Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    KO Mini Blog



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

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for '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 12, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - October 12, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • SEC. RICE MEETS WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN: Gov. Bill Richardson, (D-N.M.)
    • SHAWN HORNBECK'S FAMILY WANTS AN APOLOGY FROM BILL O'REILLY: Pam and Craig Akers, Hornbeck's parents
    • POLITICAL GOSSIP: Mo Rocca, comedian

    Something Olbermann This Way Comes: The Supreme Court stole the election from Gore, who won the Peace Prize. Obama vs Hillary. Sanchez blasts Bush. Another Democrat interviewed. Another O'Reilly attack. It's televised Sominex, but we'll liven things up with our weekly assessment of Keith Olbermann's masculinity. It's casual Friday at Olbermann Watch.

    Bathtub Boy

    #5: Gore wins Nobel. Top Story! Big News! Oh, and apropos of nothing, "Mister" Bush is the "worst President ever!" Olby brings up Gore's Oscar-winning "documenterary". Lefty Alter said he won't run for Prez, but his endorsement would have meaning. Great thanks.

    Barack criticizes Hillary. Milbank, absent awful accutrements, knew what to say: it's "desperation" by Obama, while Olby dragged out the old standby, a "rookie mistake". KO defended Hillary's plan to start her foreign policy before she is sworn in, and dispensed the ritual Great Thanks.

    #4: Gen Sanchez speaks against the progress of the war. Secretary Rice re Iran. Of course, the only opinion sought by Herr Olbermahn was from a Democrat Presidential candidate, Bill Richardson. Are you still checking The List? Just updated tonight. It's why they call Keithy's partisan hack fest The Hour of Spin. Tough questions pummelled by Edward R Olbermahn included: "Your reactions to Gen Sanchez's remarks today? If you'd be so kind." "How do you propose to fix the damage that 'Mister' Bush has done to the military". Yada yada yada. Oh, Richardson was wearing a flag pin. Apparently Fat Ass forgot to berate him about it like he did Lou Dobbs. Richardson was both Great Thanksed and Pleasured.

    #3: Another O'Reilly attack (a genuine no-prize to whomever knows which number this is). The latest wrinkle is Olbermahn's exploitation of the Hornbeck family to further his diseased Olbsession. Geez, Keithy. To paraphrase your sidekick The Boy Wonder, why this obsession over O'Reilly? When did an O'Reilly comment ever kill someone? You do remember this, right?

    The Greatest Olbsession of Them All

    It's one thing to turn commentary about an ongoing investigation into part of Monkeymann's paranoid ravings about O'Reilly; that's the kind of voodoo journalism that has vaulted the discredited baseball card collector into his position of miserable ratings and low esteem. But to drag the Hornbeck family onto the air and try to force words in their mouth is something else all together. For Oralmann to try his traditional ventriloquist routine with them--under these circumstances--is the mark of a swine. And thus just another day at the office for the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann.

    #2: Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears. #1: Knee-slapping hilarity with Mo Rocca. In the Media Matters Minute, Herr Olbermann attacked Terry Jeffrey of the "lunatic fringe" [Ding!] Human Events (Blue Blog Source: Hillary Clinton's Media Matters). His crime? He said Ann Coulter is not antisemitic. Geez, Bathman, there are Jewish writers who agree with him, but of course you know better. Worst person was (yawn!) you-know-who (Blue Blog Source: Crooks & Liars). Left-wing smears, direct from the web page to Bathtub Boy's teleprompter. Only on OlbyPlanet.


    Keith Limpermann

    If it's Friday, it's our weekly assessment of Krazy Keith's masculinity. During this four-day week Monkeymann attacked Fox and other broadcasters 25 times. Olby's source (Hillary Clinton's Media Matters) criticized (MS)NBC four times, but again, Keithy protected his corporate masters with zero criticisms. That makes this week's Olbermann Manhood Quotient: -50 [ultra-limp].

    MisterMeter

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's name plummeted #25,315 on amazon, while "Culture Warrior" has risen to #668. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) Barnes & Noble lists the OlbyTome at #44,290; O'Reilly's book is #2,037 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. "Chicken and Waffles" Olbermann benefitted from CNN fill-in programming on Thursday. Mr Merkle came in second, though he still lost overwhelmingly to his nemesis the eeevil Mr Bill, both in total viewers and in the coveted, pivotal, much-beloved, critical, all-important "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 4 [GUARDED]


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (158) | | View blog reactions

    158 Comments

    O'Reilly asked a question about the Hornbeck case that may have seemed questionable. Keith has jumped all over it, yet has he ever done anything for children? He has stories about kids rarely and only when they help his agenda. Was this Devlin guy who took the kids ever Worst Person of the World? Nope. Bill has done much for kids, example-the whole push for laws against predators and judges who go easy on molestors. Keith is so jealous that Bill is going to have another best seller out so he is trying to smear his book. That's all having the Hornbecks on was to Keith. They deserve to tell their story, just not to this jerk.

    By the way Keith is going to have the kid's parents who talked to congress trying to make the President look bad on his show Monday. Does anyone out there think if it was against the dems that Keith would give a damn about the kid or the parents????

    You nailed it, Tim. Keith Olbermann couldn't care less about a molested Shawn Hornbeck. In fact, the whole Shawn Hornbeck face to this story is a mirage, because this really isn't about him at all. This is about Tanmann's untamed obsession with doesn't-everyone-know-who.

    What a shameless opportunist. Even Keith's flock of sheep must know his number by now.

    What's hilarious about the orange faced pricks obsession with Bill O'Reilly (#1) is it's all for not. Does he actually think he can turn anyone who watches O'Reilly against him or sway any one's opinion of O'Reilly? To the contrary. The man (I use the term loosely) has some serious issues.

    Haven't heard anything about oralmann taking the dems to task for trotting out a 12 year old rich kid to complain about SCHIP. Did I just miss it, or is it possible that slovenly political left-wing-water-carrier swept it under his, I mean "the' rug? What a disgrace!!

    I guess you can't question anything anymore in Keith Olbermann land. Allot people out their were woundering the same thing about Shawn Hornbeck and why he didn't leave much sooner at that time. Another thing Keith Olbermann, if someone like John Walsh still goes on the Bill O'Reilly show then the comments must of not been all that bad to start with.

    You call a family with a combined income of 45k, who can only afford to live in a decent house because they bought it 16 years ago when it used to be a bad neighborhood, and who's kids can only go to private school because they've got nearly 100% scholarships rich?

    Damn, I gotta move to YOUR state. LOLOLOL

    Chiv, if you move up here to Taxachusetts you won't be rich for long, believe me!

    Hey Eddie. You're the one calling him "a 12 year old rich kid". I'm just trying to figure out what you're talking about. I make more than that kid's parents and I can barely afford my 1 bedroom apartment. I figured maybe you were from the middle of nowhere, where 45k really does make someone rich, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So what are you basing that comment on?

    "chiv," you've been reading too much far left propaganda.

    Well Chive, when the dad chooses to work part-time and the family owns 3 cars and a house (and another property) and they have their kids in private school... they may not be rich, but they sure as hell ain't poor.

    The dad (and mom) are to blame for their choices and they want you and me to subsidize their part-time-working lifestyle.

    And the dems are to blame for using these kids as human shields... hiding behind them instead of arguing/fighting fair.

    JohnE, I understand the second property is a commercial building that they bought a few years ago.

    I also read that at least one set of grandparents or both sets, I don't remember now, are quite wealthy. As a family there was no reason for them to not have health insurance for their kids before the accident.

    Now, they might not even be able to insure the kids that were hurt so badly.

    Their kids qualified for SCHIP under the program in place NOW. Their situation would not be affected by not raising income levels and adding "children" up to the age of 25.

    Grammie

    I've stopped watching Olbermann due impart to his weird Anti-O'Reilly rants which seemed to become daily from what I read here on this site. It's obvious that Keith is envious of O'Reilly's success and since he can't compete with him he resorts to juvenile antics. Keith is one of the laziest commentators I've ever seen. He lifts everything from the left-wing sites. Does he do any original work?!

    Well yeah, a bit. The name calling and personal attacks are original. Oh wait, he gets those from the blue blogs too. OK, I take it back.

    Oy. And you're talking to me about propaganda?

    Dad runs his own business. Their house, as I mentioned before was bought 16 years ago in a neighborhood that wasn't particularly safe at the time (hey, if I wanted to go to a bad neighborhood, I could buy a house instead of a 1bed also - that's a choice the parents made), and the kids are on scholarship to those private schools. They pay $500/year for each kid.

    And the Republicans these days are the last ones who should be complaining about anyone fighting fair given their propensity for simply smearing anyone who can't be touched based on facts alone.

    Royal King:
    One of the nice things about being an independent/libertarian is that you get to read the propaganda from BOTH sides with a relatively unbiased view. It's only when you read the debunks of the debunks of the debunks that you can even begin to suss out what's really going on most of the time, and particularly begin to see patterns (such as the previously mentioned pattern of smearing).

    I have little doubt that if the Dems got control of the Presidency and had a rubber stamp congress the way Bush did his first 6 years they'd screw things up just as bad as they are now. But come on. You can't scream "left wing propaganda" without seeing all the crap the Republican Party (I can't call them right wing, because they're not actually controlled by conservatives these days) is throwing out there.

    Balance is your friend.

    hey wasted, the "others" that Dobbs was refering to was obama. do you really believe olbywad would have picked on dobbs if he was criticizing ANY repub. one of the main benefits of this site is the constantly repeated olbyocracy. the schmuck has NO equal.

    The Frosts are upper-middle class now in a bad situation because the parents were not responsible BEFORE their children's terrible accident in maintaining health insurance. They could afford it then and even now with the help of their wealthy parents and by not spending their disposable income on three! expensive vehicles, and recetly remodeling their home. In addition, either parent should be working FULL TIME in a company that provides health insurance....the unemployment rate is still at record lows for goodness sake.

    The left continues to demagogue a settled issue for political calculation....the left is appealing to the lowest common denominator of fear in the population....fear of economic hardship and losing a certain "lifestyle." It is a shame and wrong because the SCHIP program would have been renewed and "Poor Graeme Frost" would still have his coverage....the President just wants to hold it at the upper-middle class and not have even wealthier people feel entitled to a government handout.

