Yes, that's right, Fat Ass. BOR is only reporting on GE's business with Iran, and anything GE or NBC-related, because of you. It's all about you. Keep telling yourself that.

Mort Sahl surely must be brain dead
Nothing funny he ever said
Could reach such a low
To appear on Keith's show
Did a subway bonk him on the head?

For the record, I being sarcastic in my earlier comment.

I *was* being. As at Johnny Dollar's place, I'm leaving words out and not proofreading. Sorry.

Incidentally, who's the woman in the picture?

Dunno. It's a picture I grabbed from flickr. It ain't Katy that's for sure.

I just watched the WPITW segment...
Roger Ailes is the WORST, because - get this - Fox News fired a NEWS staffer for making a political endorsement/comment on camera.

Let me get this straight- Fox is bad because because they support republicans. AND, Fox is bad because they fire someone for supporting republicans?

Only on OlbyPlanet!

Th orange faced hack should have shit canned long ago by Fox News standards. tdf

On another note, Blackwater = no charges. I'm shocked, stunned and amazed Olbyonesidedkanoby couldn't squeeze this in tonight. I'm pretty sure he made ample time for it when it broke. "Mercenaries" is what he and the far left loons were calling them, right?

I got a little frothy. I meant should have 'been' shit canned. My apologies to all who were offended.......

So, Ailes is Worst for firing a staffer for violating basic journalistic standards, telling McCain she voted for him (not on air talent, mind, a staffer).

And in the same show KO gives the ol' "I used to be for Hillary (until I saw the Kossacks were for Obama, so I changed my mind)"...and then attacks Fox as a whole for "defending" McCain.

Does he really not see the hypocrisy here? Or (more likely) does he just not even care enough to pretend anymore?

So, Ailes is Worst for firing a staffer for violating basic journalistic standards, telling McCain she voted for him (not on air talent, mind, a staffer).

And in the same show KO gives the ol' "I used to be for Hillary (until I saw the Kossacks were for Obama, so I changed my mind)"...and then attacks Fox as a whole for "defending" McCain.

Does he really not see the hypocrisy here? Or (more likely) does he just not even care enough to pretend anymore?

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall one of our commenters who has been insisting for months that it is Ridiculous to claim Olby was supporting Hillary back then. I wonder what he will say to Olby's admission that proved Olbermann Watch was right all along.

KO just admitted he was for Hillary in the beginning on Countdown.

posted by Sharon

Will it be "out of context" or will it be "your really stretching it." I'll take the latter with 4:1 odds.

>>>

I'm dragging my comment from the 8th thread because it ties directy to the 12:29 post of J$. Place your bets, now.

In Olbyland there are 2, and only 2, possibilities, "Either McCain lied then, or he's lying now. Either way he's a liar."
Which means it is NOT possible that Huffster is, uh, 'mistaken.'

And slaming the McCain campaign for "name calling" by referring to Adrianna as "a poser" while calling McCain, in the same breath, "a liar."

How is it possible that there are grownups that actually believe this sanctimonious claptrap?

Mort, God love him, "When Hillary campaigned in Florida, she promised free health care..."

Oh my goodness....Where is Mike who claimed Olbermann was not for HRC?.......

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24547903#24547903

###
Bill Clinton claims, "All those folks that are telling you on television [Hillary] can't win...they weren't for her in the beginning."

Olbermann's response....With a raised hand the idiot says, "Actually some of them were." (In a deep voice suggesting remorse!)

Ha, ha, ha....Unbelievable!

This is a journalist? Olbermann admits he was "for her" at one time.

So am I to conclude that, at the time Olbermann was for HRC, his reporting, questions of guests, editorial choices and guest selection were put through the biased process of someone supporting the Democrat primary candidate and now this new love of his life is also affecting his judgement?.....Oh yeah....Anyone breathing can detect the subjectivity!

Are you breathing Mike?

NBC NEWS...More proof it is no longer a respectable news organization.

By cee on May 10, 2008 8:39 AM

"Are you breathing Mike?"

Mike's psyche is on life support.

"By johnny dollar on May 10, 2008 12:29 AM
I may be wrong, but I seem to recall one of our commenters who has been insisting for months that it is Ridiculous to claim Olby was supporting Hillary back then. I wonder what he will say to Olby's admission that proved Olbermann Watch was right all along."

As always, Johnny, you remember correctly.

I'm putting my money on either "KO NEVER said that! You are just putting words in HIS MOUTH or I NEVER said that! You are just putting words in MY MOUTH.

