Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    Philly wrote: Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. It's not shingles that makes you a ... [more](10)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    October 1, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - October 1, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • BUSH WANTS TO BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB IRAN: Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker; Richard Wolffe
    • 2008 POLITICS: Craig Crawford
    • BILL O'REILLY: The flogging continues.

    He's tanned (of course!), rested, and ready, as Keith Oralmann bellows the opening spiel: White House "warmongers" want to bomb Iran, Sy Hersh, "ultra-conservatives" revolt against Rudy, Britney Spears, and--could there by any doubt?--O'Reilly yet again. This is a new show, right? Oh well, it's Blue Monday at Olbermann Watch.

    Bathtub Boy

    #5: "Chicken and Waffles" Olbermann kicked things off with Bush wanting to go to war with Iran. "It's more sable-rattling", claimed the smooth-talking baseball card collector. Reference to "neocons" [Ding!]. Olby fixation on the non-binding sense-of-the-Senate resolution about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. How dare the Senate call them terrorists! Sy said it's all part of the "campaign". Olbermannijad said there is no compelling evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, or that any of their military are involved in terrorism. Once more Keith defends Iran. We ask again, is this a new show? Great thanks.

    Next up, Richard Wolffe. Man, it's deja vu all over again. Well maybe not. Here's a great example of how no matter what anybody says, Herr Olbermann sticks to his talking points like glue:

    WOLFFE MAN: This time around there is no Presidential determination, there is no decision. What you have is a diplomatic track, you have obviously a lot of drumbeats a lot of saber-rattling, but I think we are still some way off that decision....
    OLBERMORONN: Is there no diplomatic track because there is no intention of having one?...
    WOLFFE MAN: Well the diplomatic track is quite serious right now.

    That's Edward R Olbermahn, great journalist, and a hell of a listener! Wolffie, for exposing again how the host of The Hour of Spin is monomaniacal hack: Great Thanks!

    After another O'Reilly attack we got #4: Project Rudy resumes. Christian "extremists" might go third party. Olbermann's Brain chortled about a Rudy "backlash", but doubted a third party nomination would happen. Then Olby was off to ridicule Fred Thompson, and Brain sniggered along. Switching to the Dems, Mr Merkle talked about all the money they made, and why Obama won't win just because he has the most moolah. (Hill sends her appreciation.) Great thanks.

    The Greatest Olbsession of All

    Another O'Reilly attack, and then yet another O'Reilly attack led to #3: Still on top of that yet another O'Reilly attack! Yeah this is the same story as before. Because Olby insisted this would be Bill's "waterloo", and since it ain't happening, then why not flog the story for yet another day? This was a supposed-to-be-funny comedy bit with Olby playing someone being interviewed by an O'Reilly producer. References: "falafel" [Ding!], Olby's lie about Malmedy [Ding!], Andrea Mackris [Ding!], Fox Noise [Ding!], loofahs [Ding!], Malmedy again [Ding!], Mackris again [Ding!], loofahs again [Ding!]. Has Bill O'Reilly ever mentioned KarmaBites? Or Merlot? Or Keith's being hung like a thumbtack? No, but all Monkeymann knows how to do is make personal attacks, in fact the same personal attacks he has made over and over. (This is a new show, right?) Attn Dan Abrams: get a copy of this tape off to the Emmy committee immediately. The Pulitzer people will want to see it too.

    After a "Fixed News" [Ding!] reference, it was on to #2: Fatal airport arrest (regurgitated video), Keith Urban, Mylee Cyrus, . #1: Britney Spears! In the Media Matters Minute, Dana Perino (R): this had something to do with Burma but the upshot of it is that Olbermannijad concluded that the prisoners in Gitmo are "very innocent". No we're not making this up. Bathtub Boy had to make an equivalence between betraying your country and a leader betraying his underlings, so he attacked "Fixed News" [Ding!] Col David Hunt (Blue Blog Source: Think Progress). Hey Keith, tell us about your service record. Oh that's right, you can't even drive a car. Worst, courtesy of some cherry-picked incomplete quotes: Michael Medved (Blue Blog Source: Daily Kos).

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's name sunk to #23,248 on amazon, while "Culture Warrior" is #2,639. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) Barnes & Noble lists the OlbyTome at #39,743; O'Reilly's book is #2,001 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. On Friday the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann could do no better than a third place finish in the coveted, pivotal, much-beloved, critical, all-important "key demo". Harrrrr!


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (162) | | View blog reactions

    162 Comments

    Get off the computer Billy O'leilly. Daddy needs to feed you some creame. Now SHUT-UP and get to sucking like daddy taught you!

    Bill O'lielly we know you hate women because none will sleep with you but please don't let us in on your rape fantasies.

    Anne did a great job on Hannity and Combs. Her books should be required reading for high school students. She is a wonderful patriot who will have another best selling book thanks in no small part to the left wing traitors. Keep attacking her and she will sell more and more books.

    Bill O'lielly, maybe you should hook up with Keith. You both hate woman, well since he cant get a hard-on, I assume that he hates woman. But I bet that he could get it hard for you. You sick little fuck-wad!

    I caught the "comedy" bit about how to respond to a Fox producer "stalking" you. Since when is confronting somebody on camera in public and asking for a statement stalking?

    I thought he might actually say something funny, but I got the feeling even Olberloons at home (the ones watching live, and the ones watching later on DVR, who of course watch all the commercials and don't skip any!) were wondering whose idea that bomb was.

    O'Lielly...Thank you once again for opening the barn door so us town folk get a big ole' whiff of that Liberal Progressive stank to remind us just how vile and noxious you and your kind are.


    Olbermann back down to 3rd place in the ratings.
    Awwwwww.... I think I'll call him Mr. 200 from now on since that seems like his settled ratings spot.

    The O'Reilly attacks are boring
    In the ratings, Olby's not scoring
    Keith's obsessed like a nut
    Always sniffing Bill's butt
    It's the blue blogs that Keith is whoring

    O'lielly,

    You are a sick punk. You, like KO, are the result of a botched partial birth abortion. The surgeon sucked out the brain and spine and left your worthless body quivering. Crap and bark at the moon you puke.

    Factor on Anne Culter: "Her books should be required reading for high school students."

    Why am I not surprised that someone who names himself after a right wing television demogogue would recommend forced extreme right wing indoctination for children?

    Libtards would be having them read Marx and Noam Chomsky. Coulter is mild by comparison.

    Mike wants 2nd graders reading about 2 princes kissing like his hero John "Slip and Fall" Edwards.

    Factor: "mike wants 2nd graders reading about 2 princes kissing like his hero John "Slip and Fall" Edwards."

    No, I'd rather they read about brave military service evaders during wartime calling other posters on a discussion board "cowards".

    Why am I not surprised that someone who names himself after a right wing television demogogue would recommend forced extreme right wing indoctination for children?

    Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 11:37 PM


    This hypocrisy coming from someone who used to have his name linked to one of the farthest left sites on the internets.....

    ---
    This hypocrisy coming from someone who used to have his name linked to one of the farthest left sites on the internets.....
    Posted by: royal king at October 2, 2007 12:08 AM
    =====

    Ain't you the same stupid shit that links his moniker "Bovine Queen" to Dr. Weiners?

    "This hypocrisy coming from someone who used to have his name linked to one of the farthest left sites on the internets....."

    HUH????

    No, I'd rather they read about brave military service evaders during wartime calling other posters on a discussion board "cowards".

    Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 12:01 AM

    How would you know if I am wartime evader Mike? Just because I don't claim to be a war hero like you Mike. Maybe your the one who engaged in the search and destroy missions like your buddy John Kerry always talks about. Don't try and paint me as coward when your side trots out Jesse McBeth the phony soilder.

    O'lielly must work as a person who prepares chocolate confections for shipment. Yes, a fudge packer. Tird burd. Feckless crapweasel. A Liberal in a nutshell.

    Factor:

    "How would you know if I'm a wartime evader, Mike? Just because I haven't claimed to be a war hero like you Mike": Because you have already proven yourself to be a liar every time you claim I ever called myself a "war hero".

    "Don't try to paint me as a coward when your side trots out Jesse McBeth the phony soldier": You already painted yourself as a coward the minute you cowardly called another poster a "coward" on an anonymous internet discussion board.

    HUH????

    Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 12:15 AM


    Selective memory, I see.

    You already painted yourself as a coward the minute you cowardly called another poster a "coward" on an anonymous internet discussion board.

    Posted by: Mike at October 2, 2007 12:25 AM


    Much better to call them a latent storm trouper.