    Amercians are slowly becoming childish in raising their families....relying on mommy Washington to provide their morning milk, for goodness sake! What has happened to the independent and strong middle class that built this country in the late 20th century.....Their children and grandchildren are a bunch of whimps and whiners!

    Another symbol of the least generation (The Frosts) compared to the greatest generation!

    One final point....

    "To review quickly: We are now “meanies,” “hypocrites,” “slimers,” and “mobsters” for challenging the wisdom of taking money away from taxpayers of lesser means who are responsible enough to buy insurance before a catastrophic event in order to subsidize two-property, three-car families with four children in private schools and two parents who work “intermittently” and “part-time” who didn’t have the foresight or priorities to purchase insurance before a tragic auto accident."

    "And they call our conclusions “dubious?”"

    From
    http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/12/question-for-grown-ups-who-deserves-government-subsidized-health-insurance/


    ###
    Anyone who disagrees with Ms. Malkin's conclusions should provide a rationale on why The Frosts own 3 late model and higher end cars on a 45K/year salary....I know from my life financial experience that buying such cars would be difficult on such a salary....Where is their ability to buy these cars coming from?

    Again, the leftist ruling class trotted this family out to demogogue along with little red wagons.....anything found that thwarts the image that these people are "working poor" should be investigated and announced....So far, trickle by trickle, the truth of this poor family is eroding, yet the blind partisan defenders, like Olbermann, remain shills and not true journalists.

    Krazy Keith forgot to bring up the parts of General Sanchez's speech in which he lambasted the treasonous news media. Below is a snippet:

    THE BASIC ETHICS OF A JOURNALIST THAT CALLS FOR:

    1. SEEKING TRUTH,

    2. PROVIDING FAIR AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT OF EVENTS AND ISSUES

    3. THOROUGHNESS AND HONESTY

    ALL ARE VICTIMS OF THE MASSIVE AGENDA DRIVEN COMPETITION FOR ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL SUPREMACY. THE DEATH KNELL OF YOUR ETHICS HAS BEEN ENABLED BY YOUR PARENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS. WHAT IS CLEAR TO ME IS THAT YOU ARE PERPETUATING THE CORROSIVE PARTISAN POLITICS THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OUR SERVICEMEMBERS WHO ARE AT WAR.

    Cee, after your Malkin post Thursday, I did broad research on the SCHIP subject and you are 100% right. Thanks for lighting the fire.

    The democrats picked a poor family as an example to represent their side. Only the lefty minions are still throwing out the orginal unsubstantiated facts/propoganda as proof the Frosts are destitute. Everyone else is silent on this.

    Its a perfect example of the ignorance that the left panders to. Anyone could spend 10 minutes on the Internet and get hard facts that represent both sides... and see then that the Frost's hardly represent the poor Amercian family. Yet the continues to beat the "poor Frost family" drum.

    Conversely, if the republicans had put this family out there, and the obvious house of cards was detected, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC all would lead their newscasts with an expose that bore out the truth behind the propoganda.

    The media is becoming more and more biased, and I hope it doesn't suceed in advancing their lefty agenda!

    Welcome to america!
    "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning
    to breathe free"

    3 cars
    2 properties
    Private schooling

    As you can see
    "George Bush hates poor people!"

    I don't care to defend Olbermann typically, but that is incorrect.

    Posted by: wasted keystrokes at October 13, 2007 1:09 AM


    Tell us another lie!

    In the ratings Keith's getting a rout
    To O'Reilly (if ever a doubt)
    Keith's daily attack
    Just proves he's a hack
    And the Hornbeck family sold out

    "The wingnuts are continuing to swiftboat the Frosts and , of course, blame the dewmocrats."

    The Frosts are to blame for their situation...The dewmocrats are toblame for proping them up as human shields. as explained above.

    this "poor" family makes $45k a year...MY ASS! on paper, they make $45/yr. Seems like this should be sending up red flags to the IRS. Lift up a mattress in the Frost home, and I bet you find tons of $$$$$

    Isn't it ridiculous that a prime time 'news" show can waste precious airtime every night to sophomoric insults and name-calling of a direct competitor? O'Reilly made that comment in January and Olberdouche devotes a full segment 9 months later (with Hornbeck family in tow) to Bill-bashing? Wow.

    Countdown is the same schtick over and over and over... every night. Is Keith expecting a different result from his Bill-bashing each night? Isn't that how "crazy" is defined?

    Johnny, when you list the book sales of Bill O'Reilly's book "Culture Warrior", are you listing the numbers for the old hardback version or the new soft cover?

    The soundbite from almost a year ago where Olbermann says his "done" with O'Reilly really should be made a permanent link on the site for continued easy access.

    > Johnny, when you list the book sales of Bill O'Reilly's book "Culture Warrior", are you listing the numbers for the old hardback version or the new soft cover?

    I compare hardback to hardback, just as Keith Olbermann did when he started doing these comparisons on Countdown (because his book came out BEFORE O'Reilly's and he could make it look like his was selling better). As soon as O'Reilly's hit the stores, Keith stopped doing the comparisons, and in the interest of keeping our readers informed, we took up the challenge to complete the comparisons that KO started.

    The other went on to win one of the world's most [prestigeous]sic awards: The Nobel Peace Prize.

    Only a wingnut would disagree that the wrong person became president.

    Posted by: Why don't you think at October 13, 2007 11:23 AM


    What's al gorey done for climate change/pollution awareness in China, the worst offender? Answer, not a damned thing.

    In regards to Brendon Roy (12:43) in Olbermann being one of the laziest commentators around.

    Well here's a story in just how lazy, unprepared and rude this "man" really is, and I hope somebody relates this story back to him, as he knows it's ALL TRUE...

    About 14-15 years ago he was invited to play in a baseball fantasy league (National League draft for the uninformed). I happen to be there. He was the last one there, and when he came in very late he just sat down with no apologies and said "let's go." (we had all waited close to an hour for "his highness" to show).

    Well, when the first name called out was
    of a Natinal league player, he says "whoa, whoa, whoa!" Somebody asked him what was wrong, and he said "I thought this was an American League draft?"

    When told that it wasn't, that it was a National League draft, and that we thought he was kidding (as you have to prepare for one of these drafts for months) he promtly got up and said "I'm outta here," and left!

    No apologies, no excuses, just vanished leaving us all in a bind as we were now one owner short after preparing for months for a definitive amount of owners.

    Unprepared to say the least, but the rudeness and pompous way in which he exited the room is something that we still talk about to this day, and he shows it everyday on his show.

    Like the spoiled kid who isn't good enough to play with the rest of the block who then just takes his ball if he isn't invited to play and leaves.

    Obviously nothing has changed as he's yet to have one person with a different view on his show. He can't take any form of competition, so he rants uncontested daily promoting topics he knows nothing about and is unprepared to talk about if "God forbid" there is an opposing view.

    Wolverine,

    Thanks for your comment on Olbermann. Your comment is useful because it provides the perfect answer to the left wingers who cynically assert that anyone who speaks out aginst Olbermann is only doing so for political reasons. Your expereince with Olbermann recounted above is perfectly consisitent with the way Olbermann has conducted himself in the past (telling hecklers to "kill yourself" and to "f**k your mother", falsely stating that his more highly rated competition "supports Nazis" and refusing to acknowledge an ADL letter asking him to apologize for such detestable behavior.,etc.) The left leaning media of course ignores these Imus-like outbursts because they share Keith's far left opinions. However, reasonable people who care about responsible journalism deplore Olbermann, irrespective of political affiliation.

    Hank,

    It was all true too, and I like you said had nothing to do with politics but all to do with the nature of the man.

    His putdowns daily about the people who act like "nazi's" seem truly disingenous, as his whole attitude about free speech takes on one that nobody should have it unless of course they agree with him. Like a real nazi wants.

    He's a phony for sure, but what is even scarier is that he actually has followers. Just think if it was 1941 where would he be now?

    You know "Roosevelt is a war monger and Eisenhower should resign! The Germans are just taking what is theirs, and the Jews are a global threat!" etc...

    It's been only 60 years since the end of Hitler and his belief's, and yet somehow people have forgotten. His one viewpoint on every show he has is certainly in line with how Hitler rose to power, and scary to think if he ever chose to go the political route...

    Keith Olbermann is attacking Barak Obamanation. What a surprise. Since he lifts all his material from MediaMatters which is funded by Hillary Rotten. Funny how Keith Goebbels doesn’t think Al "Man Bear Pig" Gore is going to run for president. Keep marching zombies behind Keith since he has picked your presidential candidate.

    Cecelia,

    If you are ou there, I thought you might find Charles Krauthammer's take on Hillary Clinton interesting. The Great Navigator http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401690.html

    So Olbermann termed Obama criticizing Hillary as "rookie mistake".

    hmmmmm... thought that's what candidates do when they're running against each other...

    Wouldn't it be the sweetest thing in the world if Gore DID run!

    He's too party-over-self a guy to do it, but boy would that deliver some sweet revenge to the Clintons by giving Hill a run for her money.

    Tipper is probably begging him to do it... :D


    Thanks for the story wolverine. I'm not surprised by his lack of concern for others.

    Brendon Roy, I agree, I quit watching because the show became O'Reilly every night. If I wanted to know about BOR I'd tune in his show. Frankly his harping on his competition seems petty and immature. Perhaps he should just try to go with his own talents and stories but maybe he's afraid that would not be good enough. He seems to have some serious self-esteem issues.

    It will be interesting in the future when his current staff members move on and can speak freely about their work experiences. Bet they'll have some good stories also.


    Cecelia,

    I suspect that Gore will jump in in the 11th hour. His tepid current poll numbers will skyrocket and everybody - including Hillary-smitten Olbermann - will forget about the rest of the field. I'm not saying that I would be entirely happy with this - Gore has given progressives ample reasons to distrust him - but he would be stupid not to make this move. He would also mop the floor with all of the sad-sacks arrayed by the Republicans.

    My only hope in such an event would be that he would not have the latitude to back off of too much of his radical talk.

    O'Reilly asked a question about the Hornbeck case that may have seemed questionable. Keith has jumped all over it, yet has he ever done anything for children? He has stories about kids rarely and only when they help his agenda. Was this Devlin guy who took the kids ever Worst Person of the World? Nope. Bill has done much for kids, example-the whole push for laws against predators and judges who go easy on molestors. Keith is so jealous that Bill is going to have another best seller out so he is trying to smear his book. That's all having the Hornbecks on was to Keith. They deserve to tell their story, just not to this jerk.

