When the way over the top Nazi smears start pouring out you know the speaker has lost the argument. So going for the 'high ground' J$ compares Keith to Joseph Goebbels, one one 2 Nazi references.

Like all partisan talking heads (by far most of whom come from the right), Olbermann spins by carefully picking facts. But the histrionics in this post are turning an ant hill into Mt. Everest.

I'm not sure how "it read in part" got missed in J$'s spew but there's no intent to deceive here. The missing Bennett and Hannity quotes don't in any way change Keith's point despite J$'s panties getting so tightly wadded over them and not mentioning Scarlboro and Colmes aren't that big a deal either.

The email is the one originating the claim regarding objective observers. Keith's clearly pointing out the irony right-wing demagogue Hannity is on that list as is Bennett. He's not claiming everyone mentioned in the email is biased.

What this is an example of isn't Keith's outrageous bias but of the obsessive ranting of J$ who feels compelled to spin everything Oblermann says into some extreme evil.

Take a chill pill , J$, and let your right-wing hatred chill for a while. You'll live longer.

"Breaking News" to smear John McCain
The facts Ubermoronn will feign
A journalistic fool
MSNBC's tool
To believe Keith you must be insane

"I'm not sure how "it read in part" got missed in J$'s spew but there's no intent to deceive here."

Posted by: S. Knabt at February 23, 2008 1:55 PM

You know this, how?

Hey, if olbywad can get away with Nazi references ad nauseum, J$'s allowed a couple here and there. The point is, the discredited sportcaster nightly leaves stuff out of his harangues on the right to best suit his and his audience's needs. The guys a friggin joke. A cretin and above all else a COWARD!!!

> He's not claiming everyone mentioned in the email is biased.

How could he? He just ridiculed the email WITHOUT TELLING his viewers who were quoted. What part of "lie by omission" do you not understand?

> When the way over the top Nazi smears start pouring out you know the speaker has lost the argument. So going for the 'high ground' J$ compares Keith to Joseph Goebbels, one one 2 Nazi references.

You really should pay more attention to what goes on here. It wasn't that long ago that we posted a video showing one Olbermann Nazi/Third Reich comparison after another. I wouldn't have made the analogies if he hadn't done so previously, over, and over, and over.

Olbermann calling anyone a fascist is simply the pot calling the kettle black..For all the disdain he has for Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly has dissenting commentary in just about every segment of his news commentary. Olbermann using the same, say 8 socialist aligned hacks to back up his propaganda every night, with NEVER a contrary opinion is Nazism to the nth degree. Shut down the opposition at all costs. Olbermann couldn't debate anyone to save his life, I don't think teleprompters work that quickly. For Olbermann's benefit, Fascism is a socialist ideology. In Germany it was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKER'S PARTY. Note socialist. The left equate fascism and Nazism to the right, and wrongly so, as they were on the right inside the spectrum of socialist ideology. The opposite of socialism is Classical Liberalism, which has NOTHING to do with contemporary liberal stances today. Classical Liberalism comes from our founding fathers and contends that the individual is first and foremost over the collective. Socialism entails the collective being a more important entity than the individual. So, Johnny$ is more than correct in equating Olbermann to Goebbels. My favorite name for him is OLBERGOEBBELS.

I really think it was wrong of Olbermann to label Bush as a fascist. Corrupt - yes, incompetent - yes, crony - yes, but the use of the word "fascism" as an insult has really been obscured. Fascism could be anything that somewhat resembles government. For example, a drinking age, age of consent, pro-life, pro-choice, patriotism, corporatism, collectivism, militarism, anything. The constitution could easily be labeled as a fascist document. Anarchism would actually be antithetical to "fascism"

and by the way before you get talking points from Jonah Goldberg, know that the Italian fascist party hated communists and socialists.

