Keith Olberman * Tokyo Rose*

Does no one at NBC News have the integrity to stand up to this shameless, partisan hack?

Does no one at NBC News have the integrity to stand up to this shameless, partisan hack? Do they not realize what he (and his loyal consort Chrissy Matthews) are doing, not only to the reputations of MSObamessiah/NBC News/GE but to journalism in general? Tim Russert, Brian Williams, and even Tom Brokaw must be so proud to be associated with the all-powerful Keith "All the Truth Kos Sees Fit to Print" Olbermann.

God this guy pisses me off.

Does no one at NBC News have the integrity to stand up to this shameless, partisan hack? Do they not realize what he (and his loyal consort Chrissy Matthews) are doing, not only to the reputations of MSObamessiah/NBC News/GE but to journalism in general? Tim Russert, Brian Williams, and even Tom Brokaw must be so proud to be associated with the all-powerful Keith "All the Truth Kos Sees Fit to Print" Olbermann.

God this guy pisses me off.

"an online journalist"

Aww... but you know the poor guy wanted his "ugly mug" on Countdown.

A pity, "Troutfishing" remains out of the spot-light when all Olby had to do was drop his name. It seems Olby needs to learn to give props to the Kos Kid community.

Where's the love, Olby? Where's the love?

Jeez, sorry for the post-bomb there :(

johnny does MSNBC still run that promo with Olbermann saying we should ignore partisanship? I think people on both sides of the aisle got a good laugh hearing Keith Olbermann denounce partisanship.

They do run it from time to time, but thanks for reminding me of it. I'm adding our own OlbyWatch Remix version to the end of this article. It just seems to fit somehow.

And Scott, kudos to you for spotting that Oralmann exchange hidden deep in the bowels of Kos. It was the inspiration for tonight's Special Recap.

Geez, this John Hagee thing again? Is that all these losers have? Obamanation sat in the pew of an Anti-Semite for 20 years. He went the million man march with Calypso Louie. Obamanation just said the Hamas has some legitimate claims. John McCain shook John Hagee's hand. What am I missing here?

This is why Olby Watch is essential reading material.

Once again, Johnny Dollar, you have outdone yourself.

With Olby it's all lift and read
To his prompter the blue blogs feed
Another NBC hack
Ethics way out of whack
Like a game show: You've been NBC'd!

Ok KO and other Obama defenders have said that his 20yr relationship with Rev.Wright means nothing and shouldn't be used against him and have attacked FOX news for reporting on it...but now KO and others are saying that McCain who as I said before hasn't spent 20min with Hagee should have that held against Him?....oh Edward R. Murrow is rolling in his grave because this buffoon has actually declared himself his heir apparent...new Murrow indeed.

I wish I could say that this should concern NBC..but as we have seen the MSM isn't even trying to Hide it's bias anymore..you got reporters joining Obama's campaign,using edited or misleading video of comments by Bush and McCain..Commentator talking about shiver's up their legs about Obama,biased Commentators hosting debates and even help rig them and it's only going to get worse once the General Election comes around..

KO hasn't even started on McCain..I will not be surprised if before the end KO and others start attacking McCain POW experience and try to use those 5yrs against him in some fashion.

Plus I wish someone would keep reminding everyone about the vile nature of the members of Daily Kos whose own leader said "Screw Them" about the death of 4 contract workers in Iraq(who I guess KO considers "Bloody Killers"and deserving of death) not to mention all the Anti-semitism that exist there.

Oh, by the way, in the Media Matters Minute:
Worse went to Mitt Romney, which I assume was taken from his appearance "Fox and Friends" yesterday morning...seconds after Steve Doocy appropriately tore into Oralmann. Fat Ass did a mock Romney impression and even referred to the Governor (by accident?) as "Nit Romney." He intentionally said Romney "doesn't have a brain." Nice. Here's the segment in context:

http://tinyurl.com/59s9lg

Worser was an excoriation of Ed Gillespie ("like a high school sophomore") after his "embarrasing letter on behalf of the White House" to NBC News. "Bias that isn't there in an edit that wasn't there to turn a news organization into a scapegoat that won't be there. The letter was juvenile and Fox Newsy enough that it sounded as if the White House works for them...rather than the other way around." Hmm. Seems like Merkle is looking for bias that isn't there, wasn't there, and won't be there.
Worst was "lunatic fringe water carrier" [ding!] [ding!] and "Comic Book Guy!" Hugh Hewitt, "the dummy to Gillespie's ventriloquist." How dare he refer to Edward R. Olbermann as a sports guy in an interview with Gillespie! "Out of date by about 10 years"! "Fringes." [ding!] Gillespie and Hewitt are "TWO Comic Book Guys!" You make the third, Frank Olbermann. (Greg Gutfeld called Keith that on "Red Eye" last Friday.)
Okay, I'm done.