Round and round he goes. Where he stops no one knows.

Grammie

If Senator Obama had terrorist training that would mean he is far more qualified to deal with terrorists than the current administration. If Senator Obama hasn't had terrorist training he's still far more qualified.

Either way we'll be better off.
CafeenMan | Homepage | 05.10.08 - 11:34 am | #

>>>

A look into the 'logic' of an obamaloon courtesy of our friends at the dog pound aka newshounds, a far left hate site. Nice!

Last I checked, I was breathing. I know you weren't talking about me, but I wanted to answer anyway.
I would just say Olby should have been canned without using the s-word, but that's just me. It isn't my site.
It's Arianna, not Adrianna. Don't think I support her or I'm a radical left person just because I'm correcting. I'm just a stickler and a perfectionist.

MikeH would be the Obermann apologist who claimed the monkeyman was never for HRC before....

He seems to believe if one supports a particular candidate for President, you can

do no wrong,

only display positive and uplifting behvior (even when you play the same old dirty negative political games),

be the only type of true patriot there can be.....

I see no reason for Hillary to give up. There's an anvil out there waiting to drop on Wile E ObamaCoyote's head.

Another forgetable Countdown, but a great recap as always.
I almost felt like I watched the snoozer.

NBC News....Obama Headquarters @ 30 Rock

I feel sorry for the sports anchors, announcers, and analysts at NBC. Most of them strike me as traditionalists. Fat Ass, of course, is the radical left exception. Furthermore, I feel sorry for any NBC affiliates that are nothing like NBC News, nothing like its cable outfit and, yes, nothing like Oralmann.

This was weird. I was watching the interview with Mrs. Tillman and when the camera cut to a rear shot of Keith (when he's facing the enormous image of the interviewee) I noticed something bulging out of the back of his head. I was wondering what the heck it was and then I realized that it was actually a fat roll! I've seen how morbidly obese people will actually get these accumulations of fat on the back of their heads down close to the neck and that is exactly what Keith has. That guy is seriously packing it on.

Outside of calling him "Fat Ass," I don't really make fun of his weight. I used to be heavy myself, and I never want to return.
But that's just me. The rest of you can make fun all you want.

KO just admitted he was for Hillary in the beginning on Countdown.

posted by Sharon

Will it be "out of context" or will it be "your really stretching it." I'll take the latter with 4:1 odds.

More crickeys!!!

Funny how mikeh has buried his head since the latest olby revelations...

"By Olby Sucks on May 14, 2008 6:07 PM

Funny how mikeh has buried his head since the latest olby revelations..."

He's down briefly for maintenance.

His wife has him hooked up to their car battery.

"his wife has him hooked up to their car battery."

This is really amazing!.....After having not even looked at this blog since sometime last week, I just checked to find that more than half of the last 17 comments were either addressed to, or were referring to me in one way or another.

Read into that whatever you choose!

y MikeH on May 14, 2008 7:50 PM

"his wife has him hooked up to their car battery."

This is really amazing!.....After having not even looked at this blog since sometime last week, I just checked to find that more than half of the last 17 comments were either addressed to, or were referring to me in one way or another.

Read into that whatever you choose!"

Amazing indeed! Only a week hooked up to the Oldsmobile battery and his voice is just a few seconds off from his mouth movement!

"Amazing indeed! Only a week hooked up to the Oldsmobile battery and his voice is just a f seconds off from his mouth movement!"

But then YOU never change do you? .... A cackling voice in the wildnerness continuing to spew out your virtual witch's brew of cutsey personal insults in place of reasoned debate.

No, you get a veritable community here issuing cutsey personal insults and reasoned debate.

The wilderness is in your head.

"The wilderness is in your head."

I guess that's why I just singled out YOU and no one else as delighting in such diversionary catfighting tactics.

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 9:37 PM

"The wilderness is in your head."

I guess that's why I just singled out YOU and no one else as delighting in such diversionary catfighting tactics."

Yeah, the wilderness is in your head alright. Bob, Grammie, Sharon, and Olby Sucks, have insulted you, but it takes a car battery joke for you to recognize one.

All that and not a peep about olby from mikeh..........

"but it takes a car battery joke for you to recognize me."

OH, so THAT was a "joke". It sounded more like an angry 'hiss' to me.

As for the rest of your post:

1) - "Sharon": When did Sharon "insult" me?

2) - "Olby Sucks": You've got to be kidding! How could one feel 'insulted' from the musings of a 10 year old mind?