    Mike proves himself to be a coward by defending Olbermann the Iran appologist.

    Olbermannijad said there is no compelling evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, LOL

    Factor" "Mike proves himself to be a coward by deending Olbermann the Iran appologist"

    A rather wierd definition of the word "coward" from one of the wierdest posters on this blog.

    Even the crickets are sleeping, now. Surprised? Not.

    "This brought to us by the SAME person that thinks A-Jad is not a dangerous person and didn't know that person aka "little Hitler" is A-Jad AKA. Things that make you go hmm." RK

    Neither of those opinions came from me. I'm fairly certain you have taken another nuanced opinion and turned into something more extreme.

    It's funny...Janet and Cecelia think I'm too harsh on you, but you keep publicly lying about what I've said. I still don't know if you're doing it intentionally or out of sheer stupidity.

    Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2007 9:00 PM


    What is it about you Rico that makes you such a warmonger? Have you seen war? do you really, really know ANYTHING about it?

    [[["I'll bet you think Ahmadinejad is dangerous, but God help the world if anyone who thinks like you ever come to power."]]]

    Posted by: Mike at September 26, 2007 11:48 PM

    Once again, Jeffy shows us he doesn't understand sarcasm.

    Sarcasm, claims mike! Oh, you got me, there. Did your wife help you come up with that one? I should have known you were just being sarcastic, my bad. In case it wasn't obvious, I'm being sarcastic.

    olielly is a scat-muncher

    O'Lielly, thank you for demonstrating typical libnut behavior. And you wonder why you can't win elections.

    I can understand why they hate Ann! She has more balls than their hero KeithO.

    note: I don't endorse her hateful rhetoric, but she definitely tries to be a humorist. Olbermann takes himself serious, at least between news stories of Britney's loonacy.

    Coulter is a clown. She fleeces you neocons by lying about the left. Folks point out her lies and you girls are left with a book of lies and she's got your money...

    More of the neocon way of thinking: Money above everything...truth, country, family...

    It's beautiful!

    Ann would definitely commandeer more respect on the Football Night in America set than Keith does for her machoness.

    And as far as Sy Hersh, he never met an anti-American conspiracy he didn't like. We're 24 years after that fact, and 16 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, and Hersh still hasn't admitted his tale about KAL 007 actually being a spy plane when it was shot down by Soviet fighters in 1983 was a hoax, even after the documents came out from the ex-Soviet Union showing it was at best a tragic mistake on the part of the MiG pilot. But as long as Bush is in the White House, Sy's Keith's guy, even if his track record for accuracy is below the Rather line.

    (The thing is, Hersh would keep up his string of U.S.-bashing fabrications based on rumor even if Hillary gets elected next year. But if that happens, Hersh would have as much chance to get another live appearance on "Countdown" as Gibson or O'Reilly.)

    Blindrat-
    you lost all credibility when you denied that Olbermann has ever lied yesterday. So begone.

    Benson,

    I gained the credibility back when you posted that crap that Dollar calls "evidence": No quotes, no links...nothing...

    With what you girls call "evidence", it's no wonder you don't believe in evolution...

    What idiots!

    Idiots?

    Keith Olbermann says he is not partisan.
    You deny this is a lie. Obviously you have lost your faculties!
    Or your ability to read.

    Move along again?

    Benson, blindrat is just like the rest of the left who come here...they demand a response, they get a valid argument, then dismiss the argument without posts or evidence....claim victory and disappear....

    I have such a mess on another thread with the leftist whiner Mike......he is MIA (pardon the pun)...

    I have found that blindrat is a waste of time. Save your energy.

    KO is a worthless, lying POS. He has been caught in so many lies it isn't funny. He has the credibility of Media Matters and moveon.org. He must be a butt buddy of George Soros and a toadie of Hillary Clinton's. His little tv show gets no appreciable audience and it is going down every week. It is on its deathbed.

    Benson,

    How is Olbermann "partison"? Believe me, son, I am going somewhere with this...

    I like exposing his idiocy...

    He claimed yesterday that Olbermann has NEVER been caught in a lie. Then was sent to the top ten lies posted here. And he attacked a couple of the ten claiming they were vague.

    Fact is - the other 8 lies are hard facts (like KO's is nonpartisan), but he sticks his fat head back into the sand. Blindrat by choice I suspect.

    PARTISAN: a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

    Sounds like Keith's picture is next to the entry!

    blindrat, you are blind.....

    Just with Olbermann's Special Comments, one could label him a partisan. He has clearly shown he is against the Iraq war....The very definition of a partisan is someone emotionally attached to a cause.

    Have you WATCHED the twitching, staring, swooning, indignant moron when he reads his Special Comments....he is the very essense of "emotion."

    Oy. Like I said, you are a waste of time....I don;t know how you are going to rebut the fact that Olbermann is a partisan.

    anon (11:32),

    Please show me where I stated that Olbermann has never been caught in a lie.

    Can't?

    More neocon bullshit then, eh son?...

    cee,

    Here's the problem, son. You provided no statement to label Olbermann as partisan...just a vague gesture...

    Blindrat is the poster child for how stupid the left can be on this blog... Mike must be soooooo proud to have this dolt defending his positions...

    UhDuh blindrat, uhduh. Keith is surely not partisan. Now go munch on your PB&J without the crust. Its like arguing with a 6 year old.

    Its obvious that rat is stupid... and that is hardly a vague gesture.

    Ouch,

    You don't have a partisan Olbermann quote either, eh son?...

    I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

    That—on this eve of the 4th of July—is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

    The man who said those 17 words—improbably enough—was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair’s-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

    “I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

    The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne’s voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

    We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president’s partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world—but merely that we may function.

    But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne, is an implicit trust—a sacred trust: That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

    Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,” was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.

    And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.

    We enveloped our President in 2001.And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

    And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

    Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

    Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison—at the Constitutional Convention—said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish—the President will keep you out of prison?

    In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental com-pact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens—the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.

    This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of “a permanent Republican majority,” as if such a thing—or a permanent Democratic majority—is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

    Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

    The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.

    The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

    And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

    **I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.**

    **I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.**

    **I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.**

    **I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.**

    **I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.**

    **I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.**

    **I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.**

    **I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.**

    **And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.**

    When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

    “Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people.”

    President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

    It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party’s headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

    And in one night, Nixon transformed it.

    Watergate—instantaneously—became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting—in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood - that he was the law.

    Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.

    Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

    The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the “referee” of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

    But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush—and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal—the average citizen understands that, Sir.

    It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one—and it stinks. And they know it.

    Nixon’s mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

    It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign

    Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.

    But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

    It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them—we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

    We of this time—and our leaders in Congress, of both parties—must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach—get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

    For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

    Resign.

    And give us someone—anyone—about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

    KEITH OLBERMANN, 7/3/2007.

    Partisan: an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause.

    Please note the accusations *marked with **) Mr. Olbermann claims against the sitting executives. These are major pillars of the anti-war movement. The current anti-war movement is a cause consisting of despirate groups committed to ending the war in Iraq.....

    In otherwords....a political movement.

    Please feel free to to go to any of their websites to see the same accusations against President Bush.

    Like I said.....a waste of time.....

    Wonderful, cee!

    We could approach this two ways: You could prove his statements false; or, you could tell me how being anti-Bush makes the man partisan...

    What party is he for? Does he trash the Libertarians? The Greens? Hating Bush is just common sense, child...not partisan. Perhaps you should look up the word "partisan". You seem to have misused it or constructed your proof in the hopes that I'd just scan it for my name...

    More arguments likely left unchallenged by whiner Mike and Robin....

    What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?

    By Lauren Zanolli

    The prospect of Democrats controlling the 110th Congress has raised speculation over a possible suspension of funds for the war in Iraq. Given control of the purse strings, a Democratic Congress would be in the position to force the government to begin the withdrawal of troops. Although they have been hesitant to define their plan for Iraq, some Democrats have hinted at a drastic reduction in funds. When asked in a recent interview how a Democratic Congress could stop the war, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), who is set to chair the Ways and Means Committee should the Democrats win the majority, precociously answered, “You’ve got to be able to pay for the war, don’t you?” Fellow member of the Out of Iraq caucus, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) has stated that “Personally I wouldn’t spend another dime on the war,” and notes that Congress helped force an end to the Vietnam War by refusing to pay for it. 1

    What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?

    Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam. Given the monetary and military investment in Vietnam, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage compared the American withdrawal to “a pregnant lady, abandoned by her lover to face her fate.” 2 Historian Lewis Fanning went so far as to say that “it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it.” 3

    In January of 1973, President Richard Nixon approved the Paris Peace Accords negotiated by Henry Kissinger, which implemented an immediate cease-fire in Vietnam and called for the complete withdrawal of American troops within sixty days. Two months later, Nixon met with South Vietnamese President Thieu and secretly promised him a “severe retaliation” against North Vietnam should they break the cease-fire. Around the same time, Congress began to express outrage at the secret illegal bombings of Cambodia carried out at Nixon’s behest. Accordingly, on June 19, 1973 Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment, which called for a halt to all military activities in Southeast Asia by August 15, thereby ending twelve years of direct U.S. military involvement in the region.

    In the fall of 1974, Nixon resigned under the pressure of the Watergate scandal and was succeeded by Gerald Ford. Congress cut funding to South Vietnam for the upcoming fiscal year from a proposed 1.26 billion to 700 million dollars. These two events prompted Hanoi to make an all-out effort to conquer the South. As the North Vietnamese Communist Party Secretary Le Duan observed in December 1974: “The Americans have withdrawn…this is what marks the opportune moment.” 4

    The NVA drew up a two-year plan for the “liberation” of South Vietnam. Owing to South Vietnam’s weakened state, this would only take fifty-five days. The drastic reduction of American aid to South Vietnam caused a sharp decline in morale, as well as an increase in governmental corruption and a crackdown on domestic political dissent. The South Vietnamese army was severely under-funded, greatly outnumbered, and lacked the support of the American allies with whom they were accustomed to fighting.

    The NVA began its final assault in March of 1975 in the Central Highlands. Ban Me Thout, a strategically important hamlet, quickly fell to North Vietnam. On March 13, a panicked Thieu called for the retreat of his troops, surrendering Pleiku and Kontum to the NVA. Thieu angrily blamed the US for his decision, saying, “If [the U.S.] grant full aid we will hold the whole country, but if they only give half of it, we will only hold half of the country.”5 His decision to retreat increased internal opposition toward him and spurred a chaotic mass exodus of civilians and soldiers that clogged the dilapidated roads to the coast. So many refugees died along the way that the migration along Highway 7B was alternatively described by journalists as the “convoy of tears” and the “convoy of death.” 6 On April 21, President Thieu resigned in a bitter televised speech in which he strongly denounced the United States. Sensing that South Vietnam was on the verge of collapse, the NVA accelerated its attack and reached Saigon on April 23. On the same day, President Ford announced to cheerful students at Tulane University that as far as America was concerned, “the war was over.” The war officially concluded on April 30, as Saigon fell to North Vietnam and the last American personnel were evacuated.

    Can anybody give any real, non-cBS evidence that proves that Keith Olbermoan is not a steaming pile of yak dung?

    Poor blindrat fell into his own trap....Partisan does not mean party "affiliation," ma'am....it is someone with a fervent, emotional commitment to a person, party or cause. Olbermann's own words (**) show he is fervently against the war in Iraq. You cannot claim otherwise within the context of ONE, only one, Special Comment.

    Oh blindrat, you are foolish...partisan comes from latin parte, or "part," or faction...Not "party."

    "Hating Bush is just common sense, child...not partisan."

    Oy! That is the most ignorant statement you have made to date, blindrat......

    And the accusations by Olbermann are of a nature ONLY affiliated with a particular movement in our country at present.....

    I wonder who?

    Not anti-Bush, blindrat....anti-Iraq war. Both of which are partisan positions....by definition.

    Blindrat, you lose.....again.

    Partisan : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance

    Note the term, "party"...

    he, he, he....retreating to rhetorical ignorance again, blindrat?....

    Notice the even simplier word, "or" and those punctuation marks called COMMAS (,)....

    Waste of time.....Where's Sir Loin of Milquetoast? when I need a challenge?

    "Can anybody give any real, non-cBS evidence that proves that Keith Olbermoan is not a steaming pile of yak dung?"


    ###
    I am sure blindrat is up to the challenge!

    cee,

    Look at his non-partisan comment in context boy and quit being ignorant. You don't get to decide how he MEANT the word...ie what definition he chose...

    Sorry blindrat, you're wrong, again....I was responding to your 11:25 AM post:

    "Benson,

    "How is Olbermann "partison"? Believe me, son, I am going somewhere with this...


    ###
    The "I am going somewhere with this..." shows easily you had something specific in mind and voila...I thwarted your little lesson....

    Poor blindrat....you could not do what you usually try and that is define the debate you thinks you can "win."

    What a sneaky guy. Sorry blindrat, thinking people who do not do such childish things like "goin somewhere with this" know "partisan" has nothing to do with political party unless one says, "political partisan."

    I would say Olbermann's Special Comment easily shows a person with very ferevent and specific beliefs and by his actions is spending time on his show making speeches, feels he serves a particular part of a larger movement....the anti-war movement.....by definition.....a partisan.

    Blindrat, stop digging, I can't see you in the pit's darkness anymore.

    cee,

    "Party" adherent was the FIRST definition in Websters, son. And, if you can dig up the entire "not partisan" statement, we can probably figure out how he meant the word. But, you don't have anything but a paraphrase, eh child...?

    Tip: Telling someone that they've lost an arguement, when you actually lost it, doesn't work. Even if you want it to very very badly...

    "Telling someone that they've lost an arguement, when you actually lost it, doesn't work. Even if you want it to very very badly"


    ###
    Yeah blindrat, a piece of advice you should learn.

    Olbermann's editorializing on behalf of a certain cause makes him a partisan. You cannot deny it nor wiggle out of it. The anti-Iraq war Olbermann has every right to do exactly what he is doing, being a partisan is his choice. But please, blindrat, try to come to terms with your loss, here....You are starting to embarrass yourself.

    The simple evidence above marked with (**) for your comfort are repeated talking points of anti-war partisans like yourself. If this is not true, please show me how I am wrong in this conclusion.

    Let me help you out here, son, by making this so simple an idiot can understand it:

    Let's say that someone uses the word "bear". This can either refer to the animal or to the ability to endure or carry. If a person's use of the word doesn't jibe with the definition that you randomly attributed to it, that hardly makes him a liar...

    Like I said, son: Provide context or admit defeat...as usual...

    Let me repeat the context....

    "Benson,

    "How is Olbermann "partison"? Believe me, son, I am going somewhere with this..."


    ###
    And I responded to a very simple request. I will take one sentence.....

    "I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war."


    ###
    Now, this statement in the context of The Special Comment requesting Mr. Bush resign, is this a statement (remember he said "I accuse") from an objective seeker of truth....a nonpartisan journalist withholding his personal bias to allow the evidence to speak for itself.

    The answer is clearly, no. In fact, Olbermann offers no evidence to back up the claim that Bush lied. No conflicting statements, no written evidence, no eye-witnesses.

    So, blindrat, I will not let you get away from defeat by trying the rhetorical excuse, again. This is what you always do. You failed. Olbermann showed his partisanship in his Special Comment and you have yet to even address that fact.

    cee,

    You are jumping around like a flea on a hot brick, son...

    I asked for context on his "I am not partison" quote and you give me a different quote.

    Wanting Bush to resign doesn't denote a party loyalty, simply common sense. What's funny here is that you've decided what Olbermann's chosen definition of "partisan" is and applied it to a statement that he made. You can't chose someone else's meaning UNLESS YOU HAVE CONTEXT, BOY...

    And, you've pretty much admitted that you have none.

    I suppose my explanation of understanding words in context was not simple enough for you, son. I cannot make it simpler...

    Either chose another Olbermann "lie" or go to the kiddie pool...

    Sorry blindrat, your question was clear, "partisan." Olbermann cannot claim to be nonpartisan, it is a fact that he is a partisan based on his behavior on COUNTDOWN. He is lying if he claims not to be a partisan.

    I provided one example meeting your requirement. A Special Comment asking for the President to resign. The accusations arise from a particular bias and not an objective finding of fact. It is not based on common sense. It is based on a particular political affiliation or ideology. The entire editorial reflects devotion to a belief that the Iraq War is wrong and should be ended as soon as possible. A partisan position.

    Simple, blindrat. Your stubborness to realize that Olbermann is dishonest in his statement then try to claim I can't know what he meant by "partisan" is a sad ploy.

    "Wanting Bush to resign doesn't denote a party loyalty"

    And again, party loyalty is not the accepted definition of partisan....nor can you make the claim that you know exactly what definition Mr. Olbermann meant when he made the claim he is not partisan.

    Perhaps you are as dumb as you seem, cee...

