a broken picture tube with one of it's three color guns broken might have made a better, if a somewhat cumbersome metaphor.

You're consistant, and WRONG analysis of Countdown is that a one sided show that does in fact, offers more in depth analysis of issues has no place on cable TV is the problem. To the contrary, I maintain that it maintains a very important place in the marketplace of political ideas....given today's competing realities.


You're consistant, and equally WRONG assumption that Countdown viewers only get news from this single source is the other fly in your ointment.

Countdown simply gives those of us already rightfully distrustful of the status quo a more in depth and customer friendly tool in which to explore ideas that simply won't be explored anywhere else on cable, .... and folks such as Johnny and yourself obviously want to that option to be erased entirely.

One night last week, I turned to AC 360, and Cooper squandered the whole damned hour on OJ Simpson. That was right after Larry King had just finished doing the same thing, only to be followed with a repeat AC Cooper hour of OJ Simpson all over again.

Turn to O'Reilly, and you often get tripe like "activist liberal judges" and "San Francisco Liberals" spotlighted for an entire hour.

That kind of focus on non-news and non-issues often goes on for the whole of primetime on both Fox and CNN. MSNBC at least focuses on politics for a few hours, mostly with Hardball and Countdown.

Same thing different day. We know, you love Olbermahn. Kissee, kissee, smooch, smooch.

Mike, you at least admit that KO is one sided and dissenting opinion is not presented on Meltdown.

Given this circumstance, do you think it is more likely or less likely that Olberman will have to strive to ensure that his on air statements are truthful and reliably sourced if all of his guests are people who agree with his point of view?

See my point, Mike? Having a diversity of opinion has the effect of keeping the host honest, which is something that would be a desirable change for Meltdown.

Hank: "See my point, Mike?"

Yes I do Hank....and to tell the truth, I'd like to see KO take on some more adversarial quests myself, although that obviously isn't my call. However, I don't want to see another shoutfest show.

I suspect that his reason for his format lies more with the obvious fact that he is not a particularly skilled 1 on 1 debater with ideological adversaries than anything else, but he IS a very skilled orator. He knows this.

I also think you underate KO's own audience with your fears about "keeping him honest". For the most part, his audience is NOT stupid, and would not tolerate his going too far. I hear very few, if any actual lies on his show. If anything, his bias is limited to presenting a more or less one sided truth. Yes, like with ANY single media source, there are things you won't hear on his show, but that is what the other media is for.

Who can forget KO's refusal to air the Pelosi "planegate" affair for several days while the right wing shows were virtually crucifying her over it? Johnny blasted KO mercilessly for his reluctance to join in the choir - BUT - as it turned out, Pelosi never requested that plane at all, and Olbermann turned out to be one of the first ones on cable to actually air the TRUTH about it, and then Johnny crucified him for THAT!

BTW, I never heard any apologies from the right over that lie either.

It works both ways.

his audience is NOT stupid, and would not tolerate his going too far. I hear very few, if any actual lies on his show.

Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2007 10:37 PM

So, the nazi salute wasn't going too far? Fox News is worse than AQ and the KKK isn't going too far? No lies? Are you deaf or just stupid? Oh, you're an olbypologist. My bad.

Jeff: "Are you deaf or just stupid?"

I'll always be a lot smarter than you...but I realize that ain't really saying much.

Mike,

The Nazi salute, saying that O'Reilly "supports Nazis, and comparisons of Fox News to al Qaeda and the KKK are perfect examples of the lack of opposing viewpoints allowing him to get away with ourageous left wing tripe. Also, making accusations that Romney, Guiliani and McCain are racists and that Republicans are plotting to get rid of federal judges who won't support segregation are more examples of his lack of accountability because he won't allow other viewpoints.

Tell me this Hank, when has having on opposing guests on done anything to moderate the inflammatory opinions of O'Reilly or Hannity?

If you want to hear an incredibly biased diatribe, just listen to Hannity's radio show sometime.

mikes description of "debating" more like diverting........

his audience is NOT stupid, and would not tolerate his going too far. I hear very few, if any actual lies on his show.

Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2007 10:37 PM

So, the nazi salute wasn't going too far? Fox News is worse than AQ and the KKK isn't going too far? No lies? Are you deaf or just stupid? Oh, you're an olbypologist. My bad.

Posted by: royal king at September 26, 2007 11:04 PM

>>>>>The diversion------

Jeff: "Are you deaf or just stupid?"