3) - "Bob": At least he engaged in some real debate in conjunction with those "insults"

Mike, as if your championing of what is "real debate" isn't as contingent upon your feelings of the moment as your convenient perception of Olbermann's true feelings... :D

"Mike, as if your championing of what is "real debate" isn't as contingent upon your feelings of the moment or your convenient perceptions of Olbermann's true feelings....:D"

Well, one thing most would agree with; "debate" isn't cracking "jokes" about being hooked up to car batteries.

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 10:41 PM

"Mike, as if your championing of what is "real debate" isn't as contingent upon your feelings of the moment or your convenient perceptions of Olbermann's true feelings....:D"

Well, one thing most would agree with; "debate" isn't cracking "jokes" about being hooked up to car batteries."

And it isn't "arguing" that although others think you're an idiot, your wife thinks you're swell or that reality doesn't matter as long as you weren't able to perceive it.

Cecelia: "And it isn't "arguing" that although others think you're an idiot, your wife thinks you're swell"......Agreed, but neither does calling others an "idiot" make or in any way legitimize your intented point or counterpoint.

Cecelia: "or that reality doesn't matter as long as you weren't able to perceive it.......Conversely, just because you think you 'perceived' something, does it make it "reality".

Actually, what has made it a "reality" is that the man, himself, affirmed it. :D

"Actually, what has made it a "reality" is that the man, himself, affirmed it. :D"

Yes, he affirmed he is a partisan democrat, but we ALL already knew that. He obviously thought Hillary was a vrtual shoe-in. But it NEVER made him a Hillary shill against Obama or Edwards, which was MY argument all along.

By MikeH on May 15, 2008 12:00 AM

"Actually, what has made it a "reality" is that the man, himself, affirmed it. :D"

Yes, he affirmed he is a partisan democrat, but we ALL already knew that. He obviously thought Hillary was a vrtual shoe-in. But it NEVER made him a Hillary shill against Obama or Edwards, which was MY argument all along."

Who do you think she was running against in the primary but Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, etc? When he pulled punches for her, who do you think he was pulling punches against? Huckabee?

If your argument is that he'd be for anyone who looked like the shoe-in for the DNC, then you MOST CERTAINLY should have agreed with us then, when we were saying just that about his affection for her THEN.

Cecelia: "who do you think he as pulling punches against? HBuckabee?"

It must be just your negative outlook contrasted by my positive one I guess.

Your argument seems to be that he did the other dems a disservice be failing to tear down Clinton for them....and that it doesn't matter that he SIMULTANEOUSLY failed to tear down Obama and Edwards at the same time.....simply because they were behind.

Your argument is illogical.

G'nite.....REALLY!

By MikeH on May 15, 2008 12:20 AM

Cecelia: "who do you think he as pulling punches against? HBuckabee?"

It must be just your negative outlook contrasted by my positive one I guess.

Your argument seems to be that he did the other dems a disservice be failing to tear down Clinton for them....and that it doesn't matter that he SIMULTANEOUSLY failed to tear down Obama and Edwards at the same time.....simply because they were behind.

Your argument is illogical.

G'nite.....REALLY!"

By your own argument that Olbermann cares only about DNC frontrunners, she was the frontrunner, and whom all the Dems were all running against!

By your own argument, she was the one they needed to take out.

Mike, tell me... what punches should Olbermann have pulled for Biden and Richardson at the time.... and how would that have been the slightest bit significant?

Tell me too, when any of us accused Olbermann of being in the tank for any of them, back then.. and why didn't you agree with us then when we said Olbermann was for Hillary, as you believe him to have been now?

Cecelia: "and why didn't you agree with us then when we said Olbermann as for Hillary, as you believe him to have been now?"

Damn....I never thought of you as being THAT dense, but this last question certainly makes me wonder.

Once again, it was clear that he was "for" Hillary at that time only because he didn't believe any of the others really had a chance. But he was never 'against' Obama or any of the others.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Uhh.... Einstein... if you were running for office in a primary and a local tv anchor had already written you off and was guarding and flaking against any criticism towards you over all sorts of issues... I daresay you'd have been able to describe that fellow as being in the tank for your competition too... even when that description was ventured by Republicans... and see it still despite how moronic you are...

Once again, it was clear that he was "for" Hillary at that time only because he didn't believe any of the others really had a chance.

by mikeh

What a difference a day makes.........

Typo:

Rather

'and was guarding and flaking against any criticism towards your competition over all sorts of issues..."

towards your competition... over say... HER VOTE over Iraq..that contrasted with your own... HER DESCRIPTION of when she would pull troops out of Iraq...that contrasted with your own... HER VIEW of the role of lobbyists and donors...that contrasted with your own...