    Since the first definition of "partisan" refers to adhering to a party, you cannot discard it...

    And since you haven't offered or even admitted that you have no context, I'll assume that you are simply grasping at straws, son...

    Nice, if somewhat impotent, try...I think that, by now, you are noticing the flaws in Dollar's site. He gives you a piece of a sentence, out of context, and you bovines consume it like it is information; however, when asked for context, you have to admit that you have nothing...

    Think for yourself, son...it hurts at first, but the pain will go away...

    Cee,

    What are you talking about? You obviously do not understand the definition of the word "partisan". It is not the same thing as bias, or point of view. You could try to argue the point you seem to "think" you are making, but you are not doing it.

    For you to win this argument you need to first understand the definition of partisan. Second, you need to find evidence to support your hypothesis that Olbermann is, in fact, a partisan. If you plan to pull quotes you will need to find further evidence as to what motivated those quotes. Good luck.

    So cee thinks that being anti-Bush or anti-Occupation of Iraq are 'partisan' positions?
    You must crack yourself up thinking people actually believe anything you say.

    So, the people who used to support Bush and his miserable failure, but now have come to their senses (just about everyone except you and a handful of other useful idiots here) suddenly 'switched allegiances'? Well, they didn't switch parties, now did they?

    You can continue to make up fake defintions to words to fit your argument (something you have a lengthy record of here), but the rest of the known universe will go ahead and use this definition of partisan:

    1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

    ....And, yes, you might recognize that description. IT's YOU! You are the biggest head in the sand, feet in the mud, partisan on this site. Most americans would tell you partisan means the 'my party right or wrong' sentiment, and if that isn't you, I don't know what is.

    Of course, coming from someone who believes that shunning religion is actually a religion, nothing you could say would surprise me. Your partisan ignorance knows no bounds. Your blind allegiance is limitless!

    Whatever part of your brain that permits you to believe in fairy-tales, is also responsible for leaving you hog-tied to the mast of Bush's sinking ship, and nothing could be funnier!

    Al-Qaeda wants an America that is at odds with iteself, and you, being the ideological failure that you are, are giving the terrorists exactly what they want.

    Perhaps someday you will learn that reasonable non-partisan citizens are willing to change their stances when new information is presented, while you and your partisan ilk enjoy the false security of 'staying the course.'

    Poor fascist cee, self-deluded and loving it!

    Finally, you say I am a war-monger Perhaps in the end I am.

    Posted by: cee at August 3, 2007 3:34 PM

    "Blow them all away in the name of the Lord"

    -The Righteous Reverend Falwell

    cee- you warned me not to fall for his gibberish. Now you are debate this simpleton?

    Trust me, you have defined partisan well enough, and blindrat's failure to acknowledge it's meaning is pure stubborness and stupidity.

    Does anyone care to agree with blindrat's assertion that Olbermann is not partisan. I'll let the crickets speak for themselves.


    Benson,

    Stupid me. I used some fly-by-night dictionary called Websters Merriam...

    You were RIGHT to avoid tangling with me, child. As I have eaten cee up, I will do the same to you...

    Ruff!

    PARTISAN: a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

    It say "OR".... not "AND" all you idiots!

    Is Keith adherent to a "cause"? yes or no?
    Is Antiwar a cause?
    If yes- he is partisan!

    Is Keith adherent to a "faction"? yes or no?
    Is the Antiwar segment a faction?
    If yes- he is partisan!

    Unbelievable!


    cee / benson = pure stubborness and stupidity

    blindrat- you only manage to think you win every day. Its the best and most pathetic part about you. Where are your minions calling Keith not partisan? There aren't any, at least there arent any intelligent ones.

    I am a partisan, dear poster at 1:56 PM. And proudly so.

    The problem is many leftists are ashamed of their partisanship because their world-view is so clearly bankrupt and unpopular. This is the reason why blindrat has such a difficult time even knowing what partisan means....It is a fervent believer in a cause, person, party or idea. Period. It is not only "political party." It is much more and Olbermann is one in spades.

    I am proud of my beliefs, people know what I believe and I have seen great responses when I share my beliefs.

    I will gladly be defined as a partisan.

    How about you leftists? How do normal people respond to your views or are you like most of the leftists I know who only hang out with people they know agree with them and enjoy the echo chambers....

    It's safe in the cocoon!

    And Benson, you're right....I did it again....and I even posted it was a waste of time.....

    oh well...

    By the way- Rich is definitely blindrat....
    Check the IPs.

    blindrat on Olbermahn's Top 10 lies:

    "Most of them aren't even lies."

    He admits some of them are actually lies, but, won't say which ones fall into that category. Nuff said.

    -----"Most of them"
    ----------Meaning some are!
    ---------------not all!

    Benson,
    "Trust me, you have defined partisan well enough, and blindrat's failure to acknowledge it's meaning is pure stubborness and stupidity."

    What crack are you people smoking? He did nothing of the sort. He redefined the word to fit his argument. I think one could actually argue that Olbermann is a partisan if they understood how to actually do that, were willing to do the hard work.

    Bush / cee = clearly bankrupt and unpopular

    By the way- Rich is definitely blindrat....
    Check the IPs.

    Ummm no

    It is accurate to say that Olbermann is a partisan. The definition if a partisan IS NOT limited to adherence to party positions. So, as Cee has pointed out, since Olbermann meets at least ONE of the definitions of "partisan". Cee's assertion is correct and any claim that Olbermann is non-partisan is wrong and a lie.

    anon(2:03),

    Perhaps you've never read a dictionary, son...

    "Or" implies one of the possible uses. Now, YOU could claim he was partisan by the defintion that YOU chose, but Olbermann chose a specific definition...

    It would all be cleared up if there WERE CONTEXT!

    And ignorant Hank, very ignornant!

    "As I have eaten cee up"


    ###
    Yeah, right.....Dictionary.com, Websters, whatever.....the bottom like is blindrat, you had an agenda in mind with your very open-ended question,

    "How is Olbermann 'partison'?"

    And an example of Olbermann showing great comittment to a particular cause was presented. He was a partisan. I know it did not jive with your, "Believe me, son, I am going somewhere with this..." but that is your problem.

    You thought you had the debate won before someone responded, but you were in err.

    Words have definitions and partisan is a term used for more that American political party affiliation. In normal conversation, people will say "political partisan" to convey that idea...but I know your experience with intellegent discourse is limited, blindrat.

    I am whole and undigested, blindrat....try again.

    Sweet jesus this is getting worse.

    Here is the context.


    http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041130glaser/

    Man: an individual human; especially : an adult male human

    A woman states, "I am not a man"; cee calls her a liar...

    A five year old boy says "I am not a man"; hank calls him a liar...

    short bus is coming soon!

    Thanks, Rich...

    "...Relative to my being first, I think it's largely because I'm not a full-time political guy and not a partisan. The MSM political reporters are: 1) outcome-driven (when Kerry conceded, they checked out, largely because of exhaustion), and 2) driven by what the parties say about one another (Kerry concedes, Democrats stay in the background, Republicans say nothing -- so in their minds, where's the story?). My thought is that there are three components in the two-party system: Republicans, Democrats, and Voters..."

    Note the last sentence, cee...

    Next...

    >I am proud of my beliefs, people know what I believe and I have seen great responses when I share my beliefs.

    Poor cee, he paints a rosy picture of absolute strangers coming out of the woodwork to hear his deeply held beliefs and congratulating him on his lucid world-view. Oh, if only EVERYONE lived on planet cee, wouldn't everything just be great!

    Now, you're cracking me up cee, you are unintentionally hilarious...

    If you disagree with cee, you're a leftist...

    If you dislike Bush, you're a leftist...

    If you are against the Occupation of Iraq, you're a leftist...

    No wonder you sound increasingly paranoid and delusional...The opposition's ranks are swelling all around you!

    Actually, I'm far from a leftist.

    I'm a conservative from the days before the religious wrong hijacked the party and caused it to turn it's back on it's principles such as the separation of church and state, small government, personal liberty, fiscal responsibility, and national security.

    The only thing that is 'clear' about you cee, is that your level of partisanship is negatively affecting your level of objectivity.

    The education continues...

    Bush / cee = clearly bankrupt and unpopular


    ###
    I have never been the popular guy through the years...too much of a book worm...But I hear Bush was a real party animal and popular in college. He sure was not a book worm as blindrat is quick to point out!

    Financially I have had very high liquidity recently but will see this decline as I do some needed repairs around my house. Bush is also very well off financially and will do just fine as all previous presidents have.

    1 out of 4 is not too good, anon.