I'll always be a lot smarter than you...but I realize that ain't really saying much.

Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2007 11:17 PM

The Nazi salute and the comments you referred to were NOT done on his show, dumbass!

All of that was also taken completely out of context.

I know why you keep being called stupid a "diversion":....That way you can keep telling yourself that people don't REALLY think you're as dumb as a box of rocks!

So what part of the Nazi salute was taken out of context?

"So what part of the Nazi salute was taken out of context?"

It wasn't done on his show, AND he was just clowning around. Ever clowned around James? It was also intended to mock Bill O'Reilly for his ON AIR falsely demeaning of US troops by claiming THEY did the Malmedy massacre, instead of the other way around as it actually happened.

The Nazi salute and the comments you referred to were NOT done on his show, dumbass!

All of that was also taken completely out of context.

I know why you keep being called stupid a "diversion":....That way you can keep telling yourself that people don't REALLY think you're as dumb as a box of rocks!

Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2007 12:20 AM

Oh, it's the big one, myrtle! So, Hannity flips off the troops and tells them they suck hind tit while he's not on "his show" it would be ok to you, olbypologist? How is a nazi salute taken out of context? What little credibility you had just went out the window, little mikey. This is one for the hard drive!

>>>>>Cee, take note of the above quote made by the queen of the olbyloons.

Jeff: "How is a Nazi salute taken out of context?"

If you are a dumb deluded rube like yourself who doesn't understand a joke...or anything else any more complex than a damned cow.

Drop on by dumbass, and I'll give you good ole Nazi salute myself!

Jeff: "How is a Nazi salute taken out of context?"

If you are a dumb deluded rube like yourself who doesn't understand a joke...or anything else any more complex than a damned cow.

Drop on by dumbass, and I'll give you good ole Nazi salute myself!

If you are a dumb deluded rube like yourself who doesn't understand a joke...or anything else any more complex than a damned cow.

Drop on by dumbass, and I'll give you good ole Nazi salute myself!

Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2007 2:01 AM

Right after you tell a soldier who is off to Iraq to fight for your sorry ass he or she is "doomed to die" find a holocaust survivor, give them the nazi salute and tell them you are "just joking" you loser. I dare you.

No Jeff, I would never give a holocaust survivor a Nazi salute....but I would gladly give YOU one...because your deluded thinking comes as close to how a Nazi thinks as I've ever encountered.

"....but I would gladly give YOU one..."

What a sad commentary that is!

There is no circumstance that a 'Nazi Salute' is appropriate except in a documentary or a movie of the era.

Perhaps in hundreds of years from now the 'Sieg Heil' salute will have lost the bulk of its meaning. I hope not. This was a chapter in mankind's history that never should be forgotten.

We should also never forget that Marxism/Communism under Stalin resulted in more deaths by far than Hitler caused.

This should be a lesson for us. And yes I know someone or two or three is going to tell me that GWB is far worse than Hitler, Stalin, UBL etc.

That is what makes our country great.
\
Grammie

Janet: "What a sad commentary that is."

Get a life, for God's sake!

In my business, I know several collectors and dealers of Nazi paraphernalia, and those folks are anything BUT admirers of Adoph Hitler and the Nazi's.

Perhaps you prefer the laws of France and Germany, which have outlawed Nazi paraphernalia, along with all talk and symbols?

Yes, I prefer to remember and even keep the symbols of a sad time in the history of the world so we can remember that it really happened.

No, the fact that I or anyone else might see nothing particularly symbolic or synister about playfully using a Nazi salute in the proper company says nothing negative about my values, as you seem to imply.

I'll put my utter reverence to the victims of the holocaust and my disdain for it's creator against your's anytime.

Are you people capable of keeping ANYTHING in it's proper context?

In my business, I know several collectors and dealers of Nazi paraphernalia, and those folks are anything BUT admirers of Adoph Hitler and the Nazi's.

posted by mike

Talk about out of context, wow. The spin master.

"No, the fact that I or anyone else might see nothing particularly symbolic or synister about playfully using a Nazi salute in the proper company says nothing negative about my values, as you seem to imply."