Posted by: sheikyerbouti420 at February 23, 2008 2:37 PM
"In Germany it was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKER'S PARTY. Note socialist. "

Yeah, and East Germany's real name was "The German Democratic Republic". What of it? Names mean jack.

To call fascist either left OR right misses the point. Once you get too far to either extreme, you're basically in the same place. The only question is if the government runs the corporations or if the corporations run the government. Either way, they're both essentially the same entity, so there's really no difference.

Take a look at Naomi Wolf's "10 Steps to Fascism" at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment (yeah yeah I know, she's a liberal, so you won't care what she says despite whether or not her research stacks up). Or simply look at the standard list of fascist traits as listed in Wikipedia: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

It's pretty obvious which direction the current administration is leaning. At least the Republicans were smart enough to finally see through Rudy's BS. I don't think we would have recovered from that nightmare. THANK YOU!!!

-Chiv

P.S. If Grammy and Cecelia are still here, HELLO! Sorry I haven't been around since that one month or so, but besides the fact that I found you two to be pretty much the only ones worth debating, I absolutely HATE this format for discussion. Maybe if the webmaster considered something like phbb (or whatever) so we could have actual topics that would be better. I would have loved to have continued some of those discussions. Cheers!

You know this, how?

Posted by: olby sucks at February 23, 2008 2:05 PM

God you're STUPID rk.

Just to add to what Trent said, I just stumbled across this interesting quote from George Orwell about fascism:

"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

There's another valid angle for looking at it.

I wouldn't have made the analogies if he hadn't done so previously, over, and over, and over.

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 23, 2008 2:12 PM

HE DID IT FIRST!!! MOMMY!!! HE HIT ME FIRST!!!!

Its nice to know that you don't hold yourself to any HIGHER standards than the ones you spend your life criticizing.

Goebbels said, "Not every item of news should be published.
Rather must those who control news policies endeavor
to make every item of news serve a certain purpose."

Sounds like Olbergoebbels to me.

Just to add to what Trent said, I just stumbled across this interesting quote from George Orwell about fascism:

"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come."

There's another valid angle for looking at it.

Posted by: Chiv at February 23, 2008 3:16 PM

What an excellent quote. I have been guilty of throwing around the word a couple of times before myself, but really if you actually sit down and try to define fascism, and sit down applying it to concepts of the sociological form, it will drive you crazy. Be it microcosmic or macrocosmic.

> Its nice to know that you don't hold yourself to any HIGHER standards

Wow. After spending years throwing back at Olbermann the names and insults he uses on others, documenting them in the Olbersaurus, and discussing this strategy in the FAQ, you just now figured out that we are using Olbermann's words against him? Nothing gets past you, does it?

What an excellent quote.
Trent the Situationist at February 23, 2008 3:31 PM

Yeah, after reading that quote I almost wanted to delete my own previous post for the same reason. :D :D :D

A reminder to check the KO mini-blog in the left column. Just updated with some interesting Olberlinks.

OLBYLOON DEBATING TACTICS 101

"I'm not sure how "it read in part" got missed in J$'s spew but there's no intent to deceive here."

Posted by: S. Knabt at February 23, 2008 1:55 PM

You know this, how?

Posted by: olby sucks at February 23, 2008 2:05 PM

You know this, how?

Posted by: olby sucks at February 23, 2008 2:05 PM

God you're STUPID rk.

Posted by: at February 23, 2008 3:15 PM

"How Olbermann Tricks His Audience"

Kind of strange, i watch the show and i did not feel tricked. I also am not a gullible lemming either. I know this may be hard to comprehend for some out there, so sit back and listen cafefully, regardless of which 8PM cable news program you prefer to watch. There are some people out there in the world who have the ability to think for themselves, who dont take everything these idiots say as 100% fact, some of us use that big muscle in our heads and dont waste our lives hanging on to everything these hosts say. Some people out there need to get a grip, people dont care about this garbage as much as you think they do. I come to this site occasionally because frankly the childish banter between these two sides is almost to funny to describe, but seriously what is worse, whatever it is that you are claiming Keith did (leave out the full quote...wow...really got him....welcome to news my friend..happens every day) or making NAZI references left and right in your writing. Are you telling me that you dont have the writing ability to make i through one story without a reference, and the argument of "he does it, so that means i can" is lame in its own regard.