    -----"Most of them"
    ----------Meaning some are!
    ---------------not all!

    Posted by: not rich at October 2, 2007 2:08 PM


    They are ALL lies. The point I was making was blindbat was actually admitting some were actual lies. Not surprised you missed the point and ran with your short straw.

    "I'm a conservative from the days before the religious wrong hijacked the party and caused it to turn it's back on it's principles such as the separation of church and state, small government, personal liberty, fiscal responsibility, and national security"


    ###
    You are no more a conservative than blindrat is intelligent. Please stop the lies.

    If you are being so honest, dear poster, a true response in less than 10 words.....

    What is the main purpose of the federal government?

    I show context to cee and he's out the door...

    What a loser...

    Stephen Colbert mentioned Olbermann's name last night. Lets take bets that A.) Olby mention's it on Countdown or B.) he actually plays the clip...

    Oh no blindrat, still in my easychair waiting for your defense that Olbermann's statement you referenced is supported by his behavior and editorials on COUNTDOWN. I have easily shown that he lied when he said he was not a partisan, even with the context you claim shows he only meant political party affiliation. This website shows time and again Olbermann holds and overtly expresses strong beliefs....that is the definition of a partisan.

    The ball is in your court now, blindrat.

    Prove to all of us Olbermann is a NONPARTISAN, blindrat. You can try too, Rich.

    cee,

    I guess you didn't read this remedial lesson in language, son. I repost it for your convenience. I posted context, by the way. It is obvious that I am right, son...

    Man: an individual human; especially : an adult male human

    A woman states, "I am not a man"; cee calls her a liar...

    A five year old boy says "I am not a man"; hank calls him a liar...

    Who really cares if Keith fits a definition or not. That is irrelevant. He is a political hack. He is a failed sports announcer. he is a chump with a third rate tv show on a failing network. He is a communist and seems proud of it. He is possibly the most left wing hack that has ever been on tv. He is soulless.

    Argue about partisan or non-partisan but NEVER overlook or misunderstand that this guy adds absolutely nothing to real discourse about anything. When he opens his mouth he proves his irrelevance. Keep up the great work Keith you sack of armadillo dung.

    It is obvious that I am right, son...

    ###
    No you are wrong, blindrat....

    Partisan: an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause.

    Olbermann states: "I am not a partisan"

    Olbermann expresses support for the call that President Bush resign over unproven crimes regarding the closed case of Scooter Libby.

    Who else is making these calls for resignation, blindrat?

    Again, if I am wrong, you should now prove Olbermann is a nonpartisan with ease.

    Please prove Mr. Olbermann is a nonpartisan.

    Anyone can try.

    Redneck Proud,
    That wraps it up quite well REDneck. These people are empty shirts. The old democrat party folks are rolling over in their graves as these asshats run it into oblivion. This country would be better without the people that hate it so much. I am willing to fund these a-wipes a one way ticket to Venezuela or Iran if they want it. Let them live in the luxury of those cesspools. Let them learn what repression and oppression is. They love to hate.

    When they have to put up or shut up on the big issues that we face, they run like little girls. They should STFU.

    I ask blindrat to prove Olbermann is a nonpartisan and he's out the door...

    What a loser...

    I'm not political. I don't vote -- I don't believe journalists covering politics should (and I don't think the democracy would suffer if however many of us there are, recused ourselves). I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered. I think transparency is vital; I think it's also, in these super-heated political times, unintentionally inescapable. If a reporter's work in turn winds up criticizing a candidate or party in some cases, and praising that same candidate or party in others, he's as close to neutral as he can be. If not, he's a partisan. The partisans outnumber the neutrals 1000:1.

    I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered.

    cee,
    my favorite part of the banter with blindrat. His 2:01 response was- "Stupid me. I used some fly-by-night dictionary called Websters Merriam..."

    That is exactly where I found the following definition that he so readily dismissed. It is a direct cut-n-paste!

    PARTISAN: 1. a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

    It was thje biggest waste of our time debating him when he lacked a clear understanding of the english language. I think I'll go surf looking for britney spears custody updates. It will be far more intellectual!

    "If a reporter's work in turn winds up criticizing a candidate or party in some cases, and praising that same candidate or party in others, he's as close to neutral as he can be. If not, he's a partisan."

    He proves he's partisan with his own words. Find equal cases of Dullbermann criticizing Republicans and conversely praising them. Also, try and find equal statements of ccriticizing Democrats and alternately praising them. Won't happen. He defines his own partisanship. Now run along, blindrat, son child.

    that was me-

    From J$ recap:
    Next up, Richard Wolffe. Man, it's deja vu all over again. Well maybe not. Here's a great example of how no matter what anybody says, Herr Olbermann sticks to his talking points like glue:

    WOLFFE MAN: This time around there is no Presidential determination, there is no decision. What you have is a diplomatic track, you have obviously a lot of drumbeats a lot of saber-rattling, but I think we are still some way off that decision....
    OLBERMORONN: Is there no diplomatic track because there is no intention of having one?...
    WOLFFE MAN: Well the diplomatic track is quite serious right now.

    That's Edward R Olbermahn, great journalist, and a hell of a listener! Wolffie, for exposing again how the host of The Hour of Spin is monomaniacal hack: Great Thanks!
    _______________________________

    Good catch J$, thanks. Jon Alter has done this in the past as well, actually reported the news. It is fun to see Olbermann twist like a pretzel to stay on his hard-left taking points.

    As for the Bill-O stuff, does he not see how his ratings tanked last week by continuing to cover this shit. Harry Shearer had a short and good piece about this:

    Screw Burma, Let's Talk About O'Reilly

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/screw-burma-lets-talk-a_b_66383.html

    I asked a self proclaimed "conservative,"

    What is the main purpose of the federal government?

    And they run for the hills......

    I didn't think it was true....a conservative can answer this question in a NY minute.

    Stephen Colbert mentioned Olbermann's name last night. Lets take bets that A.) Olby mention's it on Countdown or B.) he actually plays the clip...

    Posted by: at October 2, 2007 3:16 PM

    Lets take bets that Olbermann claims to be "good friends" with Colbert.

    Olbermann didn't seem to get that ratings bump from Sunday Night Football last week. That first week he seemed to get a nice bump (in the 800-900's total viewers). Perhaps folks checked it out and were not impressed. Thats gotta hurt a very large ego such as his....

    to stay on his hard-left taking points...."

    I meant "talking points"...but when it comes to hard left Dems, I guess "taking" points works too. ;)

    Is Olbermann an official spokeman for the Iranian regime?

    What is the main purpose of the federal government?

    Posted by: cee at October 2, 2007 4:52 PM

    That's easy, bomb countries in which brown and / or non-christians live (if they are brown AND non-christian, you get bonus points!)

    ...And when the Gov't isn't bombing the brown and / or non-christian countries, they can sit around and decide which NeoCult group to give tax-exempt status to!

    When you're in the Gov't, it's just Busy Busy Busy all the time!

    PS-We're running low on bombs and bibles, please send more!

    at October 2, 2007 6:08 PM,
    Hey ignoramous Iranains are White Aryans you fool!
    Why do you think Olbermann supports them?

    Liberals think that people who make $83,000 a yr should be covered by gov't health care and vote politicians in office who defend and enable the following:


    PROVIDENCE — The federal government has granted Edgar Velásquez, a Mexican illegal immigrant, a two-week extension of his five-day humanitarian visa, to pursue his workers’ compensation claim against William J. Gorman Jr., owner of Billy G’s Tree Care in Warwick.

    go figure.......

    at October 2, 2007 6:08 PM,
    Hey ignoramous Iranains are White Aryans you fool!
    Why do you think Olbermann supports them?

    Posted by: at October 2, 2007 6:14 PM

    Let's pretend for a moment you know how to read AND know the definition of the word OR.

    You would describe Iran as a 'christian' nation.

    No wonder you are so angry all the time, Joker. I'd be mad too if I were as dumb as you!

    Cheers!

    October 2, 2007 6:21 PM
    Listen fool, Iranians are White Aryan Muslims.
    They should be bombed WW2 style!
    Olbermann should be tied to one of those bombs since he loves them so much!

    The funny thing is, if you put Jacker, Royal Douche, cee-monkey, and factor fiction all in a room together with a couple fifths of alcohol, eventually they would begin attacking each other (well, slapping each other until they start crying and laying down on the floor in the fetal position, but to them, it will seem like a battle).

    Ignorance, hubris, and prejudice are the bane of civilized societies....

    But those are all things those four have in spades!