    By the way Keith is going to have the kid's parents who talked to congress trying to make the President look bad on his show Monday. Does anyone out there think if it was against the dems that Keith would give a damn about the kid or the parents????


    Posted by: Tim at October 12, 2007 10:13 PM
    You nailed it, Tim. Keith Olbermann couldn't care less about a molested Shawn Hornbeck. In fact, the whole Shawn Hornbeck face to this story is a mirage, because this really isn't about him at all. This is about Tanmann's untamed obsession with doesn't-everyone-know-who.

    What a shameless opportunist. Even Keith's flock of sheep must know his number by now.

    Posted by: John-O at October 12, 2007 11:06 PM


    You people are amazing assholes. This is not about Olbermann. Didn't you hear what O'Reilly said to Gretta about the kid? How can you defend such a shit-heel? The man is a charicature of self congratulatory boot-strap revisionism.

    Cecelia,

    I suspect that Gore will jump in in the 11th hour. His tepid current poll numbers will skyrocket and everybody - including Hillary-smitten Olbermann - will forget about the rest of the field. I'm not saying that I would be entirely happy with this - Gore has given progressives ample reasons to distrust him - but he would be stupid not to make this move. He would also mop the floor with all of the sad-sacks arrayed by the Republicans.

    My only hope in such an event would be that he would not have the latitude to back off of too much of his radical talk.
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2007 9:41 PM


    I don't see that happening, Loin. It would be too divisive for the party.

    If we were talking about one of the Clintons it would be different. Either one of them would do it in an instant and would expect the heretofore front runner to bow out via ritual suicide...

    That's not Gore. He's more the fall on his own sword type.

    BTW-- ANY Democratic candidate who appeals to you will HAVE to tone it down for the general election.

    Sir Loin,

    I meant every answer I gave. If you don't believe me then you are a fool.

    1) What was the nationality of the majority of terrorists who attacked us on 9/11?

    I don't care what nationality they were. The important thing is that they were Mohammadans.

    2) Why did they attack us?

    I don't give a fuck. Do you give a fuck why the Japanese attacked on Dec, 7, 1941?

    3) Do you believe in the Eighth Amendment?

    Which one is that? I like the 2nd Amendment better.

    4) Do you support Ronald Reagan even though he sold weapons to terrorists?

    Reagan fucked up on this one.

    5) Do you support George Bush even though he pulled forces away from a cornered OBL?

    It was a Democrat Army lawyer who stopped it. "Terrorists have rights, too, you know!"


    6) Do you support Bush even though there were no WMDs?

    Saddam was the WMD.

    7) Do you support Bush even though he has done away with habeas corpus?

    Who are these missing people who have been spirited away in the dead of night? Please give a a list.

    8) Do support Sean Hannity even though he is a pathological liar?

    I admit I lied when I said that most Democrats are patriots, too.


    9) Do you support Bush even though he is cutting taxes at a time of war and building up debt to China and Saudi Arabia?

    Even with Iraq, the military spending is a tiny portion of the federal budget. By the way, are you prejudiced against Ching and Saudi Arabia? You are just a hater.


    10) Do you support the republicans who attack veterans such as Murtha, Kerry, McCain, Cleland, and Wesley Clark?

    The aformentioned are all now traitors who want to lose in Iraq because they hate Bush more than the terrorists.

    Posted by: Sean Hannity at October 6, 2007 10:46 PM


    You don't mean any of the answers you gave - you were just attempting to be clever. You are simply a fascist goon whose fetish/leader can do no wrong in your eyes, so answers to such questions are pointless. We'll be shed of you people before too long, but the damage you have done and may yet do will be immense.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 6, 2007 11:20 PM

    4) Do you support Ronald Reagan even though he sold weapons to terrorists?

    Reagan fucked up on this one.

    Posted by: Sean Hannity at October 13, 2007 9:53 PM


    According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, Carter sold to both Iraq and Iran too.

    He won a Nobel Peace Prize... :D

    Trojan, sarcasm at its best. I love it. You see we can laugh at our own

    Yes, Trojan you are right. Overconsumption by political types does not reflect favorably upon them. Speaking of overconsumption, how's newly annointed Yasser Arafat Award winner Al Gore doing, jetting here and there to accept awards and promote his pet cause? Not to worry though, I'm sure that his purchasing of "carbon offsets" makes it all okey dokey.

    According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Advisor, Carter sold to both Iraq and Iran too.

    He won a Nobel Peace Prize... :D
    Posted by: Cecelia at October 13, 2007 10:11 PM

    I don't think either country was considered an enemy at the time, the way Iran was post-hostage-situation. Not to mention that it was actually illegal when Reagan did it.

    Was selling arms to Iran illegal when Carter was President, or was he involved involved in selling chemical weapons to Iraq like Reagan?

    That's not snarking, I honestly don't know the answers to those (though I have a strong suspicion). If you have some info on them, let me know.

    so,, a few weeks ago, to be considered a great politician, you had to be a military war hero. now, you have to be a Nobel prize winner.

    >>so,, a few weeks ago, to be considered a great politician, you had to be a military war hero. now, you have to be a Nobel prize winner.

    It wouldn't hurt. Better than your only qualification being that daddy was president and got you out of Vietnam...

    Nobel Prize to nimrod Al Gore?
    Gas-guzzling environment whore?
    He invented the 'net
    He's as dumb as they get
    Like Carter who "won" it before

    The right wing would rather Gore take a vow of poverty and ride a mule for transportation.
    These idiots are hilarious !

    Posted by: Why don't you think at October 14, 2007 1:04 PM


    Weren't you crying your eyes out last night about the "rich getting richer?" Could you be any more of a hypocrite? Why don't you think before you post?

    "The IRS has obviously been infiltrated by dirty f**king hippies."

    ??? explain

    "How will the Republican presidential candidates deal with this information?"

    the rich are getting richer, and the lazy are getting lazier....so the IRS gestapo should tax the rich MORE?? then redistribute that money to the "less fortunate"?
    The rich are already paying most of the taxes.

    What's al gorey done for climate change/pollution awareness in China, the worst offender? Answer, not a damned thing.
    Posted by: royal king at October 13, 2007 2:18 PM

    Last I checked, Gore is an independent citizen without any real power to affect laws in the US, let alone a foreign totalitarian state like China.

    What's Bush - current President of the United States who had a rubber stamp congress for 6 years - done to stop China from owning a huge percentage of our debt, and large chunks of our country itself, giving them the ability to crash our economy any time they want? Answer, not a damn thing.

    Oops, that last one was me. Forgot to type in the name. D'oh!

    If you didn't post under several names, you wouldn't have to type in your name every time. Click the "remember me" box. What part of "global warming" does al gorey and his sheep not understand? Shouldn't he change his campaign to line his pockets to "US warming?" Isn't China part of our globe?

    Nice try. Only posting under one name, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to say that was me, right? Simple logic. Which unfortunately you don't appear to be capable of using given your continued harping on this China thing which is so ridiculous I barely even know where to begin saying what's wrong with your question. Especially since I made one pretty clear response, which you've just blown right past.

    AGAIN.

    (But thanks for the "remember me" tip. I assumed that had to do specifically with email/url)

    Cecelia,

    If you are ou there, I thought you might find Charles Krauthammer's take on Hillary Clinton interesting. The Great Navigator http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401690.html

    Posted by: Sharon at October 13, 2007 9:15 PM


    Sharon, I'm sorry. I just saw your post.

    Great piece by Krauthammer! I agree entirely that of the Dem candidates the best for the country (and Republicans) is Hillary, precisely because she will go against the left in the party for political expedient reasons.

    If she's elected, I have few fears and a great deal of hope for her presidency.

    I don't think either country was considered an enemy at the time, the way Iran was post-hostage-situation. Not to mention that it was actually illegal when Reagan did it.

    Was selling arms to Iran illegal when Carter was President, or was he involved involved in selling chemical weapons to Iraq like Reagan?

    That's not snarking, I honestly don't know the answers to those (though I have a strong suspicion). If you have some info on them, let me know.
    Posted by: Chiv at October 14, 2007 2:02 AM


    Actually Iran was considered a enemy. Carter offered to sell Iran parts for weapontry as a bartering tool for the return of the hostages.

    Sending money to the Contras was the illegal actions. It was not illegal under Carter or Reagan to see weapons to Iran. It was embarrassing, considering the rhetoric from both presidents against hostage takers.

    The business of arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan after the Soviet takeover started under Carter as well. That's another thing that's forgotten and Reagan is generally given all the "credit"...

    BIG SURPRISE!!!!!!

    The Worst Person in the World is Bill O'Reilley!!

    The so-called "Worst Person in the World" was instrumental in bringing about laws in many States that would put pedophlies and diddlers away for twenty years (or preferably) more.

    What has blow-fish Olbermann done?

    I must confess I watch Olbermann every morning.

    Morning, you say??

    Yes, I catch him on my PVR; turn it on, fast forward to the Worst Person segment, have my chuckle at how totally predictable his crap is, fast forward to the end, delete.

    That, in a nutshell is what Olbermann means to me.

    What has blow-fish Olbermann done?

    Posted by: Yukon Jack at October 14, 2007 3:30 PM


    Well, he seems to take a keen interest in polling place practices and procedures unless the election results are favorable for Dem candidates.

    Thanks for the info, Cecelia.

    But it still sounds like you're only talking about the post-hostage crisis time period. Also you said he only offered, not went through with it. And like it or not, negotiating for hostages has gone on forever, and will continue to do so. The fact that people still get away with the rhetoric of, "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" is amazing to me. It's the old joke about masturbation: 90% of the people do it and the other 10% are liars. :D

    If you could clarify the timing of it, I'd appreciate it. Also, I think you're right about the Iran/Contra thing. That was my own fuzzy memory at work regarding which side of the equation was the illegal one.

    I certainly DO NOT WANT Olbermann's pathetic ratings to improve.