Olbermannijad's use of Nazi tactics is no suprise. He's a totalitarinist. He supports The Iranian regime, Syria and Al-Qaeda. I bet also he loves the Castro brothers and Kim Jung Il. Olbermann is very dangerous and he should be investigated for ties Islamic radicals.

Hey! Speaking of misrepresentation of the facts:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge

This...is what you're wrought. Try owning up to it.

> Are you telling me that you dont have the writing ability to make i through one story without a reference

When a "news commentator" does the Seig Heil salute, is reprimanded by the anti-defamation league, compares the rise of the Bush administration to that of the Third Reich, says that Bush is acting like the Nazis, and compares the proposed FISA law to the war crimes of the Third Reich... When Herr Olbermann does all that, he deserves what he gets, Nazi-comparison-wise.

And your statement that I can't do a single post withOUT a Nazi reference is such a laughable, unprovable lie that it identifies you for what you are: an Olbypologist.

"He supports The Iranian regime, Syria and Al-Qaeda."
"Olbermann is very dangerous and he should be investigated for ties Islamic radicals"

PROVE IT, put one bit of any evidence that you have right here on this page. Anything, anything at all that you have, lay it out. I would love to see it, seriously. ANYTHING

The Bush administration is categorically a fascist cabal. Quit whining when people point it out.

My point is this, its called being a bigger person. Almost everyone would agree that referencing anyone to the NAZI's is wrong, Keith doing it included. Im not defending what he says or does, i dont care. But just cause has done it does not make it ok for you to do it. NO ONE SHOULD, you-him or anyone else. That is all, i think that is fair

"There are some people out there in the world who have the ability to think for themselves, who dont take everything these idiots say as 100% fact, some of us use that big muscle in our heads and dont waste our lives hanging on to everything these hosts say. Some people out there need to get a grip, people dont care about this garbage as much as you think they do."

--Anon, 3:56 pm

You have a good point, but the key word in there is SOME. SOME people have a discerning mind and think critically for themselves. But a lot don't. That's why Olbermann gets to me so much. He's an expert propagandist (or at least his writers are) and skilled at doing hit pieces and inflaming passions. What's worse is that even intelligent people can be duped or swayed by dishonest demagogues like Olbermann when they, by no fault of their own, get fed misinformation and lies. I'm intelligent, and even I have been had by Keith on a few occasions. Our only defense as news consumers against irresponsible pundits is to graze at a variety of different sources.

And your statement that I can't do a single post withOUT a Nazi reference is such a laughable, unprovable lie that it identifies you for what you are: an Olbypologist.

Posted by: johnny dollar at February 23, 2008 4:11 PM

Zactly.

>>>>

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge

This...is what you're wrought. Try owning up to it.

Posted by: broadsword at February 23, 2008 4:08 PM

I can see it now. The rolling stone author of the opinion piece w/a joint hanging out of his face while he is writing. New gal sitting w/a joint hanging out of her face while she is reading it. Then she has the nerve to tell us to read it thinking it actually has any credibility. Where else do you get your news, Penthouse?

That's why Olbermann gets to me so much. He's an expert propagandist (or at least his writers are) and skilled at doing hit pieces and inflaming passions.
Posted by: John-O at February 23, 2008 4:43 PM

Honest question since I don't know you or your positions — also, assuming for the sake of argument that your assertion about KO is correct:

Do you feel the same way about Rush, O'Reilly, and the various right-wing smear merchants who use the same tactics?

> Rush, O'Reilly, and the various right-wing smear merchants who use the same tactics?