Paging former candidate Bill RIchardson!.... Does HE think Olbermann did HIM a favor... Does he think Olbermann protected HIM from "negative campaigning" by Republicans...or does he think Olbermann protected Hillary from HIS rightful criticism?

Once again, it was clear that he was "for" Hillary at that time only because he didn't believe any of the others really had a chance.

by mikeh

What a difference a day makes........."

And evidently that was such a difference to Mike thatit kept him from admitting and agreeing with his opponents that Olbermann was "for" Hillary BEFORE Olbermann's own admission that he was "for Hillary...

What a difference some intelligence would have made...

Cecelia: "What a difference some intelligence would have made..."

Sorry, but I can't help you with your obvious IQ problem Cecelia.

And once again, my position has NOT changed one iota.....none of my arguments have changed in the slightest.....and KO was NOT shilling for Hillary to the detriment of the other Dems.

MIKE "And once again, my position has NOT changed one iota.....none of my arguments have changed in the slightest.....and KO was NOT shilling for Hillary to the detriment of the other Dems."

Well, great. From now on we'll just take it that you consider any criticism that Obama might make against Hillary as being "negative campaigning" and mere fodder that a cable news anchor man should shield her from.

Just so we know how ridiculous you'll make yourself rather than admitting your were wrong...

.....and KO was NOT shilling for Hillary [to the detriment of the other Dems.]

mikeh

Like how mikeh adds little pieces here and there whenever he's backed into the corner? The original argument was whether or not olbermahn was shilling for hillary, period. "Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle."

Wasn't his argument yesterday, "If he was I never noticed!" Now, today he's singing a different tune. Shocker!

Mr. Sucks: "The original argument was whether or not olbermahn was shilling for hillary."

No it wasn't you lying moron! Go back and look at my original posts in which I as sparring with Factor about this that J$ was refering to.

BTW, has anyone mentioned Chris Mathews absolute destruction of RW radio commentator Kevin James last night? He was attacking Obama about "appeasement" but when pressed, it turned out he knew absolutely NOTHING about the historical relevance of this term. He didn't have a freakin clue what Neville Chamberlain was actually guilty of doing.

I can't help but wonder How many Kevin James are out there spewing out talking points without a clue?

That will get you a b- for diversion, moron....

Here you go, mikeh. Mathews in action........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P...h?v=PGeu_4Ekx- o

Wasn't slobber face the clown who didn't know who was president when The Cole was bombed? Yes, it was. Then there's this.....

From Jack Bauer's comment @ NB and his blog:

"It's quite amusing to listen to the likes of the spittle drooling Matthews, Shuster and the rest of MSNBC's Obama worshipping hacks, who don't know much about history.

Memo to MSNBC: the actual policy of appeasing Hitler DID NOT begin and end with the Munich Agreement which shamefully recognized Hitler's right to the Sudetenland.

Appeasement of Hitler began in 1933 and ran thru to 1939, with Chamberlain being an integral part of all the meaningless "talks" and "diplomacy," to which Hitler had NO intent of ever being persuaded by.

He simply used that time to plot and build up his armed forces whilst breaking every treaty. It was what he planned all along, NO MATTER what France and England said, did, threatened, blustered or capitulated on."

> Chris Mathews absolute destruction of RW radio commentator

So matthews berating someone for not knowing history, when he himself doesn't even know who was President was the Cole was bombed...that is "absolute destruction"? Of Matthews's credibility, perhaps. But I'll bet when it was over he got that tingle going up his leg.

Here is a link to the entire piece by Jack Bauer at his own blog that OS quoted from:

http://www.hollycrud.com/

For anyone who really wants to know what prewar appeasement really was read Winston Churchill"s The Gathering Storm, Vol 1 of his six volume History of WWII.

Sorry, Mike, Chrissy was wrong. The Munich Agreement heralding "peace in our time" was just the tip of the iceberg and characterized by Churchill as "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war."

GWB did not mention or point to anyone in his speech so I think it is telling that Dems around the land immediately "knew" he was talking about them in general and obama in particular. Obama said himself he would talk with no preconditions and Dem Jimmah Carter just met with terrorists a few weeks ago.

Argue the facts not whether some radio talk show host knew what the Munich Agreement was and where it stood in the appeasement time line of Hitler and Nazi Germany by the west.

Looks like mikeh won't be posting on this thread, anymore..........He's become the 'architect' of misinformation, not to mention his lie @ 7:18.