    Take it easy,
    At least I don't support Enemy regimes like you and your leader Olbermann!

    I'm sure Olbermann is happy to see, as his daily "google" of himself on the interenets reveals the ADL reminding all of that "pesky nazi thing" he did about a year ago:

    ADL Letter to Salon.com
    Editor's Note: This letter was written in response to an article by Glenn Greenwald published Oct. 1, 2007 on Salon.com titled, "Nazis" and "Hitler" -- the Right's casual, trivializing political insults.

    http://www.adl.org/media_watch/internet/20071002-Salon.com.htm

    "ADL wrote to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann to express dismay at his use of the Nazi "Sieg Heil" salute, both on his program and in public appearances -- including the Television Critics Association press tour -- while holding up a mask of Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly (July 2006). "

    "In closing, we take issue with the very premise of your piece, that "Nazis" and "Hitler" are only the casual, trivializing political insults of "the Right." Our experience on this issue has taught us that, in fact, the misuse of Nazi imagery is a common practice among bloviators on both ends of the political spectrum, and everywhere in between."

    ------BTW, the ADL lists Olbermann as a "...media personalities (Joy Behar, Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann, among others)..."

    Ignorance, hubris, and prejudice are the bane of civilized societies....

    But those are all things those four have in spades!

    Posted by: Take it easy on RK, Joker, The Cows would miss him if he was gone at October 2, 2007 6:29 PM


    Thanks, patsy!

    Joker:

    "Take it easy,
    at least I don't support enemy regimes like you and your leader Olbermann"

    But you sure do support complete and utter ignorance!

    Thanks, patsy!

    Posted by: royal king at October 2, 2007 6:46 PM

    AAP isn't the only poster here who knows you like to get romantic with livestock, Royal Douche.

    In fact, I just may have been the one who pointed it out to him!

    But you can continue to believe everyone who thinks you are full of methane are the same person. It just gives us more evidence of what we already knew...

    You are an paranoid delusional idiot!

    You are an paranoid delusional idiot!

    Posted by: Regime Change Begins at Home at October 2, 2007 6:58 PM


    No. I'm just right.

    Hey everybody!.....The Democratic leadership in The Senate has accomplished something!!!!!!.....

    Washington, DC—Senate Democrats today sent the following letter to Mark P. Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications, calling on him to publicly repudiate Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of troops who speak out against the Iraq war as “phony soldiers.” Despite recent Republican comments condemning verbal attacks on our troops, when given the opportunity to join us in signing this letter, not a single one did so.

    The text of the letter is below and attached:

    October 2, 2007

    Mr. Mark P. Mays
    CEO, Clear Channel Communications Inc.
    200 East Basse Road
    San Antonio, TX 78209

    Dear Mr. Mays,

    At the time we sign this letter, 3,808 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and another 28,009 have been wounded. 160,000 others awoke this morning on foreign sand, far from home, to face the danger and uncertainty of another day at war.

    Although Americans of goodwill debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as “phony soldiers” is such an outrage.

    Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.

    The military, like any community within the United States, includes members both for and against the war. Senior generals, such as General John Batiste and Paul Eaton, have come out against the war while others have publicly supported it. A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found just 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, compared to 42 percent who disapproved. From this figure alone, it is clear that Mr. Limbaugh’s insult is directed at thousands of American service members.

    Active and retired members of our armed forces have a unique perspective on the war and offer a valuable contribution to our national debate. In August, seven soldiers wrote an op-ed expressing their concern with the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, since then, two of those seven soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq.

    Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast. We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a “phony soldier.” We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.

    Sincerely,

    Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader
    Senator Richard Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader
    Senator Charles Schumer, Vice Chairman, Democratic Conference
    Senator Patty Murray, Secretary, Democratic Conference
    Senator Daniel Akaka
    Senator Max Baucus
    Senator Joseph Biden
    Senator Barbara Boxer
    Senator Sherrod Brown
    Senator Robert Byrd
    Senator Benjamin Cardin
    Senator Tom Carper
    Senator Bob Casey
    Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
    Senator Kent Conrad
    Senator Christopher Dodd
    Senator Byron Dorgan
    Senator Dianne Feinstein
    Senator Tom Harkin
    Senator Daniel Inouye
    Senator Edward M. Kennedy
    Senator John Kerry
    Senator Amy Klobuchar
    Senator Mary Landrieu
    Senator Frank Lautenberg
    Senator Patrick Leahy
    Senator Carl Levin
    Senator Blanche Lincoln
    Senator Bob Menendez
    Senator Barbara Mikulski
    Senator Bill Nelson
    Senator Barack Obama
    Senator Jack Reed
    Senator Jay Rockefeller
    Senator Ken Salazar
    Senator Bernie Sanders
    Senator Debbie Stabenow
    Senator Jon Tester
    Senator Jim Webb
    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
    Senator Ron Wyden


    ###
    Wow! Congratulations are in order, leftists!!!!! Your ruling elite have fashioned one heck of a sternly worded letter!

    WOW! What's next? War fund cuts? Enforcable troop withdrawl timetables? Articles of Impeachment?

    He, he, he....What leadership! What gravitas! The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

    And just for you Mike, wannawipe and the other moron who changes his name everytime he posts (?patsy).....

    And this is my post today, the 1,576th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    "You can't bring the troops home if you give George Bush $100 billion to wage this war. You're not supporting them. You're keeping them in harm's way." CINDY SHEEHAN

    "There is no doubt ... that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. There is no doubt that we've had to take very strong measures against them. And there is no doubt that the Iraqi security forces have got to be strong enough to be able to withstand not just the violence that has been between the Sunni and the Shia population and the Sunni insurgency, but also Al Qaeda itself." GORDON BROWN

    "People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there." OSAMA BIN LADEN

    "Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda--worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
    KEITH OLBERMANN

    It just shows what blind fucking idiots liberals are.

    Sharon and RK, I came across this and knowing that you both followed Haditha and Murtha you be interested.

    http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/009433.html

    "Footnotes:

    * …the Marines who are now in trouble for very similar actions are not the exception to US tactics in Iraq, but represent only one in many incidents of war crimes. - It's worth remembering that the original intended purpose of the MacBeth video was to lend additional weight to congressman Jack Murtha's then-current claims that Marines in Iraq were "cold blooded killers" who were slaughtering women and children...

    There is a current story in the US press about a squad of Marines that are being investigated for "war crimes" after they murdered a whole Iraqi family one night a few months back. US officials are approaching this story as if this wasn't standard procedure, and are focusing on holding the individual Marines accountable. Jessie Macbeth blows the lid off that story.

    Ironically, even as MacBeth was being sentenced for his fraud those Marines were being cleared of the charges brought against them. (One is now suing Jack Murtha - see here for the latest). Likewise, while ostensibly "anti-war" the real function of Iraq Veterans Against the War is to publicize similar claims that US troops in Iraq routinely commit atrocities as part of US policy - see their recent thinly disguised press release in The Nation magazine for example. (Actually investigated here with some responses from other military members serving in Iraq here)."

    Grammie

    Janet, those are patsy's favorite sites for getting his news from, ivaw and the nation. Real patriotic, aren't they?

    KeithO is predictable.
    Anon and Factor predicted he would mention colbert, show the clip, and of course introduced Colbert's clip saying "from our good friend Stephen Colbert"

    JUST AS PREDICTED!

    DUMBSHIT! I mean Bovine!

    You better check with your twin Internets slut, Johnny Bovine, I mean Johnny BU$HWIPE.

    Don't you know I spent the whole day posting with them eveeeeeeel secularist leftists at the Daily Kos

    http://www.dailykos.com/

    Benson - How many times did he show the clip? I saw it at the opening but turned the channel. Bet he showed it a time or two more.

    He's like the geek that finally got to sit at the cool table for a few minutes. "Look at me! Look at me! Thay like me!"

    "Hating Bush is just common sense, child"...

    Hating is not common, nor sensible. But it is partisan.

    You think even a blindrat could see that.

    "Hating Bush is just common sense, child"...

    Spoken like a faithful radical muslim.

    More liberals supporting the 209 troops in Oakland.

    Marines and Soldiers Returning from Iraq not allowed into Oakland terminal

    On September 27th 204 Marines and soldiers who were returning from Iraq were not allowed into the passenger terminal at Oakland International Airport.Instead they had to deplane about 400 yards away from the terminal where the extra baggage trailers were located.