Rush is a radio talk show host, and does not pretend to be a "journalist" or "news anchor". So why don't you pick another host of a nightly cable news program. If you want one that uses Olbermann's tactics you'll have to find one who never interviews people with an opposing viewpoint, and for more than a year has only interviewed politicians and elected officials from ONE party, with not a single person from the other party allowed to appear. So before you ask someone if they support those "same tactics", identify someone, anyone, on cable news with a show as one-sided, biased, and partisan as Olbermann, with a guest list all from one party, and we can take it from there.

Olbermann would make his Grandpa Goebbels proud. Can't the left wing hate machine find someone smart enough to argue their point without resorting to the Nazi propaganda play book?

Why does MSNBC continue to put up with Keith Olberman's constant harassment toward O'Reilley? When he kept calling Bill a racist, I couldn't believe it. How can Olberman be taken seriously as a new caster, especially one who is covering the election. If not so pathetic and dangerous, it would have been funny when Olberman said to Jesse Jackson," I'm just sorry we had to meet again under these circumstances." He has some real anger and hate issues brewing. If I were Chris Matthews, I would refuse to work with him.

> Rush, O'Reilly, and the various right-wing smear merchants who use the same tactics?

>Rush is a radio talk show host, and does not pretend to be a "journalist" or "news anchor". So why don't you pick another host of a nightly cable news program. If you want one that uses Olbermann's tactics you'll have to find one who never interviews people with an opposing viewpoint, and for more than a year has only interviewed politicians and elected officials from ONE party, with not a single person from the other party allowed to appear. So before you ask someone if they support those "same tactics", identify someone, anyone, on cable news with a show as one-sided, biased, and partisan as Olbermann, with a guest list all from one party, and we can take it from there.

Right on J$ ! There is no comparison. O'Reilly aways has a guest on with an opposing view. Thing is these lemmings don't watch the show and only think what Media Matters tells them to think. They cannot think for themselves and are afraid to watch O'Reilly because they would have to ask themselves,"Hmmm, I don't agree with BO because he seems to represent traditional values but I have to admit he has guests on his show that ARGUE with him".

Unfortunately we can't help these people to think for themselves. I heard a quote that fits these people perfectly: You can't reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into to begin with.

Olby would have fared well in Hitler's germany.

Do you feel the same way about Rush, O'Reilly, and the various right-wing smear merchants who use the same tactics?

Posted by: Chiv at February 23, 2008 6:34 PM

I agree with J$'s post just below yours that first you have to find someone who fits that description (not Rush, not O'Reilly). But to answer your question--it's the TACTICS I feel strongly about, not the ideology of the person. In fact, I'm what would be considered "liberal" on a few major issues. But haters like Olbermann who throw in with the Daily-Kos/ Media Matters political environment have really turned me off to the modern left.

I am either a far right democrat or far left republican, depends on the day.

I like most of the FOX news gang because they are mostly conservatives but they bring people on their shows that are democrats to see the other side of the argument.

I don't see that happening hardly ever on MSNBC especially that Olbermann guy. He is venomous as well. If someone believes something different to his view they are a nazi lover. Scary. I watch Olbermann once in awhile more to see how strange he may get than for anything newsworthy. His show might be interesting if he brought someone on that didn't agree with his ultra left point of view. I haven't seen one Republican guest on his show since I've been watching.
One thing I have noticed he hates Bill O'Reilly with a passion, did O'Reilly steal his wife or kill his dog?
I am just glad his ratings are so low or I would be worried about the ability of Americans to think objectively.

CNN does pretty well keeping it fair but doesn't have as much flair as FOX.

Any suggestions for a similar venue as O'Reilly or Olbermann that is middle of the road? I like O'Reilly because he does a descent job of hiding his bias and has good content on his show but I would like to try someone in the middle of the road.

They cannot think for themselves and are afraid to watch O'Reilly because they would have to ask themselves,"Hmmm, I don't agree with BO because he seems to represent traditional values but I have to admit he has guests on his show that ARGUE with him".