OK, Mike, so the Nazi salute is OK because it was one big JOKE... alright now we get it. How about this: The other night Olbermann made a completely unsupported and idiotic charge that Romney, Guiliani and NcCain are racists because they decided to skip a minority sponsored debate. Let's say that O'Reilly wanted to "make fun" of Keith for using racially charged rhetoric to push his left fringe agenda and shows up at a news conference with a white hood over his head and held a paper mask of Olbermann over his face. You know that the libs, hypocrites that they are, would come after O'Reilly on this. But according to Mike this would be OK because:

"[T]he fact that I or anyone else might see nothing particularly symbolic or synister about playfully using a [white hood] in the proper company says nothing negative about my values, as you seem to imply.

I'll put my utter reverence to the victims of [Jim Crow] and my disdain for it's creator against your's anytime.

Are you people capable of keeping ANYTHING in it's proper context?"

What do you think about the fact that the Anti-Defamation League sent a letter to Olbermann admonishing him for his disgusting behavior and the use of the Seig Heil salute? The fact that you are willing to place your allegience to a left wing fringe cheerleader above the wishes of those who have endured unimaginable suffering speaks very poorly of you. You are absolutely clueless on this issue.

Well put, hank,

Hank:

"What do you think about the fact that the anti-defamation league sent a letter to Olbermann admonishing him for his disgusting behaviour and the use of the Seig Heil salute:

I think I respect their opinion and I also question KO's judgement in using that salute because he IS a public figure. But I don't believe him doing it was a particularly sinister occurance ... he simply lacked proper judgement in that situation, something EVERY public figure has been guilty of on accasions. Let it go please!

I also believe organizations like the Anti-defamation league would probably like to see anti Nazi law in the US like they have in France and Germany. I disgree because that would be a serious infringement on our right to free speech, and more improtantly, it also represents a gross misunderstanding of the mindset of most who collect Nazi items and occasionally reference Nazi symbolism.

Let it go please!

Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2007 12:10 PM

Translation: He just wants to act like it never happened/keep the partisan blinders on.

Hank, I'm just curious, why did you choose to substitute a reference to Jim Crow in place of my reference to the holocaust right in the middle of a quote that you attributed to me?

It hardly seems that kind of a change could have been done by mistake.

I'm not sure how GWB being worse than Hitler, Stalin, UBL makes our country great

posted by olbyloon

Sounds like you are doing the chugging. Must be that french wine......nasty.

Let it go please!

Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2007 12:10 PM

>>>>minutes later......

Hank, I'm just curious, why did you choose to substitute a reference to Jim Crow in place of my reference to the holocaust right in the middle of a quote that you attributed to me?

It hardly seems that kind of a change could have been done by mistake.

Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2007 1:19 PM

Can't let this go? No time to "prove" cee wrong, though?

"Hank, I'm just curious, why did you choose to substitute a reference to Jim Crow in place of my reference to the holocaust right in the middle of a quote that you attributed to me? It hardly seems that kind of a change could have been done by mistake."

Posted by: Mike at September 27, 2007 1:19 PM

It was not a mistake. Mike, apparently my analogy went over your head. You seemed to say that Olbermann using a gesture (Seig Heil salute) that is a symbol of terror to a historically oppressed minority group (Jewish people) is not a big deal. So, I came up with a hypothethical where O'Reilly was basically doing the same thing to Olbermann to "make fun" of him by using a prop (a white hood) that is a symbol of terror to another historically oppressed minority group (blacks). Then I applied your reasoning to show that, if we think like you, we shouldn't make a big deal about people wearing white hoods to spoof those (Olbermann) who use racially charged rhetoric to advance political agendas.

Of course, the truth is that all reasonable people can agree that the public use of the Seig Heil salute (which Olbermann is guilty of) and white hoods are equally odious and repugnant. Under your reasoning, since the public use of the Seig Heil salute is not a big deal, the public use of white hoods shouldn't be either. I was using your own words against you.

No Hank, you were never using "my" reasoning, because you don't understand my reasoning. SO don't pretend that you do.

Secondly, don't take something I said, place it in quotes, change a critical word or two, and then claim your convoluted reasoning "went over my head".

The Sieg Heil Nazi salute is NOT just an exclusive afront to the Jewish people. While they bore much of the mysery of WWII and the Nazi oppresion, they were FAR from alone. Therefore you're analogy comparing it to Jim Crow and white hoods holds no water. They are two entirely different entities and any comparison is intrisically ignorant.

Hank, very good analogy on many levels.

The Sig Heil salute, along with other symbols, is reminiscent and emblematic of much more than just the horror of the Holocaust against the Jews.

The Holocaust was directed against everyone they considered inferior or a traitor to their cult: the Slavic people; Gypsies; Blacks; Catholics; Protestants; Communists etc.