    This was the last scheduled stop for fuel and food prior to flying to Hawaii where both were based. The trip started in Kuwait on September 26th with a rigorous search of checked and carry on baggage by US Customs. All baggage was x-rayed with a "backscatter" machine AND each bag was completely emptied and hand searched. After being searched, checked bags were marked and immediately placed in a secure container. Carry on bags were then x rayed again to ensure no contraband items were taken on the plane. While waiting for the bus to the airport, all personnel were in quarantined in a fenced area and were not allowed to leave.

    The first stop for fuel/food and crew change was in Leipzig Germany. Troops exited the aircraft and took a bus to a reception area in the terminal, where there was a convenience store, phones, Internet and restrooms. As we exited the bus we were given a re-boarding pass. Three troops remained on the plane with the rifles and pistols. There was no ammunition on the plane and the bolts of the rifles had been removed. After about 2 hours troops re-boarded the plane and flew to JFK in NY.

    At JFK the procedure was similar to Germany, 3 troops stayed on the plane to guard weapons while the rest deplaned. At the gate we were each given a re-boarding pass and spent about 1.5 hours in the terminal, at which time we re-boarded and flew to Oakland.

    As we came in for the final approach to Oakland a Lieutenant who served in Afghanistan with the same unit in 2006 mentioned how when they landed in Oakland they were not allowed in the terminal. He said, "they made us get out by the FED EX building and we had to sit out there for 3 hours". He also indicated he was almost arrested by the TSA for getting belligerent about them not letting the Marines into the terminal.

    Well, the same thing happened again. This time we did not park by the FED EX building, instead we were offloaded near the grass that separates the active runway from the taxi ramp, about 400 yards from the terminal. When we inquired why they wouldn't allow us in the airport they gave us some lame excuse that we hadn't been screened by TSA. While true, the screening which we did have was much more thorough than any TSA search and was done by US Customs. Additionally, JFK didn't seem to have a problem with our entering their terminal, nor did security in Germany.

    It felt like being spit on. Every Marine and soldier felt the message loud and clear, "YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN OAKLAND!"

    Stop lying liberals when you say "we support the troops not the war". It is bullshit.

    Wow I have been working all day and just got back to see how this all ended. Most of you guys are pretty pathetic.

    I actually tried to help you Cee. The simple fact is that you are improperly using your definition of partisan for this purpose. I think you could actually argue your point, but not the way you seem to think. If you actually read up on debate you would understand why you can't actually win with your argument that way.

    I actually enjoy Olbermann, and just came to see what this site is all about. Like him I think Bush is a terrible president, and doing terrible things for our country. Even if he thinks it's protecting us the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would actually think those think the media is biased would be ok with Olbermann. At least he comes out and expresses his opinion. I'm actually not taking a side in the whole "partisan" debacle, but mincing words aside, you know the point of view he is coming from when you turn him on.

    So whatever that is how I got here. I'm not blindrat guy. Now I'm out.

    Have fun

    This moron tries to tell someone how to use the word partisan and then lays this gem on us.

    "I would actually think those think the media is biased would be ok with Olbermann."

    You might want to learn how to write a sentence before you start telling people the meaning of words. Great Thanks.

    Rich, welcome. However, you are wrong. Partisan, even in the context of Olbermann's denial, always means the same thing. If one places an adjective in front of the noun "partisan" then one may imply a more specific definition to the domestic political situation, but the quote does not have that....The words before partisan are AND NOT A.

    There is an easy solution to this stand-off and I made it to blindrat. I challenge you to prove Olbermann is a nonpartisan. I doubt you can based on the man's behavior on his broadcast and his interviews in magazines and papers. He has poisoned his well, so to speak, by editoriazing and using terminology only partisans use....and it is clear he is a partisan fashioned from the left side of the political spectrum.

    I look forward to your response.

    "I'm a conservative from the days before the religious wrong hijacked the party and caused it to turn it's back on it's principles such as the separation of church and state, small government, personal liberty, fiscal responsibility, and national security"


    ###
    You are no more a conservative than blindrat is intelligent. Please stop the lies.

    If you are being so honest, dear poster, a true response in less than 10 words.....

    What is the main purpose of the federal government?

    And I am still waiting for a response.....The "conservative" had to go research his opinion, I guess.....

    Oh my, the democrats cannot even make headway with a private citizen, Their sternly worded letter failed to accomplish anything like their work to do anything about Iraq for the last 4 years.

    Clear channel's CEO, Mark Mays, has rebuffed the left's ruling elite in the Senate and basically said Limbaugh can speak for himself and they should take it up with him......

    Mmmm.....Will they?.....Or will they do like they have with Bush and surrender with their tails between their legs?

    What do you think, blindrat, Mike, Loin, even wannawipe?.....What should Tinkerbell Reid do?......

    "Senate Democrats will never give in, never give in, never, never, never

    "never give in, never, never, never

    "never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never."

    Democratic Senator Harry Reid, 9/24/07


    ###
    Or should the left's leader in the House, Madam Speaker Pelosi do what she did last week regarding the left's healthcare policy.....pray? Oh my....Loin and wannawipe would not like that!

    Oh my oh my....the leadership of the left is amazing.....A sternly worded letter, chanting to spare Tinkerbell's life, prayer and now the media is showing this story for what it is.....the inability of the left's ruling class to lead the country out of Iraq....

    I just saw the report on NBC TODAY SHOW.....Democrats frustrated by failures to accomplish agenda!

    Yep, Bush is sitting quietly, doing the hard work, while the Senate Democrats write sternly worded letters about a PARTISAN'S RADIO SHOW!

    Yep, Limbaugh is a partisan and proudly states it.....I wonder when Olbermann will finally come out of the closet.....hey blindrat?

    "The Democrats are just showing a bit of class, a bit of prioritization."


    ###
    Oh my....Please expand on this claim, LLARRY...seriously...I really want to see the rationale for you coming to this conclusion.

    "we are sure that winning in Vietnam is no longer our chief goal as a nation"


    ###
    As am I....We lost pitifully in Vietnam and it was not predetermined. I just have such empathy for those unable to deal with the result and try to rationalize the reasons away.

    "I hope you deal with the next 24 years of Democratic dominance and Republican capitulation better than you're dealing with Nixon's capitulation in Vietnam. If not, you'll just be one more bitter, boring old fool."


    ###
    Oh my, your greatest partisan hopes....from your lips to God's ears, uh LLARRY?

    Please reread my posts regardingthe sternly worded letter...It is clear by my brilliant sarcasm that I feel as the reporter on TODAY expressed....The democrats are acting out of frustration for not getting their base's agenda enacted and worried about their standing. I take it a step further and continue my theme that the democrats are nothing more than weak customer service reps with no vision or leadership abilities.....When a real leader presents himself or herself from the left, I will be the first to say, "great," but so far.....no dice....

    And is why I have been right about the left being unable to withdraw any troops since they attained the power to do so in 1/07.

    What do you think, LLARRY?

    Blindrat, Think, LLarry, and Mike, and all their many other user names can not, to save their own lives, provide proof that Olbermann is non-partisan. Because he's not. His biases of course do not bother them. They celebrate him for it. It's "truth-telling" to them, even when he chooses to lie or omit or just not report FACTS. That's the sort of thing these types of mentalities go in for.

    Lots of maybe's, LLARRY....just like those you have put your faith in....Great leadership abilities.....

    I thought I heard your leaders say the war is lost, immoral and/or destroying America.....No maybes there....So why do they fund the endeavor? Again, a simple question that the fringe left demands an answer as well, yet.....the maybes start.

    Ok, fine, I understand you are unable to explain the impotence of your ruling class, but changing to the Bush bashing is simply not a proper response. I will let you off the hook.

    I really do like how the Senate Democrats worded their letter though....strong and masculine!

    Cee,

    I'm not taking a position on the partisan issue. All I said was that it was not possible to make your point in this manner. The it's called a Syllogism. Here is a link to check out.
    http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm
    Using your logic you could apply the same, and worse, labels to almost all of the principle players at Fox news.

    Oh and to the loser that corrected my grammar, Thanks! I was trying to say that Olbermann has a clear point of view. It's not like he is some quiet insurgent in the media. Or as another poster accused Dan Rather of trying to "throw over an election".

    Sorry Rich, your application is not correct. Partisan means an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance. All I had to do with blindrat's request "How is Olbermann "partison"? Believe me, son, I am going somewhere with this..." was give one example of how Olbermann is a partisan. I did. Blindrat's response to his mistake was to defensively say, well how could I know what definition of partisan Olbermann was using in the context of the quote. That is not what you are talking about with Syllogism. A feline has a defnition that is clear and logic demands it. Partisan has a definition beyond "party loyalty" and Olbermann clearly behaves as a partison does.