Posted by: CountDung at February 23, 2008 8:49 PM

They would HAVE to ask themselves that?
The ONLY reason one might not agree with Fuckstick O'Reilly is because he seems to represent "traditional values"?

Leave it to the knuckleheads out here to assume the world is ONLY black and white. One dislikes O'Reilly or his show and it is because he represents traditional values. That's like saying "They don't like me. It must be because I have a great personality, am exceptionally intelligent and am too good looking."

Like there aren't a million other reasons to hate O'Reilly. He's a pompous windbag who thinks his position is the only viable one no matter what the subject.
Kind of like most of the idiots out here, except you can substitute backwoods for pompous.

So is Johhny Mac trying to raise money from Americans or the ChiComs, or possibly some individuals from Dubai?

I think Keith with his superior intellect and assiduous journalistic skills should get to the bottom of this...

Are Hillary and Barry fascist for wanting to take over the entire health care system, make it one with the government? How about when they rip in to the moneylenders...

Not much difference between their stated goals and the goals of the Nazi party.

But we are led to believe that Bush is a fascist while ignoring all the clattering in the cupboards of the left?

Gimme a break.

I am a middle of the road moderate and think Olbermann is an obsessive borderline psychotic. They are both egotists but O'Reilly has it under control mostly. Try to watch both shows without your obvious bias and learn reality.

Sorry.

but I would like to try someone in the middle of the road.

Posted by: Vince - AZ at February 23, 2008 10:57 PM

Give Glenn Beck a try. He's about as fair as they come.

"So going for the 'high ground' J$ compares Keith to Joseph Goebbels, one one 2 Nazi references."

Actually the comparison to Goebbels is completely appropriate. Like Goebbels, Oralmann is a racist. In the last year he's made racist comments about Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews. Also, just like the Nazi propagandist, Herr Oralmann never, ever, talks to anyone who disagrees with him. He'll only interview fawning hate-spewing Demofascists who share his warped world view.

VIince, I am very conservative and agree completely with your assessment. Unfortunately, there are many here who consider being repulsed by KO is prima facie proof of mentally deranged fascism.

Have you ever taken the Shortest Political Quiz in the World? It literally takes a max of ten minutes. You can find it here:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I said I am very conservative but according to this I strongly lean conservative with a large dollop of Libertarian.

Welcome to OW.

Grammie

Glenn Beck. What time / channel?
I'll try the quiz. Thanx

Wow. I am a Libertarian. I didn't know that.

Thanx again.

No wonder I disagree with them all at some point or another.

I have always self described as very conservative but when I took the little test I found out I am a hybrid conservative libertarian. I was very surprised too.

If you analyse the questions it is not hard to see what the determiners are.

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Grammie

Just when I think the MSM can't surprise me ever again they manage to somehow come through.

"FNC Highlights CNN's Memo Calling for Praise of Fidel Castro" @

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/23/fnc-highlights-cnns-memo-calling-praising-castro

".....E.D. HILL: Castro's resigning, it was big news around the world, as the communist dictator announced he was stepping down in a letter. Castro has been a thorn in the side of every U.S. administration dating back to Dwight Eisenhower, has been known for his brutal repression of free speech and dissidents in Cuba. But, over at CNN, staffers were told in a note to accent the positive in their coverage. For example: "Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba -- namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration -- in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech.

"While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftists in Latin America, for standing up to the United States."....."

I love the last sentence above"While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftists in Latin America, for standing up to the United States."....."

Why confine their reason to praise Fidel Castro just to ameliorate and console in their grief "leftists in Latin America". Why would CNN ignore our home grown leftists such as M Moore (Sicko), Cindy Sheehan, the Black Caucus, Sean Penn etc?

Grammie

"namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration"

I wonder if commy news network mentioned that all of these were total disasters? That's a rhetorical question, of course.