    But being the kind Christian that I am, I will be charitable enough to offer this poor loser some advise:

    1. Cease and desist with your miserable puns like FIXED NOISE.

    2. Likewise with equally inane ORALLY.

    3. Likewise with equally inane anything your writers might come up with in the future.

    4. Concentrate - no matter how difficult - on being dignified.

    5. Try to hide your deadly envy of those who are undeniably better than you.

    6. Drop the tired "Worst Person" from your repertoire. It has worn out its welcome.

    7. First and foremost, try to be a human being.

    I'm not sure what you're asking, Chiv, since the Shah was in charge in the pre-hostage taking time period. During the hostage crisis is when Carter made the offer in order to bargain for the return of the hostages.

    Frankly, if negotiating to arm your enemies and thereby giving into to hostages takers is only "business as usual" as you imply, then I'm not sure why you're concerned with the "time period" in the first place.

    Olbermann is a hack!

    I am watching the Cowboys vs. Patriots game on CBS and all 5 commentators on the half time show are wearing American flag lapel pins. Anyone think that is a little jab at Keith Olbermann and his tirade against American flag lapel pins?

    Boy the olbyboy really knows how to distant himself from Americans.

    He's probably at home now trying them on, but invariably keeps taking them off, as he just can't picture himself as an American.

    Any bets that the next person to see Bin Laden in person from the country of America is olbyboy interviewing him?

    Well to be accurate it all started because Dobbs said for a presidencial candidate to be making a POINT not to wear one does not say a lot about the candidate.

    Olbyboy jumped right on that by then accusing Dobbs of being an idiot simply because of his pro American stance.

    As if Dobbs was an idiot for bringing out this fact in case anybody didn't grasp what was going on there with Obama.

    Obviously when the next Democratic candidate burns a flag whoever the "idiot" will be who puts it out will then be olbyboys "worse person of the day."

    Al Jazeera in Secaucus

    Nice recap....The show needs some viagra.

    You Obviously have no clue what Dobbs said. Tipical liberal zombie. You depend on Keith Olbermann to tell you what to think. You will make a good Nazi storm trooper. You liberals are the ones who turned the American flag into automatic support for the Iraq war. You are disgraceful.

    The truth is he is just against Dobbs saying wearing one is a must to be taken seriously.

    Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at October 14, 2007 7:08 PM


    You know this, how?

    I hope The Bus, Cris and Tiki, Al and John wear American flag pins on their lapels during the next broadcast. They've dissed Olby every other way, so this is another opportunity to rub Kommie Keith's nose in it.

    LOLOLOL. Olby's pic is on the bottle of Jones ORANGE cream soda. I guess we're not the only ones who have noticed Olby's citrusy hue.

    So when did the last ( Democrat) flag burning take place?

    Posted by: Why don't you think at October 14, 2007 9:14 PM


    You tell us. You have defended flag burning in the past, when is the last time you burned our flag?

    Are you suggesting that someone is only allowed to defend the RIGHT to burn a flag (aka "Free Speech"), if they've actually burned flags themselves?

    If that's the case, does that mean I can't believe law abiding citizens are should be allowed to own a rifle unless I own one?
    Or that drugs should be legal unless I use them?
    Or that prostitution should be legal unless I'm a gigolo?
    Or that I can't feel like the government has no business getting involved in abortions, even if I don't believe in them myself?

    Please tell me I'm misreading you.

    Set me straight then, genius.

    Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at October 14, 2007 8:35 PM

    No, if you want to be an uneducated twit who depends on a disgraced sports caster for propaganda, then I am not going to waste my time. Keep listening to Keith Goebbels and goose step into the voting booth and vote for Hillary so she can keep 60 thousand troops in Iraq past 2013.

    Ya, you're all putting out American flags that dems set on fire...
    Whatever gets you through the night.

    Posted by: Wasted Keystrokes at October 14, 2007 8:42 PM

    It's funny how your buddies at the ACLU will defend the right to burn the American flag but they won't defend a vet who cut down a Mexican flag that was being flown over the American flag.

    Chiv, what Royal King said, and to the point I must add, is that being that the question was when did the last time a dem burned the flag, he was asking the last time Why Don't You think did it.

    But, seriously why would burning the American flag give anybody such joy?

    The flag represents the very idea of free speech like you said, so isn't it a bit hypocritical to burn it? As if to say "I believe in free speech therefore I'm going to burn the one emblem that represents my right to use it."

    Like a bride after promising on her wedding day to "love, honor and cherish" her husband, who then turns around and screws his friend the same day.

    No, it's quite obvious, now that we're on the subject, that anybody who burns the flag is doing it to say they hate their country. Plain and simple, and anybody who defends the right of these people to do the same is either an ambulance chaser or unAmerican.

    chiv, your last post makes no sense. Except, you defend flag burning as "why" does. Have fun with that!

    No, it's quite obvious, now that we're on the subject, that anybody who burns the flag is doing it to say they hate their country. Plain and simple, and anybody who defends the right of these people to do the same is either an ambulance chaser or unAmerican.

    Posted by: wolverine at October 15, 2007 12:31 AM

    Actually, I'm thrilled to be living in a country with a Constitution that defends the right of folks to voice their displeasure (to one degree or another) with their country.

    ...or, I believe in the right to bear arms, therefore I'm going to shoot myself to use that right...

    Yes, Cecelia I agree also, but when it comes to destroying the one emblem that we have to defend that right it smacks of hypocrisy and therefore is not being done to "use" that right, but to abuse it.

    If a democrat is elected I will be bothered for sure, but no matter how many things they do or say that I disagree with I would never burn the flag as the flag doesn't represent the democrats or the republicans as it represents a free country.

    It's not out there saying "burn me because I represent free speech," as what it really is saying is that "I represent free speech, respect me."

    t's not out there saying "burn me because I represent free speech," as what it really is saying is that "I represent free speech, respect me."

    Posted by: wolverine at October 15, 2007 12:50 AM

    And the way we respect free political speech is to allow people to exercise it.

    Cecelia, yes political disagreements are one thing, but being that the flag itself gives one that right, then why in the hell would one burn it?

    Get it? are they burning it to say they don't believe in free speech? or, are they burning it to say they believe in free speech? Either way it makes no sense, therefore with just a little deduction they are burning it to MAKE a point. and what exactly would that point be?

    Burning the flag does absolutely nothing to prove a point no matter what party is in power. No matter what the denomination of the person burning it, (even though most of the dems will defend the right) it serves no purpose accept to be devisive to the country itself.

    Burning it to prove you believe or do not believe in free speech> Assinine. Burning it to say you hate your country>treacherous

    Burning it to prove you believe or do not believe in free speech> Assinine. Burning it to say you hate your country>treacherous

    Posted by: wolverine at October 15, 2007 1:12 AM


    We have the guarantee of "free speech" not "free speech that Wolverine thinks is reasonable and isn't a thought crime".

    Congress has the right to legislate against flag burning but I'll never support any pol who does.

    Cecelia,

    Time for a sanity test. Does a person have your blessing to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there isn't one?

    chiv, your last post makes no sense. Except, you defend flag burning as "why" does. Have fun with that!

    Posted by: royal king at October 15, 2007 12:34 AM

    Huh? What doesn't make sense about it? You equated believing in the right to burn a flag to actually doing it yourself. As for the fact that I defend that right, I think my post is very clear that I do. For exactly the reason Cecelia beautifully stated.

    I have nothing else to add to the subject, including the answer to Rico's question, which I think is self-evident.

    I heard Olbermann ha s a small dick and uses Viagra!

    I see mental midget, broadsword and other anti-American leftists gleeful over reports of dissent in opinion of military experts regarding Iraq.....But once again ignorant of the following good news out of Iraq....

    "There is widespread agreement that [Al Queda in Iraq] has suffered major blows over the past three months. Among the indicators cited is a sharp drop in suicide bombings, the group's signature attack, from more than 60 in January to around 30 a month since July. Captures and interrogations of AQI leaders over the summer had what a senior military intelligence official called a "cascade effect," leading to other killings and captures. The flow of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq has also diminished, although officials are unsure of the reason and are concerned that the broader al-Qaeda network may be diverting new recruits to Afghanistan and elsewhere"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401245_pf.html


    ###
    Key words...."past three months." I wonder where Al Queda would be if we had taken whiney Mikey's, Sir Loin of Milquetoast's, mental midget's, wannawipe's and broadsword's tact and deserted the Iraqi people to these totalitarians back in 1/07? This was also the advice by the radical left's ruling class......anti-American ideologues like Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator Kerry and Representative Murtha.....What would the leaders of Al Queda be saying right now if these people were able to direct the national security policy of The United States of America?.....I think we would hear Al Queda be saying something like this......

    "Thank you democrats for showing us, once again, that The United States is a "paper tiger. Just like in Vietnam, the great satan has been defeated!"

    That would be the ultimate endorcement for the tactics of terrorist totalitarians, uh leftists! Congratulations for being so true to your ideology that actually condones and encourages terrorism!

    Thank goodness for the great leadership of President Bush who remains free and unbothered by the hapless actions of the anti-American left....He may be leaving in 15 months, but I know he will remain strong against the freedom-hating left that is intent on using Iraq as a campaign issue rather than standing on principle and......

    GET THE TROOPS HOME NOW.....CUT THE FUNDS!....or....

    IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY......SEND THEM TO THE HAGUE FOR WAR CRIMES TRIALS!

    Yeah, right.....my wannawipe idiocy above is used once again to show the true nature of the vapid left.......no principle and no conviction higher than their own power and authority! Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    BTW, when the block-head Norweigens decide to give The Peace Prize to people who are actually saving lives here and now, IN THE PRESENT, with brave actions bringing peace and security to the world....I will once again respect the prize so nicely founded by the great man, Alfred Nobel....Until then, it remains another ideologically driven symbol of "nothing." Basing the prize decision on possible and unproven future events seems logically dubious when there are thousands of hard working people putting their lives on the line around the world against blood-flesh enemies of freedom and dignity....I would rather see the dollar prize go to some poor religious or political dissident in Vietnam or China currently in prison against their leftist captors.....How about any of you leftists here in America?.....Loin?.....
    wannawipe?...whiney Mikey?...broadsword?

    Al Gore safely flying around in his CO2 spewing private jet MAKING SPEECHES is really comparable to a person living under leftist totalitarian rule yet demanding their GOD GIVEN freedoms?

    Hey, broadsword, how about that DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE....you never responded about Jehovah, the one I AM, being pronounced as the giver and creator of our rights as freemen.....Are you too timid to defend your leftist secular philosophy that you have replaced the truth with.....the truth of The Torah you were given as a child and now discard into the trash?