The early KKK targeted Blacks, Catholics, and Jews. It progressed to also include homosexuals, immigrants, Communists, and "n----- lovers."

Although drastically different in scope, one a government the other a terrorist group, they both were blots on human history with very similar ideologies and with symbols that can evoke their horrors to many millions who were their victims and many more millions who never were personally and directly affected by either.

Nazis have their Sig Heil, swastikas, runic double lightning bolts and Death Heads.

The KKK has white robes, white hoods, burning crosses, nooses hanging over tree limbs and of late even the swastika.

There is nothing even remotely humorous about either of these groups or their symbols. And God strike me dead if any of their victims got a chuckle out of someone using them to smear a competitor who can not be even remotely connected to their philosophies.

KO's 'so called' humor was indefensible.

And anyone who used KKK symbols to attack a competitor, unless their competitor was David Duke or one of his ilk, would be equally indefensible.

The hypothetical analogy you made was right on point. It was not based on a point by point equivalency between the scope and mechanics of the two entities and their symbols but rather the inherent evilness of both philosophies and their power to evoke memories, fear, dread and revulsion in people.

Grammie

The hypothetical analogy you made was right on point. It was not based on a point by point equivalency between the scope and mechanics of the two entities and their symbols but rather the inherent evilness of both philosophies and their power to evoke memories, fear, dread and revulsion in people.

Grammie

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at September 28, 2007 5:17 PM

I think all your remarks apply to communism too, Grammie.

However, few people under thirty know its bloody history.

Here's a great link from Reason Online, that you may find interesting.

It's one of the best pieces on Hollywood's "missing" movies that I've read.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27732.html

I agree, great analogy, hank. Only a partisan hack like mike would claim you were wrong 3 times in 3 sentences with absolutely no proof or explanation as to why you were wrong. Just, "you're wrong!"

Cecelia, thanks for the link. I did enjoy reading it and it reinforced what I had learned from Ronaldus Magnificus regarding this. It seems that his exposure to the communist influence in Hollywood was what set him on the path he took that finally led to the liberation of Eastern Europe from at communism.

For the purposes of that post I confined my comment to KO and Hank's first class analogy, Nazis vs the KKK.. I have stated here on several occasions that the only system that was more heinous than Naziism and Fascism was and is Communism.

One of the movies mentioned, Song of Russia, I think i had seen on TV and it may have had Jane Wyman in it. The part that stands out in my mind is the happy faced joyous Ukrainians (peasants) singing and cheering for their great harvest.

I don't remember who wrote it but I remember someone who wrote that there is no equivalent in a democracy to Communist nations having great celebrations and complimentary stories in all the media for the greatest harvest ever seen, EACH YEAR. Ditto for the trains, taxis etc.

Have you ever read Prodigal Son by David Horowitz? Your post brought it to mind because his parents were virtually Soviet agents. It called to mind his account of his parents and their cohorts going through mental gymnastics every time Stalin changed directions from the Spanish Civil War through the Non Aggression Pact through the War and into the Cold War.

Grammie

ave you ever read Prodigal Son by David Horowitz? Your post brought it to mind because his parents were virtually Soviet agents. It called to mind his account of his parents and their cohorts going through mental gymnastics every time Stalin changed directions from the Spanish Civil War through the Non Aggression Pact through the War and into the Cold War.

Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at September 28, 2007 9:55 PM

Grammie,

I haven't read Horowitz's book, but I am familiar with him and have read articles by him and have seen his website frontpagemagazine.com.

I'm glad for his evolution into truth, but I'm not a fan of Horowitz. In my opinion Horowitz went from a hyperbole prone leftwinger to a hyperbole prone rightwinger.

An improvement to be sure, but still not someone I'd trust.

PS : Horowitz is an asshole

Posted by: at September 29, 2007 12:49 AM

PPS : So are you.... :D

the gloriously pretentious Celia.

---------- Correction: the gloriously pretentious and blissfully ignorant Cecelia.

Posted by: at September 29, 2007 6:47 PM

The truth is in the adverbs... :D

In such a simple sentence, you prove the truth of both phrases!

Posted by: at September 29, 2007 11:10 PM

Still the Freudians in all your parts of speech... :D

That would be more Jungian than Freudian, but it is neither. I shouldn't be practicing Dime Store psychology if I were without a dime.

Posted by: at October 1, 2007 8:41 AM

Well, that certainly would make it worth more than your usual comments.