Here is a clip of an Olbermann bio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCRDiBEc-kI

Pretty funny.

"namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration"

I wonder if commy news network mentioned that all of these were total disasters? That's a rhetorical question, of course.

Posted by: olby sucks at February 24, 2008 2:02 AM

Royal King!

Oh, the moonbats are shrieking and wailing in pain: Ralph Nader is running for president. I believe the Dems were doomed already as their hopes are pinned on the Pied Piper of politics and his feel-good warm, fuzzy message of change (which contains no substance whatsoever). Nader's announcement is the nail in the coffin for the Democrats.

Wow. On Meet the Press, David Brooks said Hilary needs to begin exposing Barack Hussein and his sham campaign promises. He suggested that she question Barack's claims that he will unite the divided on The Hill and corner him for explanations about how he plans to accomplish his grand plans. Perhaps Barack Hussein has magic beans.

The selective quote, erasing people from books and pictures -- all are beloved Stalinist tactics. Keith should have been compared to hero of the people Uncle Joe rather than Goebbels. Nonetheless, the point is well made -- Keith is a propagandist and a danger to himself and others (emphasis on OTHERS).

On another note, what we really need is a closet Muslim underexperienced socialist "feel good" President who was educated partially in Islamist hotbed Indonesia and has a wife who has "never been proud of this country" until her husband ran for President! That will fix everything!

Another stellar candidade choice by the Democrat party. They won't even vote for this guy when the time comes -- just another public tantrum by foolish children.

Add the NY Times public editor to the list of people who think the McCain story was a POS.

Well said, kfk.

Will the NYT delve into the interesting marriage Bill and Hillary have?

Why has that not warranted ASSISDUOUS investigation by a seasoned eye like Keef's?

She's a dyke, it's pretty obvious...

Everything on television is some form of propaganda. I prefer Olbermann's brand of it. Sure, sometimes he pisses me off, but I can't stand watching anyone else! I hate all the "personalities" at Fox, and straight news (Williams, Couric, Gibson) isn't satisfying or informative, because they can't have their own opinions about anything.

I would often use the News Hole blog to correct any inconsistencies or anything that I thought was just plain wrong, but they have done an extraordinarily shitty job of keeping up with that this week. Then I have to come here. Olbermann ought to realize that if he visits here regularly.

She's a dyke, it's pretty obvious...

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at February 24, 2008 1:29 PM

And mrs. obama is a racist. Which is why she had her thesis sealed until after the election.

I've been checking out the links in the left rail and came across this from a KO fan who may have suffered some derangement from too much exposure to KO.

"Keith, How AWESOME are you? You and your courage have given the American People the freedom to shed the shackles of fear. Like the " I am Spartacus " moment, you will have millions of Americans feeling the relief of freedom from fear!! THAT is how awesome you are!
Thank you for what you do.... I adore you for it!
Cris - dallas texas (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 2:37 PM)"

I just can't get my mind around the concept of KO as:

!!!!!!!!SPARTICUS!!!!!!!!!! SHEDDING THE SHACKLES OF FEAR.

Does this non stop hyperbolic rhetoric leave us with any words to describe genuine horrors.

If Gitmo is an American GULAG what words do we use for real bona fide gulags such as in the Soviet Union?

If Gitmo is an American Death Camp what words do we use for real bona fide death camps such as in Nazi Germany?

Grammie

"Kind of strange, i watch the show and i did not feel tricked. I also am not a gullible lemming either. I know this may be hard to comprehend for some out there, so sit back and listen cafefully, regardless of which 8PM cable news program you prefer to watch. There are some people out there in the world who have the ability to think for themselves, who dont take everything these idiots say as 100% fact, some of us use that big muscle in our heads and dont waste our lives hanging on to everything these hosts say. Some people out there need to get a grip, people dont care about this garbage as much as you think they do. I come to this site occasionally because frankly the childish banter between these two sides is almost to funny to describe, but seriously what is worse, whatever it is that you are claiming Keith did (leave out the full quote...wow...really got him....welcome to news my friend..happens every day) or making NAZI references left and right in your writing. Are you telling me that you dont have the writing ability to make i through one story without a reference, and the argument of "he does it, so that means i can" is lame in its own regard."