    Cecelia,

    Time for a sanity test. Does a person have your blessing to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there isn't one?

    Posted by: Rico at October 15, 2007 2:05 AM


    No, they don't. But political speech and thought (as opposed to actually plotting a crime) has not been considered "dangerous" to the public in the sense that causing a mass panic that may result in physical injury has been.

    The closest we've come to THAT has been via worthless campaign finance laws that restrict advertising by political groups before elections.

    Cecelia,

    So one can't falsely claim there is a fire, but one can start one. That makes a lot of sense.

    Burning a flag is not "speech". It is an act. Can you give me the list of acts that are protected speech, and the list of those acts that are not? Where does it end? Some people might think that shooting a gun is "speech".

    I assert that burning a flag is incitement to riot.

    Poor mental midget....you can't directly address any specific points in my posts, as usual....The Nobel Peace prize used to go to worthy recipients.....read what Mr. Nobel intended as represented in his writings and see that Al Gore is no more deserving of the prize than Mahmoud of Iran.

    I specifically made comment about the prize, mental midget, and made no reference to President Bush being a worthy recipient. Once again, you show your inability to defend your position without invoking your Bush hatred.....

    And how about that Bush hatred, mental midget?.....time after time I have left this board without one of you leftists being able to defend THE FACT that Mr. Bush continues leading on the war against terror...including in Iraq, without any effect or support from your leftist ruling class....Please remember I have been doing this SINCE NOVEMBER 2006, you you have never been able to win this argument.....promises made about new directions in Iraq....and NEVER accomplished.....

    CUT THE FUNDS!

    Even some of you nuts demanded he be impeached and tried in The Hague.....

    IMPEACH THE CRIMINALS BUSH & CHENEY

    Nope, nada......Poor mental midget...loss after loss against me in reality and all you have is "the dumb chimp" makes simple and explainable gaffes in speeches...he is still running circles around the pathetic left in DC!...the surge and its success against AQI documented in today's WashPo!

    Oh well, mental midget....you once again slink away in defeat holding your treasured Peace Prize for flabby ol' GulfStream algore (who makes more alleged climate changing CO2 from his fat flabby butt and jets than the rendering plant down the street) close to your heart.

    Isn't that sweet!

    "There is widespread agreement that [Al Queda in Iraq] has suffered major blows over the past three months.
    [snip]
    Key words...."past three months." I wonder where Al Queda would be if ...

    Posted by: cee at October 15, 2007 9:49 AM

    You do realize that Al Queda and Al Queda In Iraq are completely different organizations, right? And that AQI is only one of many factions battling each other with us in the middle?

    I think Redneck Proud and Cee say it all. Obviously two real Americans who are proud to be Americans.

    Let's see, who would I want watching my back when the enemy appears over the horizon?

    Hmmm?...Broadsword who would want to extinguish all the Christians in the world while he waxes poetic about how wonderful the Muslims are?...I don't think so...

    Maybe Cecelia and Chiv who both would burn the flag and defend anyone else that would do the same while under fire?...Not a chance...

    Maybe Why and Slob who think we are too tough on fanatics by using water "torture" and playing loud music, while these same fanatics want to extinguish even the thought of freedom and every human being who preaches it (ironically the exact same things they propose to want)?...Naaah...

    No, I'll make sure I'm next to real Americans who are proud of their country, and to whom would fight for it and I wouldn't have to worry about being next to the above mentioned, as I know that the lot of them would be hiding in their cellars thousands of miles away hoping that we'll take care of business (as usual) so that they can once again go back to crying about how horrible America is.

    Admit it all of you, you only "say" you love America (except for narrowmindedstick, as he truly hates America, and in every post certifies it) but you truly have some hidden agenda towards it, and none of it comes close to loving it.

    Condoning burning the flag, hating Christians, feeling sorry for the terrorists, questioning everything done by the military and making up lies about it, protesting the war, hating the president, defending not wearing an American flag pin, and on and on.

    If somebody just got into this site, and saw the above mentioned examples they would think that they were posted by Osama Bin Laden.

    Yeah right, you love this country and Al Gore is an upstanding citizen.

    Actually I love Al Gore, at least since he ran for the precidency, as his bellowing while running was something to behold. "Bush betrayed his country" was the best and funniest rant I've ever heard from a candidate, as the screams he made with all the indignation of a kid screaming for his candy had me falling off my couch.

    Not quite as good as John Deans rant, but almost as good, and there was just sooo much to see of Gore....

    I hope he does run for president because after Seinfeld went off the air I haven't had a good laugh yet...

    Nobody, ever, was smart enough to identify Clark Kent as Superman, because of the glasses.

    Take the glasses off Olbermann and who do you find??

    Mitt Romney.

    Gotta love all the terrorist attacks in the US since we bagan the war on terror. Zero and counting much to you anti-american zealot's dismay. Enjoy your freedom from death given to you by George W Bush!

    Oh dear...Al Queda is being routed by our armed forces, and the two dim, anti-American leftists on this thread still retreat to the same old tired talking points....

    Bush is dumb
    Bush is murdering our troops

    Sorry fellas (I am assuming), that does not address my points.....Your leftist ruling class has accomplished NOTHING since taking the power and their approval ratings are in the basement compared to Bush....

    Who is the pathetic apologists?.....

    You two are....apologists for the fools Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Obama, Clinton and Kerry who know nothing, do nothing and provide no leadership against either THE EVIL BUSH or in the best interests of our country....

    While Bush continues to implement his policy unaltered....this is leadership in reality!

    Keep making fun of speeches, simple gaffes and inconsequential errors of the man who is supporting getting the job done against Al Queda (by those great American troops you also hate!), mental midget....I'll continue whipping your CO2 producing butt, as usual.

    Don't worry Cee, I'm sure with every putdown President Bush has had to endure by the anti-Americans about his intelligence he keeps thinking:

    "no man is smart, except by comparison to those who no less."

    Olbermann is basically a spokeman for the Jihadis.
    He spews their propaganda everynight.
    He's a traitor.

    Bush is NOT murdering our troops. It's the explosives that the insurgents got from the ammo dumps that Bush left to guard the oil ministry building...

    It's the AK-47s that "disappeared" from Bush's shipment to Iraq, with no serial numbers to keep track of them...

    At least the rodent now admits Bush is not murdering the troops... a claim he stood by when tillman went down. Freak

    Bush's incompetence is murdering our troops, son...

    Sorry if it was above your head...

    Murder is a conscious action, idiot!
    Nothing you say/type could ever be above my head.
    What a dolt!

    Third degree murder is not necessarily advertent, son...

    Nice try, though...

    Gotta love all the terrorist attacks in the US since we bagan the war on terror.
    Posted by: Ouch at October 15, 2007 11:44 AM

    Must be nice to have a meaningless and simplistic view on the world. Unfortunately, there are just too many things wrong with this statement for me to bother explaining how illogical it is.

    ---
    While Bush continues to implement his policy unaltered....this is leadership in reality!
    Posted by: cee at October 15, 2007 11:49 AM

    His FAILED policy.

    Wouldn't you prefer a leader who's able to recognize his mistakes? Or better yet one who implements a successful policy unaltered? Are you really so much of a sheep that you'll follow someone ONLY because he's leading, regardless of whether he's doing a good job?

    Gotta love all the terrorist attacks in the US since we bagan the war on terror.
    Posted by: Ouch at October 15, 2007 11:44 AM

    Must be nice to have a meaningless and simplistic view on the world. Unfortunately, there are just too many things wrong with this statement for me to bother explaining how illogical it is.

    ---
    While Bush continues to implement his policy unaltered....this is leadership in reality!
    Posted by: cee at October 15, 2007 11:49 AM

    His FAILED policy.

    Wouldn't you prefer a leader who's able to recognize his mistakes? Or better yet one who implements a successful policy unaltered? Are you really so much of a sheep that you'll follow someone ONLY because he's leading, regardless of whether he's doing a good job?

    Chiv,

    You lefties are very good at naysaying. Now let's hear what you want done and why.

    Rico,

    First of all, just because I have a problem with incompetence or criminal behavior doesn't mean I'm a "lefty". But it's interesting that you would immediately jump to that. Are you saying that only "lefties" have a problem with failure? If so, maybe I should become one afterall.

    As for what I want done, that's a pretty obvious attempt of yours to dodge the issue by putting me on the defensive. Not entirely unlike the ever popular, "Hey, if you don't like it, why don't you leave?"

    To answer your question would take way too long, but just in case I change my mind, are you asking what I would have done to prevent where we are now, or what I'd do now that we're already embroiled in the disaster Bush created.

    That's from the Colbert sponsered Wikiality...

    Posted by: Republican Killa at October 15, 2007 11:39 PM


    That's probably the nicest gift someone has given to Bob since some loon started Watching Olbermann Watch.

    He'll love it! :D

    Chiv,

    Nice punt. You lefties always do that. You aren't denying that you are one, are you?

    So we are "embroiled in the disaster Bush created?" Sounds to me like you are overreacting here. Of course, you lefties always accuse our side of that. But there is no disaster other than the state of your mind. You are unhinged over Bush and Iraq. How original. If you want your disaster to end, then snap out of it, man.

    Yes, Bush has fucked up in Iraq. But we need to be fighting Islamic terrorists somewhere. Why not Iraq? Where do you want us fighting them?

    Satire, you dumbfucks. The country hates you...

    Posted by: Republican Killa at October 16, 2007 1:03 AM


    You, Keith Olbermann, and Keith's mother may think fans of Wikiality constitute the entire country, but even Dan Abrams knows you're delusional... :D

    Chiv,

    Nice punt. You lefties always do that. You aren't denying that you are one, are you?
    Posted by: Rico at October 16, 2007 12:53 AM

    Um... actually yes. That's basically what my post said, but I merely alluded to it instead of spelling it out as if you were at two year old. I've also stated it pretty clearly elsewhere, but if you must have the two year old version:

    I don't believe in political parties, period. My opinions are most closely related to libertarian, but not exactly. I'd love to see a true conservative take the Whitehouse, but only if there's a Democratic congress, so there are some checks and balance and no one party is in complete control. Unfortunately Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the running right now, and the Republican party is doing everything they can to marginalize him, so I doubt I'll even get the chance to vote for him since he won't make it past the primary.