    The context of the quote does not support blindrats opinion that Olbermann meant party loyalty when he used the term "partisan." And again, Olbermann is capable of lying and I say he did when he said he was not a partisan.

    So try again, Rich. And give me an example of Syllogism in the context you claim with regard to FOX.....I would like to have an actual example.

    Keith Olbermann's script reads verbatim from the Media Matters web site. Media Matters was founded by Hillary Clinton as she admitted at the Daily Kos convention. Media Matters attacks any newscaster, commentators, or pundit who presents and unflattering perspective on Hillary Clinton. Keith Olbermann never criticizes Hillary Clinton and often criticizes her political opponents left and right. Clearly Keith is a partisan.

    Another great example, Factor.

    Word games

    Definition
    Plant: 1 small vegetable growth, tree or a shrub.

    Now if Keith said he was not a plant he would be correct.
    He's not a small vegetable growth.
    OR He's not a tree.
    OR He's not a shrub.

    He said he was not partisan.
    Keith DOES match at least one of the 3 aspects of the defintion separated by the word "OR". Therefore he is partisan. Which one of you english 101 flunkies can't understand that simple logic?

    Benson...not talking to you.

    Cee,

    There has to be an accepted definition between the participants in a debate. Blindrat rejects yours, and you reject his. You both seem to disagree on the context in which Olbermann used the word in 2004, two years before the first "Special Comment" you pulled your quotes from.
    Not only does time matter, but so does motivation if you are saying those quotes are your evidence. My point is that nobody is proving anything here. Not blindrat, and not you. Your argument is predicated on too many assumptions. By your logic no person who has any believes in anything is a partisan in general.
    For this case you must PROVE he is a firm adherent to a party ,faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.
    For party you might have a case, but how would you prove that?
    Faction I would argue(and so would webster) is pretty much the same as party.
    You might have a case for cause, but then you have to prove that being against the war(even vocally) is the same as being an adherent to the anti war movement. Even then the definition of cause has leeway. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cause

    Another logic link here http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Jordana/LOGIC.html

    For the record I think you have a point. I'm splitting hairs here, but I think you are as well. I would not define myself as a "partisan", but by your definition I would be. I don't shrink from that label, but do not see it as applicable to me. I like Olbermann generally, but do not agree with all the statements I have heard him say. Nor have I heard them all BTW. For disclosure I also think O'Reilly is awful, but I don't always disagree with him either.

    Uh Oh Rich...

    You are navigating that water between black and white that makes cee so unbearably uncomfortable.

    You mean you actually don't have to agree with someone 100% of the time to like him or her?

    You mean you actually don't have to disagree with someone 100% of the time to not like him or her?

    cee will certainly get sunk in these deep waters in which he is ill-equipped to navigate.

    "I'm a conservative from the days before the religious wrong hijacked the party and caused it to turn it's back on it's principles such as the separation of church and state, small government, personal liberty, fiscal responsibility, and national security"


    ###
    You are no more a conservative than blindrat is intelligent. Please stop the lies.

    If you are being so honest, dear poster, a true response in less than 10 words.....

    What is the main purpose of the federal government?

    And I am still waiting for a response.....The "conservative" had to go research his opinion, I guess.....

    Posted by: cee at October 3, 2007 7:02 AM

    __________________________________________________


    cee, you are an idiot!

    I don't rely on others to define who or what I am. I doubt I can convince you of my political convictions. You have already accused me of 'running to the hills' when I wasn't online to respond to your idiotic question. For the record, I actually LIVE IN THE HILLS in a nice house because I WORK FOR A LIVING which is what I was doing when you were trying to ask me a loaded question about my politics.

    I have asked you many questions on numerous occasions and when they go unanswered like they always do, I never claim you are 'running.' That would be a disengenuous tactic to portray oneself as a winner of a debate without evidence. Glad you are okay employing that tactic yourself. Speaks volumes!

    Now, about your question:

    Of course you realize you could ask that question of three different conservatives and get three different answers, none of which could be characterized as 'wrong' or 'unconservative.' I like to believe one doesn't need to engage in 'groupthink' to characterize oneself as either 'liberal' or 'conservative.'

    You are the LAST person who should be deciding what is and isn't conservative. Your question is subjective.

    I feel that the most important duty of the federal government is national security. Self preservation is usually the top priority of any entity. Now, when you'd like to debate how best to accomplish that, that's when the REAL debate begins.

    I feel that the top three priorities of the federal gov't are:

    National security, Providing infrasctructure, and Ensuring liberty for it's citizens.

    (You could also simply say 'upholding the constitution' but that's pretty non-specific and traverses numerous 'purposes'.)

    Now, when you want to debate whether you should focus on one to the exclusion or neglect of others, that's when the REAL DEBATE begins.

    I have called out your so called 'conservatism' by mentioning things you are supporting via your failed president that are decidedly UNCONSERVATIVE. Care to address those? No, didn't think so.

    I call out your conservatism with actual evidence.

    You call out my conservatism because I didn't answer a subjective question within your expected timeframe (even telling me to obey a 10-word limit, nice!).

    You, cee, are a charlatan of the lowest order. Just smart enough to feed your own arrogance, but not quite smart enough to escape your own hypocrisy.

    I consider myself an independent, because I do not subscribe to a particular political party. But, as in my quote you cited, my views are most in line with the conserative principles of yesterday, prior to the televangelist uprising and takeover.

    You like to throw around the term 'leftist' without evidence. To you, the leftist is responsible for all that ails America. To you, it is the 'godless' liberals who are trying to marginalize you and your ilk. So, in response, you do the same thing to them.

    Your politics are about elitism, exclusion, phony meaningless labels and (most importantly) trying to get as much christianity into society as possible.

    Good luck with that!

    I realize it must hurt immensely to have your so-called conservatism called out by a fellow conservative, so it's understandable that you must do whatever you can to convince yourself that I'm not a 'true conservative.'

    Can't wait to hear your canned arrogant 'my conservatism is the only kind of conservatism' answer.

    Please forgive me if I take a day or two to shred it. The business I run takes priority over my job of educating you.

    It's all about priorities.

    The education continues...

    "I consider myself an independent, because I do not subscribe to a particular political party."

    posted by why/patsy/anon


    Why do you have a (d) after your name? Your posts contain not the slightest bit of "independence" whatsoever.

    Oh no!!!! ICE agents seen wearing cowboy hats! Alert the media. Say it isn't soooo! Patsy, I want a FULL page cut and paste on this earth shattering news, pronto!

    Hy Dipshit is there some part of "it's illegal" you don't understand?

    Patsy, what part of "illegal alien" do you not understand?

    What a witty refarte, Dipshit.

    What a witty refarte, Dipshit.

    What a witty refarte, Dipshit.

    What a witty refarte, Dipshit.

    Posted by: LLARRY at October 3, 2007 9:19 PM

    That would...ALMOST.... describe your stuff, LLARRY, and the third time you posted it wasn't a charm...

    Cecelia, perhaps he has been on a bean diet for a while.

    Grammie

    Cecelia, perhaps he has been on a bean diet for a while.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 3, 2007 10:22 PM

    Reposted refarte from refried beans, no doubt... :D

    I am asking for any NFL fans that like myself thinks it is deplorable for NBC to force this liberal loon on the general public every Sunday to please go over to the NBC forums and let you opinion be heard.

    http://boards.nbcuni.com/nbcs/index.php?showforum=4

    We need your help.

    Thanks, I just did, Pissed off NFL Fan.

    I told them what a great addition KO is to their NFL team.

    mike, no surprise you would praise KK for being the bumbling racist he has shown himself even more to be while ruining what was once a decent pre-game show. Too bad your e-mail is out numbered by 4 or 5:1 saying what is actually true, he sucks. Least you tried.

    Too bad Jeffy....the more you attack KO, the more powerful he becomes, just like Darth Vader in "Star Wars".

    Hey, don't feel like the lone ranger. You now know how I felt when O'Reilly was rising to prominance as TV's biggest demogogue.

    mike, "powerful" and "Ko" don't go in the same sentence. Keep dreamin. Lucky for you, dreams are free!

    If Sharon were here I am sure that her skill at remembering and recognizing style and particular word use would help me out.

    I have noticed that LLARRY has used "dipshit" a few times. That rings a bell but I can't remember which one of our lovable little loons used the word frequently in the past.

    I am sure, based on some of his comments, that LLARRY is not the newcomer that the new name suggests. Sheit is definitely a sheit.

    Grammie

    Leave a new comment