Written 2/23 at 3:56

This is is worse than a left wing loon . The statement "If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for anything" describes this person. This is the same person that will vote for Obama. Today a FNC embedded reporter in RI interviewd a woman running a store who said when asked who she would vote for, "I'm voting for Obama because he voted against the war". 25% of people polled in the UK think Churchill was not a real person or mythical. If a voter had to pass an 8th grade equivalency test before entering the voting booth, DC would be 100% Conservative.

The writer admits he watches a show that by his own admission is deceiving the viewer and by his own admission he visits this site because he is attracted to "childish banter".

Sounds to me you are having trouble figuring it out. The fact you took the time to visit this site and contribute is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. Just what do youstand for? You think because you see faults in either side you are therefore more intelligent than one who would side with his chosen side. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on you. If you and I went to Vegas with $100 in our pockets, when we got back home I would either be flat busted or have a couple grand in m y pocket, you would have either $95 or $105. I have seen it long enough the guy that won;t stand for nothing, hides in the back of the pack and won't speak up such as a team brianstorming a problem is nothing more than a coward.

Posted by: ( ) at February 24, 2008 2:55 PM

The troll you are responding to is nothing more than an olbypologist who thinks they are in disguise. The actual 'apology' is right here:

"There are some people out there in the world who have the ability to think for themselves, who dont take everything these idiots say as 100% fact, some of us use that big muscle in our heads and dont waste our lives hanging on to everything these hosts say. Some people out there need to get a grip, people dont care about this garbage as much as you think they do."

UUUHHHGGG, here we go. I am not a "left wing loon", yes given the options i will vote for Obama, i know that Churchill was a real person, nor do i care what a poll in the UK states, i could pass an 8th grade equivalency test, etc, etc, etc. Here is what i feel about this site, i do enjoy it. I think there should be a site that watches what all these new personalities state, i think it is good and will help keep them in check. BUT, there is no conversation here. Just hate, insults, false accusations, etc. So far just on this topic, Keith has been accused of ties to Iran, Al Qaeda, Syria, he has been compared to NAZI's, called a fascist, and so on. And of coarse, then there are insults and accusations thrown at O'Reilly and others. My question is, what good does that do? That is what i am wondering, the premise of this website is good, but it is disheartening to read what some people are saying, on both sides. I like Countdown because i find it ENTERTAINING, that does not make me some sort of idiotic, gullible fool. One more question though, here was the quote from ()
"If a voter had to pass an 8th grade equivalency test before entering the voting booth, DC would be 100% Conservative"

Do you really, honestly believe that. Do you really think that only people with even the smallest amount of intelligence vote Republican and that all people who vote Democrat are inherently stupid. Really is that what you believe?

Yes, I do believe that Democrats (and those who vote Democrat) are inherently stupid.

"obamamania" is a good example. Those people that are flocking like sheep to his sermons, for the most part, have not a clue of his views, voting record or his backgound.

"Those people that are flocking like sheep to his sermons, for the most part, have not a clue of his views, voting record or his backgound."

Well then, by all means, enlighten us.

"Those people that are flocking like sheep to his sermons, for the most part, have not a clue of his views, voting record or his background."

Oh no...it's not like he hasn't written books on the subject, and participated in about 20 debates, and spent several years as a state legislator, and then as a highly respected US Senator. And then we can agnor about 100 or so speeches....including the one about how stupid it would be for us to invade Iraq well before the invasion.

And then we can agnor about 100 or so speeches....

posted by mike

How can you "agnor" "Change!" 500 times a week?