    There's not really much point to responding to anything else you said in your post, because it's obvious you can't actually carry a conversation based on your obsession with slapping the label "lefty" on anyone who doesn't agree with you, as if it's a racial slur. And you think I need to snap out of it? Hilarious.

    I'm not sure what you're asking, Chiv, since the Shah was in charge in the pre-hostage taking time period. During the hostage crisis is when Carter made the offer in order to bargain for the return of the hostages.

    Frankly, if negotiating to arm your enemies and thereby giving into to hostages takers is only "business as usual" as you imply, then I'm not sure why you're concerned with the "time period" in the first place.
    Posted by: Cecelia at October 14, 2007 3:54 PM

    Oops. Sorry, I missed this before.

    Technically, I'm not "getting at" anything. I realized in the middle of our exchange that I didn't have all the facts, so I was just asking you to clarify things before I could make an opinion of any kind.

    The timing issue could have been important if the arms trade you mentioned happened before the hostage crisis. But assuming your take is correct, that's not the case. And since you say that it happened as part of the trade, first of all, it was only offered, obviously not accepted. Which means it was only in the negotiation stage, I would guess with a whole lot of other possibilities. There's A LOT of fuzziness here as to the likelyhood that it would have happened.

    Also it might be splitting hairs, but it seems to me that there's a difference between offering something to an enemy as part of a hostage exchange, and offering something to an enemy - after the exchange is over - for money. Your opinion may vary.

    Like I said, I don't really have enough information on this one to go much further into it than that, but thanks for your responses.

    Chiv, why don't you take the World's Shortest Political Test.

    Actually anyone might enjoy doing it.

    I score 40,80 coordinates.

    Grammie

    Sorry, I forgot the URL:

    http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/index.html

    Grammie

    I'm not sure what you're asking, Chiv, since the Shah was in charge in the pre-hostage taking time period. During the hostage crisis is when Carter made the offer in order to bargain for the return of the hostages.

    Frankly, if negotiating to arm your enemies and thereby giving into to hostages takers is only "business as usual" as you imply, then I'm not sure why you're concerned with the "time period" in the first place.
    Posted by: Cecelia at October 14, 2007 3:54 PM

    I missed this too. Carter made what offer?!? Cecelia, please don't be ridiculous.

    Yes, Bush has fucked up in Iraq. But we need to be fighting Islamic terrorists somewhere. Why not Iraq?

    Posted by: Rico at October 16, 2007 12:53 AM

    ...because Bush fucked up, as you admit BY invading Iraq. There was absolutely no terrorist threat coming from that country, now it fuels enmity towards the US across the Islamic world.

    You can't escape the ridiculous foundations of your position by a general statement that "Bush fucked up".

    now it fuels enmity towards the US across the Islamic world.

    You can't escape the ridiculous foundations of your position by a general statement that "Bush fucked up".


    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 16, 2007 2:01 PM


    How do you explain the Cole bombing, the Marine barrack bombing and 9/11? All pre-Iraq war.

    SLOB, you will forgive me if I laugh and snicker at this statement:

    "I missed this too. Carter made what offer?!? Cecelia, please don't be ridiculous.
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 16, 2007 1:55 PM".

    This from the man who got bent out of shape because I refused to accept his FACT that Prescott Bush was involved in a right wing (wealthy men who admired Hitler and Nazism b/c they could make more money) military coup against FDR that failed by the grace of God and a highly decorated retired officer who was a socialist/communist. And except for a small cadre of tin foil hat wearers nobody ever heard about it.

    Grammie

    rk,

    This is not a simplistic presence/absence issue, two-dimentional rightie. All indices, including the most recent data presented by our own government's intelligence agencies, show that anti-American sentiments and terrorist recruiting are growing exponentially as a direct result of Bush's policies in Iraq.

    I missed this too. Carter made what offer?!? Cecelia, please don't be ridiculous.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 16, 2007 1:55 PM


    You do have selected credulity, Sir Loin.

    However, aside for your adolescent language and readiness to discuss your sex life in a public forum, you're the most stable of the liberals here and I like you.

    Here you go:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/
    0,9171,953997-2,00.html


    "Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski confirmed in his recently published memoirs that the Carter Administration clandestinely offered to supply spare parts to Iran in return for the hostages' freedom."

    Cecelia, your URL does not work for me.

    I know the quote is there but I would like to read the whole article.

    Thanks,

    Grammie

    Chiv, why don't you take the World's Shortest Political Test.
    Actually anyone might enjoy doing it.
    I score 40,80 coordinates.
    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 16, 2007 1:29 PM

    Seen it before, and it's a bit simplistic for my tastes. Besides, I can basically tell you where it would stand to begin with: more left on social issues, more right on economic, more libertarian in general.

    But that's still a WAAAAYYYY simplistic view of politics. Better than limiting everyone to left/right, but not by much.

    Not to mention that even in this case my answers, especially on the economic side were, "Depends." Technically this time I came up as 90/60, but that could easily slide up or down 20-30 points depending on my mood or what the circumstances are.

    Cecelia and Grammy,

    I was unaware of Zbignew's memiors, or of the offer of spare-parts he claims was made by Carter in regard to freeing the histages.

    I am somewhat perplexed that this little detail is all you two seemed to have gleaned from this Time article.

    Cecelia and Grammy,

    I was unaware of Zbignew's memiors, or of the offer of spare-parts he claims was made by Carter in regard to freeing the histages.

    I am somewhat perplexed that this little detail is all you two seemed to have gleaned from this Time article.

    Posted by: at October 16, 2007 3:34 PM

    You're making an assumption without taking into consideration what was being discussed on the board when I mentioned Brezinsky's disclosure.

    That's spare parts for weaponry, btw.

    Also it might be splitting hairs, but it seems to me that there's a difference between offering something to an enemy as part of a hostage exchange, and offering something to an enemy - after the exchange is over - for money. Your opinion may vary.

    Like I said, I don't really have enough information on this one to go much further into it than that, but thanks for your responses.
    Posted by: Chiv at October 16, 2007 12:44 PM

    Well, the difference that matters is that the Carter Administration went against Carter's own Executive Order.... remind you of anything?....which he had a right to do... He also went against his own mandate as to how the country would deal with hostage-takers.

    If by "money" you're talking mercenary interests, it was certainly in Carter's interest, to end the hostage situation pronto. It was nuclear warhead for him politically, that ended up blowing him out of office.

    Reagan (Special Prosecutor Walsh could never link him directly) went further than Carter by going against Congress and using the money gleaned for weapons sales to arm the Contras.

    rk,

    This is not a simplistic presence/absence issue, two-dimentional rightie. All indices, including the most recent data presented by our own government's intelligence agencies, show that anti-American sentiments and terrorist recruiting are growing exponentially as a direct result of Bush's policies in Iraq.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 16, 2007 2:32 PM


    slob, we are at war with them (islamo terrorists). What do you expect them to do, sit on their thumbs? Of course, they're going to rebuild and recruit. Aren't we doing the same thing?

    I am somewhat perplexed that this little detail is all you two seemed to have gleaned from this Time article.

    Posted by: at October 16, 2007 3:34 PM


    BTW-- you made another assumption revealed in your statement about Janet.

    You have no idea if she was even able to access the article. Hard to deem that "this little [sic] detail" is all she took away from the piece.

    Cecelia, I was able to access it and read the whole article.

    Your quote was worth the effort but the main thing that I gleaned from it was that no matter who controls the Executive and Legislative branches business generally perks along as usual.

    Sometimes, though, business as usual ekes out some help for the good guys.

    Grammie

    slob, we are at war with them (islamo terrorists). What do you expect them to do, sit on their thumbs? Of course, they're going to rebuild and recruit. Aren't we doing the same thing?

    Posted by: royal king at October 16, 2007 4:01 PM


    Dude, I don't know who is the bigger certifiable idiot; you, based on your obtuse mumblances, or me , for occasionally wasting my time engaging you.

    - You are suggesting that we should not expect a six-year, 700 billion dollar war waged by ostensibly responsible leaders of the world's biggest superpower to have any effect on the size and recruiting capabilities of their third-world, stateless enemies. I call this totally irrational thinking - but what else is new?

    Most of the Libs loons don't even believe that the Muslims attacked us on 9/11-they've convinced themself it was all an "inside job" and hell, half of the 9/11 nuts seem to think that no planes at all crashed into any of the towers or the Pentagon. No seriously, that's what they think. So naturally they don't get the war on terrorism, they're too busy trying to blame terror attacks on their own country.

    Dude, I don't know who is the bigger certifiable idiot; you, based on your obtuse mumblances, or me , for occasionally wasting my time engaging you.


    posted by slob

    This coming from someone who thinks WE bombed the golden mosque......brilliant!

    Most of the Libs loons don't even believe that the Muslims attacked us on 9/11-they've convinced themself it was all an "inside job" ....
    Posted by: Brandon at October 16, 2007 7:53 PM

    You know, it's funny. When you go on a right-wing website you just sort of assume terms like "libs loons" are intended as a blanket statement to cover basically ANYONE who's a liberal (likewise, on left-wing sites, terms like "right-wingnut" appear to do basically the same thing). But this post makes it clear that you're only referring to a REALLY TINY portion of the left-wing population when you use that term.

    Not sure why you feel the need to harp on such a small number of people to begin with, unless it's just for entertainment value (like the way I make fun of Fred Phelps' church). But thank you for reminding me that EVERYONE on one side doesn't necessarily assume EVERYONE on the other side is a total whacko. Seriously, I needed that moment of sanity.

    --As a side note, in regards to that particular point I quoted there, I'd like to point out that it isn't only the left-wing whackos who think that. There are plenty of right-wing whackos feel exactly the same way. There's something really funny that happens when people get too far on either end of the left/right scale, where they wind up thinking basically the same thoughts. One side might say, "It's the damn Commies!" while the other will say, "It's the damn Feds!" but really whoever they blame their nutty conspiracies on is really just semantics at that point. So really, there's no reason to call them "Libs loons" when you could just say "loons" period.

    Chiv,

    It clear that these people can think in no terms but those of binary absolutes and manichaean presence and absence. They represent the far right end of the political/rational continuum, and are capable of recognizing any level of disagreement as reflecting the far opposite end. Its a huge part of what makes them such promising fascist mind slaves.

    SLoB, you continue posting spam all over these comment threads and the fascist mind slaves in charge of this site will revoke your posting privileges.

    SLoB, you continue posting spam all over these comment threads and the fascist mind slaves in charge of this site will revoke your posting privileges.

    Posted by: johnny dollar at October 17, 2007 10:29 AM


    Is he the one doing the BUSH IS RUINING THE COUNTRY thingee on the sidebar?

    I tried to put "not" in there a couple of times yesteday and then thought better of it lest I arouse the wrath of the J$-man.

    Who knew Sir Loin has a whimsical side... :D

    SLoB, you continue posting spam all over these comment threads and the fascist mind slaves in charge of this site will revoke your posting privileges.

    Posted by: johnny dollar at October 17, 2007 10:29 AM


    AY YI YI!! NOOOO!! Anything but that!!

    Please stop, Sir Loin, unlike most leftists here, you're one-third knowledgeable and very coherent.

    I'd like you to stay.

    Cecelia, I missed the Bush thingy.

    Who would have thought that SLOB could be a bad boy. :)

    Grammie

    As an advisor to Hillary's campaign, I have fixed the problem of the media discovering anything else about our crooked money bags donors. See, I was at the big and tall department store and I got these pants with the stretchy elastic, so now I can stuff an amazing amount of documents down my pants, much more than when I pilfered those classified documents from the National Archives right after 9/11 in order to provide cover for Bill and Hillary.

    I also got some over the calf socks with stretchy elastic so I can stuff docs in my socks (has a nice ring to it--"docs in the socks"). Anyway next time those government zealots come snooping around to check on where we are getting our money, I'll just stuff the incriminating documents down my pants and in my socks. You really need to call in experts to handle these challenges during a campaign and I have the expericence to take care of this problem. Plus, I'll get a nice office in the White House when Hillary gets elected and no need to be worry about silly matters like "security clearance" since the Clintons never botherd with such things during the years I was there. Jail is for suckers like Scooter Libby!

    Sandy b, kudos and high fives from me!

    Grammie

    Hey, Keith don't worry about that remark you made about that black wide receiver and Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles. I mean you remember what I said about Tiger Woods eating fried chicken and waffles:

    [T]ell him not to serve fried chicken next year or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve."

    You know Keith, I'm glad you are ignoring those hand wringers out there who get their feathers all in a ruffle when people like you and me point out the obvious. Tiger or Roscoe might claim that they would rather have a steak or a hamburger, but hey, who are they fooling? They're black and that means they want fried chicken and waffles and collard greens.

    Keith, greetings and praise be upon you for denouncing the infidel Jew. I am just now hearing of of your renunciation of Jew reporter Chris Wallace. The impertinent Jew reporter dared to ask the former president Clinton questions about his presidency! You as the only faithful supporter of Allah in the media called out the Jew reporter:

    "It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back"

    Unlike other infidels, it is apparent Mr. Olbermann that you are well versed on the teachings of the Quoran concerning Jews:

    Qur'an 2:59
    "The wicked [Jews] changed and perverted the word We [Allah] had spoken to a word distorted." Because of their egregious behavior, the Jews "became like apes despised."

    Qur'an 2:64 "But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you."

    Ishaq:250 "The bestial transformation occurred when Allah turned Jews into apes, despised."

    Thank you for your assistance to our cause.

    Sorry to bring this up a week later, but...TWO HONEST QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FROSTS:

    1. To JohnE, cee, Anon. at "October 13, 2007 10:50 AM", Anon. at "October 13, 2007 11:43 AM", Benson, and anyone else who still insist that the Frosts were wrong to enroll in the SCHIP program, which they were legally qualified for (even if you still believe there's some grey area), BECAUSE you feel that it was still their choice not to accept second jobs, sell their house, etc.:

    Does your stance regarding them mean that if you lose your job you will refuse Unemployment Insurance, or when you reach retirement age you will refuse Social Security, since it would be your choice not to take second jobs or come up an adequate savings/retirement plan?

    2. This is just for my own clarification. As I already explained above, basically every Republican claim about the Frost family has been debunked (i.e. the job situation, the home, the private school). The only one I haven't seen any clear debunking on is the part about the "three cars". But that's also because I haven't seen a SINGLE mention about their cars, pro or con, that wasn't linked directly to someone like Malkin or Hannity, who considering their misrepresentation on the private school and all, are hardly reliable sources.

    If anybody can give me a link from a more neutral source that talks about that, I'd like to see it. I haven't come up with anything, and it's bugging the crap out of me.


    1. To JohnE, cee, Anon. at "October 13, 2007 10:50 AM", Anon. at "October 13, 2007 11:43 AM", Benson, and anyone else who still insist that the Frosts were wrong to enroll in the SCHIP program, which they were legally qualified for (even if you still believe there's some grey area), BECAUSE you feel that it was still their choice not to accept second jobs, sell their house, etc.:

    Does your stance regarding them mean that if you lose your job you will refuse Unemployment Insurance, or when you reach retirement age you will refuse Social Security, since it would be your choice not to take second jobs or come up an adequate savings/retirement plan?

    Posted by: Chiv at October 18, 2007 12:11 AM

    I'm not getting this.

    Are you saying that SCHIP is a broad based program on the order of Social Security and unemployment benefits?

    If you're making that sort claim for the program, then why are you simultaneously implying that the Frosts (I know nothing about these people) are catastrophically unable to care for their children in a way that would mean that SCHIP is based on criteria different than the aforementioned govt programs?

    Chiv's post above is a prime example of the phenomenon first identified by Johnny Dollar and often seen when the fringe lefties post here-- you can provide iron clad evidence time after time to prove a point, but no matter how many times the clear thinkers do so, the loons will come back and repeat the same lies again and again as if the issue had never been adressed. This happened with the Joseph Wilson matter when scores of loons tried to claim that Bush had said in his State of the Union specch that Iraq had obtained yellowcake from Niger and that statement was a lie. In fact Bush truthfully stated that Iraq had ATTEMPTED to obtain yellowcake, a claim that has been borne out. Still the Bush haters kept making the same misrepresentation.

    Now along comes Chiv playing the same game. Numerous posts on this site (especially from the thoughful and informative Cee) bear out that the Frosts principal problem was their irresponsible financial planning and choosing to fund discretionary items rather than health care for their family. But Chiv continues with his left wing broken record talking point that every Republican claim about the Fosts has been "debunked".

    If you can't be a serious contributor to this site, go back to your buddies at Kos.

    Cecelia,

    Funny, I'm not getting what you're asking either. :D
    I don't see what being broad-based or destitute has to do with what I was talking about it. But let me try to state it in a different way to see if it makes more sense:

    In the case of the Frosts, the Maryland SCHIP program requires that a family of 6 like them make less than 82 or 83k/year combined. The Frosts made 45k this year and 55k last year so they definitely qualify. The people I listed above asserted that since they also own assets, including a house worth a few hundred thousand (which they bought for 55k 16 years ago), that they are really taking advantage of the other taxpayers by not selling their house and using the money from it to pay for their own health insurance. And that not selling the house is their choice, so they shouldn't receive any help period, regardless of whether they legally qualify.

    Now, I'll ignore the social security part and just look at unemployment insurance:
    Let's say "Mike Jones", to pick a random name has a decent job. He also owns a luxury car, which he could sell for a lot of money. One day he loses his job and is eligible for Unemployment Insurance. He could either take Unemployment Insurance, which is payed for by other taxpayers, or he could sell his car and support himself on it. OR, we could even take it one step further and say Mr. Jones has 50k in the bank, cash, so he doesn't even need to sell anything to support himself before he gets his next job. It's his choice to take the government's help rather than use his assets, despite the fact that he's legally qualified.

    Why is it wrong for the people in the first example to accept government help and keep their assets, but ok for people in the second example?

    (just in case anyone thinks they can be tricky about it by saying, "But... you pay into Unemployment Insurance while you're working!" that doesn't quite work. In the same way everyone pays unemployment insurance, the Frosts are taxpayers just like everyone else. And if you consider their two properties, they're actually paying more into their local govt. than the average person, especially renters, because of property taxes.)

    I hope that makes it more clear.

    "Blah blah blah"
    Posted by: at October 18, 2007 1:00 AM

    Seriously, pick a name already. It's not that hard.

    Do you realize that absolutely nothing in your post relates to what I was talking about? I asked two very honest, straightforward questions, but instead of addressing them you just had to launch into an attack, which also has nothing to do with me or anything I've written.

    Even the "debunking" thing you latched onto as if it was the only thing I was saying was a very minor point which actually had NOTHING to do with my question. But if you really must insist that I go through this AGAIN:

    1. Dad only works part time, he's lazy!
    That's not true. He owns his own business, of which he's the only employee of, PLUS the mother of four children (including two seriously injured) works part time. Their combine income in the last two years averages to 50k, which is 30k less than what the law requires to enroll in SCHIP.

    2. The kids go to private school.
    Yes, but they're both on near 100% scholarship. They're paying $500 for each kid per year.

    3. They own two properties, including a REALLY NICE HOUSE!
    They bought their house 16 years ago for 55k. At the time it was in a bad neighborhood. Their commercial property was bought in 1999 (when there was still a good economy) and is currently worth almost exactly what they paid for it. The family is still paying mortgages AND TAXES on both properties.

    4. They own three cars.
    As I said in my previous post, I don't have any information about this either pro or con from a source that's not linked with Malkin or a similar person. And I specifically asked if anyone knows of a neutral site that comments about it to please let me know. Because I don't think that only one source is enough to make any kind of opinion on.

    So yes, with the exception of #4, I call that basically a complete debunk. And #4 the jury is still out until I can look at more than one source.

    But hey, if you want to ignore what I actually say or answer the actual questions I'm asking, and just call me a bunch of names that don't apply, go right on ahead. Hell, I'll even play along if you want.... Owwwww, that huuuuurts...

    Seriously, I'm crying in my glass of Patron right now. I really am. *sip*

    I hope that makes it more clear.

    Posted by: Chiv at October 18, 2007 1:31 AM


    It's clear that you're making an analogy that doesn't really work, unless you're arguing that SCHIPS is or should be a broad-based program like Social Security or Unemployment Benefits Insurance-- available to every family, regardless of income.

    But that's nationalized health care debate...

    Since family income must be within a particular parameter in order to qualify for the assistance of SCHIP, an argument on what those parameters should be is perfectly reasonable. Within the context of THAT argument people are going to ask if the Frost family did all they could do to make their own way.