I think I will agnor Mike and Barack Hussein Obama.

I hear that Hillary supporters are going to agnor B. Hussein Obama if he is the Dem nominee. How many will jump ship and vote for Nader or McCain?

The NYT helped them change their minds, Dreamer. Libnuts destroy everything they touch.

"Libnuts destroy everything they touch."

Unlike their Polar opposites who, having started with a balanced budget and relative peace, have managed to create record debts, and an unending war that could have and should have been avoided.

8:5 Anon, your rhetoric could not be more hollow.
'

Will the NYT delve into the interesting marriage Bill and Hillary have?

Why has that not warranted ASSISDUOUS investigation by a seasoned eye like Keef's?

She's a dyke, it's pretty obvious...

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at February 24, 2008 1:29 PM

Get you're finger out of your butt.

If the Dems weren't so anemic and weak that they could get into the White House, then maybe the story would be different. Unfortunately, they are losers and whiners and after 8 years of The Clinton mafia, the nation has chosen to agnor them.

Will the NYT delve into the interesting marriage Bill and Hillary have?

Why has that not warranted ASSISDUOUS investigation by a seasoned eye like Keef's?

She's a dyke, it's pretty obvious...

Posted by: E Buzz Miller at February 24, 2008 1:29 PM

This is what O'Reilly and Bernie were talking about the other night in reference to the times running with a story w/not a shred of evidence. They said it's well known all over Washington, but, with no hard evidence the right wing media (If there's such a thing) won't cover it because they have higher journalistic standards.

Libnuts destroy everything they touch."

Unlike their Polar opposites who, having started with a balanced budget and relative peace, have managed to create record debts, and an unending war that could have and should have been avoided.

8:5 Anon, your rhetoric could not be more hollow.
'

Posted by: Mike at February 24, 2008 8:35 PM

This is the second time you've mention a balanced budget.

I'm just wondering where you think the legislation came from during the Clinton years. Who controlled spending and what sort of markets sparked the economy.

And all so you could feel marginally good about the country for once...

Cecelia: "I'm just wondering where you think the legislation came from during the Clinton years. Who controlled spending and what sort of markets sparked the economy."

While the reason for the surplus is arguable, what disappointed me was that the moment the budget was successfully balanced, the republicans started calling for "tax cuts", ..... using the battle cry of "give it back".

But balancing the budget was only the FIRST step. We also needed to pay down the national debt and begin to shore up Social Security in the manner that it's original mandate dictated, .... therefore, it was NOT yet time to revert back to massive budget deficits by cutting taxes for those who needed it the least.
'
But that is exactly what Bush Republicans chose to do, .... almost from day 1. I even remember reading about an early high level staff meating in which Cheney famously said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

Whenever I hear a hard core conservative call for more and more tax cuts, .... I wonder WHY they don't seem to care about the massive deficits? WHY don't they care that the war is being financed on borrowed money? WHY don't they care that our future is being mortgaged for short term gain? WHY don't they care about the soaring international debt?

Then when one of them talks about being "against" tax increases, they always speak as though it were an entity upon itself devoid of negative consequences. They speak as if some of us simply LIKE tax cuts, and others simply don't....As if it were nothing more than simply a matter of personal preference.

What I don't know is WHY?

Anon @ 9:36: "After 8 years of the Clinton Mafia, the nation has chosen to agnor them."

Anon, you could probably add "meating" to "agnor" and come up with an even cuter little phrase since you like pointing out routine spelling errors so much.

Anon, you could probably add "meating" to "agnor" and come up with an even cuter little phrase since you like pointing out routine spelling errors so much.

Posted by: Mike at February 24, 2008 10:42 PM

What's the matter, mike? Can't take it? I remember when I misspelled 'imbOcile' on purpose for effect and you brought it up 15 or 20 times after that. Myself and someone else points out your ignorance and you cry like a baby! Not surprised, at all.