    I understand that your response is that they met the terms of the program, so why should they be asked to do more (and here you throw in the false comparison between SCHIP and Unemployment Insurance or Social Security which are completely broad-based), but in doing this you're not discussing the issue, you're ending discussion by essentially declaring that the Frosts' qualified for the program- they have a right to it... THE END.

    What parameters SHOULD be in place for SCHIP IS the bone of contention.... and IS what is being discussed.

    Again, you're not making any real point or bringing any more light to why SCHIP qualifying requirements should be what they are and why the Frosts, in their situation, SHOULD qualify, by merely saying, 'But they did qualify. Why should they have to do more.'



    Seriously, pick a name already. It's not that hard.

    Posted by: Chiv at October 18, 2007 1:59 AM


    Hear! Hear! or Here! Here! (I've never been sure of what that's supposed to be.)

    Chiv, I like your style and I'm glad you're here at OW.

    Hear! Hear! or Here! Here! (I've never been sure of what that's supposed to be.)
    Chiv, I like your style and I'm glad you're here at OW.
    Posted by: Cecelia at October 18, 2007 11:23 AM

    :) Thanks, Cecelia. And while we're throwing out compliments, I should also say that if it wasn't for you and Grammie, I wouldn't have bothered to stick around for more than a day or two (and probably won't bother too much longer anyway). Yes, throwing barbs, zingers, and "SO THERE!" factoids at people can be fun for a bit, but I get bored of banging my head against the wall after a while. A real debate is a different story, and as that goes, you've shown yourself to be a class act all the way.

    (also, I'm pretty sure it's "hear, hear", as in, "Now hear this!". :) )

    --As far as your answer to my question, I'm still not sure I buy the difference between how broad-based the various programs are, but I want to think about it a bit more before making a real response. And BTW, part of the reason this whole question on my mind is that I'm a little experienced with this issue, since I actually have turned down Unemployment Insurance before when I qualified. But that was more for personal reasons than political, so I'm still deciding if it's worth going into or not.

    ...another reason I might not stick around much longer is OW keeps crashing Firefox ever since the weekend when it wasn't loading at all. What's up with that?

    ... Ooooh, I think I just figured out about the crashing thing. Whenever it freezes I seem to be able to get it to work again by just resizing/shaping the window a little (not minimizing). Probably just some weird HTML glitch. Maybe OW isn't Firefox/Mac friendly?

    If anyone else is having the same problems, give that a shot.

    Chiv, my husband and I went through every asset we had, IRAs, 401Ks, CDs and savings in twelve years due to illness, reduced income due to illness and having Health Insurace for only five years b/c private insurance would not cover anything preexisting.

    In Jan 2000 I went to the Charity Clinic at Big Charity and was admitted to Little Charity for 3 1/2 months with two very major surgeries. Half of that time was in ICUs and the total tab approached $300,000, compliments of the taxpayers.

    We could have done what we finally did without cashing in our retirement, a very expensive proposition with 15% Penalty Fee in addition to State and Federal Income Taxes. I guarantee you I would be a lot better off financially rather than close to just squeaking by.

    We did it b/c it was the right thing to do. Six months later Chubby Hubby got a rather low paying job with poor working conditions but first class insurance for about $200.00 per month. Although he went on Medicare shortly after he continued working to provide coverage for me. I maintained Cobra after he died until I became eligible for Medicare close to four years ago.

    I will echo Cecelia's comments and add a few of my own.

    An excerpt from an Aug 9 article in the WSJ:

    "Schip was created as a program that needs to be reauthorized every decade; the House plan makes it a permanent entitlement. Schip was supposed to help the uninsured; the House plan is consciously designed to "crowd out" private coverage and replace it with federal welfare. The bill goes so far as to offer increasing "bonus payments" to states as they enroll more people in their Schip programs. To grease the way, the bill re-labels "children" as anyone under 25, and "low income" as up to 400% above the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four.

    As if this all weren't blunt enough, the House's Schip bill also includes a new tax on private insurance policies. Assessed at $375 million in its first year and increasing thereafter, this so-called "fair-share" tax will fund a new government agency to study the "comparative effectiveness" of certain medical treatments and kinds of insurance. Unremarked is that health insurance is already more expensive than it needs to be because of mandates like this one.

    To finance its Schip largesse, the House would eviscerate Medicare Advantage, an innovative 2003 program that allows seniors to choose among various private health plans. It's growing rapidly and currently serves some 8.3 million seniors, or about 18% of the eligible population. According to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services, most are the urban poor, seniors in rural areas and minorities. No doubt they are attracted by the additional benefits, increased access to specialized medicine, and coordinated preventative services that Advantage offers over the traditional version.

    The House bill will eliminate $50 billion in Medicare Advantage funding over the next five years and $157 billion through 2017. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the funding cutbacks will likely result in three million people losing their Advantage coverage, and the rest facing reduced benefits and higher out-of-pocket costs. Politically, it's ironic that Democrats are funding "free" health care for the middle class by dinging poor seniors, who will have no other options besides normal Medicare and all of its gaps. The seniors probably have another word for it."

    Medicare Advantage is a boon for many retirees. I would have taken it if my health situation were different. I have opted for the much more expensive Medicare, Medi Gap and Prescription.

    I found the WSJ article when I googled SCHIP. I linked on it but the URL doesn't appear in the top where it usually does. This is the bottom part in green:

    online.wsj.com/article/SB118662306308792513.html?mod=googlenews_wsj -
    From The CBO Report Summary a very pertinent point.

    "On the basis of a review of the research literature, CBO concludes that the most reliable estimates currently available suggest that the reduction in private coverage among children is between a quarter and a half of the increase in public coverage resulting from SCHIP. In other words, for every 100 children who enroll as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children.9 The available evidence, which is quite limited, suggests that the bulk of the reduction in private coverage occurs because parents choose to forgo private coverage and enroll their children in SCHIP (because of better benefits, lower costs, or some combination thereof), rather than employers deciding to drop coverage for such children. No studies have estimated the extent to which SCHIP reduces private coverage among parents, so the available estimates probably understate the total reduction in private coverage associated with the introduction of SCHIP.
    Changes to the program may generate different effects on private coverage than those estimates suggest; in general, expanding the program to children in higher-income families is likely to generate more of an offsetting reduction in private coverage (and therefore less of a net reduction in uninsurance) than expanding the program to more children in low-income families. (Over the course of 2005, an average of nearly 2 million children were apparently eligible for SCHIP but remained uninsured.)10 As discussed below, policymakers are exploring options to increase participation among eligible children."

    The same ting happened here. I googled S-CHIP CBO Summary and I think this is the URL:

    www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=8092&type=0&sequence=1 - 36k -

    This is as, I read a poster say on another site, socialized medicine on the installment plan.

    Grammie

    ...so the answer is to skip the installment plan and socialize the whole system of medical care in this country. The result will be a healthier populace and a healthier economy.

    Just found this site with all these comments on K.O. Intersting, and amusing. I watch both B.O. and K.O. and think they both are pretty ridiculous. But up until today, I didn't even realize that K.O. has a book out, while B.O. touts his books and "gear" constantly. Could explain the disparity in the sales.

    Just found this site with all these comments on K.O. Intersting, and amusing. I watch both B.O. and K.O. and think they both are pretty ridiculous. But up until today, I didn't even realize that K.O. has a book out, while B.O. touts his books and "gear" constantly. Could explain the disparity in the sales.

    KO promoted his book when it first came out and he still didn't sell many. Plus he'll be pushing the new special comments tome coming out at Christmas.

    I couldn't sgree with you more about KO and BO

    Grammie,

    I’m sorry for what you had to go through. And in a way you’re making my point. The fact that people should have to liquidate their assets (such as your 401k or the Frost’s home) is ridiculous. It’s one thing if they simply choose to risk going without insurance, in which case they should certainly pay the price if something goes wrong. But that’s not what we’re talking about. Also, if a family forgoes insurance and there’s an accident like this, they will still be able to get treatment, only it will instead push up everyone else’s insurance rates, probably more than whatever the tax burden would end up being with SCHIP (at least based on the efficiency of Medicare which has 3¢ on the dollar spent on administrative costs vs. private insurance companies, which have 25-35¢ on the dollar).

    This becomes even bigger when you consider how uninsured people don’t use preventive care, which is far cheaper in the long run and how they have to go to the ER for care, which is far more than a normal doctor. In the case of the Frosts, there was a responsible alternative, which they were very qualified for.

    Maybe this is socialized medicine on an installment plan. But unfortunately that’s part of the game, which both sides play. The ban on the poorly named “partial birth abortions” could be considered a ban on all abortions on an installment plan, which I happen to agree with (except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger). The fact that some people might be using one of these incremental steps as a way of getting the foot in the door isn’t a reason not to consider it separately from the larger issue. In this case SCHIP is a bi-partisan program that’s been working. It passed through the Senate with a veto-proof majority and came close to a vet-proof majority in the House.

    As a side note, the health care system clearly needs to be overhauled anyway. Things like what happened to you regarding pre-existing conditions should never have to happen to anyone, and it’s also really screwed up that bean counters get to decide what treatment I need rather than doctors. I’m not saying socialized medicine is the answer. In fact, I won’t even begin to suggest I know what the answer should be, but it definitely needs a change.

    “I can’t choose a name” at October 18, 2007 1:00 AM,

    Ok, it’s now been 4 days since I posted my challenge to you, including the request for some kind of evidence regarding Republican talking point #4 (the three cars). I have yet to receive any response on that last remaining point, AND since then I’ve learned that Mitch McConnell, who had originally suggested promoting this smear campaign, had admit that there was nothing to this story.

    So the way I see it, you have three choices:

    1. Man/Woman-up and admit that jumped all over me for no reason. Then apologize for slamming me, when in fact it was you who was repeating talking points and didn’t do your research.

    2. Continue down your current path of lunacy to its obvious conclusion, which is to accuse Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, of being a fringe lefty who should go back to his buddies at Kos.

    3. Pretend you didn’t see this post and go on with your cowardly slagging of people who disagree with you, even if they have the facts to back it up.

    Most of me is rooting for #1 because I love to see people act in a stand-up way. But there’s definitely a part of me that’s rooting for #2 for sheer entertainment value. Of course my money is on #3. Please prove me wrong.


    (ok Grammie, NOW you can tell me to lighten up ;) )

    Leave a new comment