Okay, I didn't know that would happen when I posted the link. Sorry.

Out of date by 10 years? Who's that orange-faced zucchini who does football Sunday nights on NBC?

Look, I'm not a lawyer but this must be a gross violation of ethics in journalism. Maybe we can ask Mark Levin who is a lawyer. A quick Google gave me 3 codes and they were all quite similar. All #1 in the codes read something like this:

I. RESPONSIBILITY: The public's right to know of events of public importance and interest is the overriding mission of the mass media. The purpose of distributing news and enlightened opinion is to serve the general welfare. Journalists who use their professional status as representatives of the public for selfish or other unworthy motives violate a high trust.

Maybe soon Johnny you won't need this site, I'll always go to J$ Place though ;)

MikeH, use tinyurl when you post a link and it will come out much better. I fixed your entry.

Thanks, Johnny. And thanks for the post-recap flashback video.

Hey Johnny, thanks!

That's me, watching Kos so you don't have to! )

The baseball card collector is making fun of the comic book guy?

What a hoot.

Yeah, he makes fun of two guys who read comic books when they were kids, and then he goes off to public readings of Harry Potter!

Robert, remember my comment in my email stating that you were probably throwing out the baby with the bathwater and creating nothing but a very boring echo chamber with your new and "improved" controlled comments feature?

Well......the proof is in the pudding.

Since May 16, you have averaged just about 10 short comments per thread.

Yawn!

MikeH

I suppose we could fix that by posting about 28 different posts each of "BU$HWIPES" and links to completely off-topic news articles and blog posts if your pining for the "good-old days." Throw in a few spam posts for good measure, and that would definitely up the comment count.

Just seeing that nine-letter B-word makes me shudder.

By Olby Sucks on May 16, 2008 12:15 PM
Here you go, mikeh. Mathews in action........

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

By Olby Sucks on May 16, 2008 12:28 PM
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."

By johnny dollar on May 16, 2008 1:07 PM
> 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.

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

Maybe not, but the historical definition of the word "appeasement" does NOT refer to simply TALKING to one's adversary.

Nice selective response! A+!

"Nice selective response! A+"

What were you looking for? ...... an analysis over whether it is worse to know when a warship was attacked, .... or whether you understand the meaning of one of the crucial terms coming out of the worst event in modern history?

You know MikeH, it almost seems like you are trying to avoid discussing the fact that an NBC news "anchor" signed up with a partisan group to take down a Presidential candidate, did their bidding in putting a story on, neglected to tell his audience the source, lied that it came from a "journalist", and then kept secret his agreement to help take down the Presidential candidate.

It just seems like you don't want to discuss that. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Chris Mathews absolute destruction of RW radio commentator

by mikeh

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

By Olby Sucks on May 16, 2008 12:28 PM

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

How long before olbyonesidedkanoby has a 1 hr special on Hagee?

"It just seems like you don't want to discuss that. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

And exactly why should I care to discuss that?

As long as Fox "News" stains Cable News with unchecked right wing bias, ..... and as long as Hannity, Levin, Ingram, Limbaugh, and company continues to pollute our public airwaves with unchecked hate and half-truths against the left.......

Why would I or any other reasonable person have a problem with Keith Olbermann?

Why would I or any other reasonable person have a problem with Keith Olbermann?

by mikeh

Liberal hypocrisy on full display! One more thing. I'm not surprised you avoided trying to defend the drooler. Can't wait to see McCains adds showing obama flip flopping on Iran. Gonna be sweeeeeet!

Congratulations! You win the award! For the first time since registered comments, at least as far as I know, you rushed to divert attention from the subject of this website by bringing up the dreaded Rush O'Hannity. Only you forgot the O' part. Well, he is on vacation this week.

> And exactly why should I care to discuss that?

Because that just happens to be the subject matter of this website, Einstein. If you don't want to discuss it, why did you rush to bang out an email and beg Mr Cox to let you be a commenter here? So that you could discuss anything EXCEPT the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann.

Oh wait, yeah, that IS the approved method of Olby-defense: change the subject. Don't look at Olbermann. Look at that man over there behind the tree!

Gee, if only patsy were here to back you up...

Mike,

Perhaps you would feel more at home at Newshounds. They can tell you all about the evil Fox News. But they are a sensitive lot, so easy to offend.

".....unchecked hate......"????? Mike, that is a little over the top, is it not? Hyperbole should be used sparingly. It's a long way to November, and you should save some of your ammo until after Labor Day.

Just remember, your boy will not be President, so don't get your hopes up. Swoon not!

Mr. MIKHHHHHHed:
"As long as Fox "News" stains Cable News with unchecked right wing bias, ..... and as long as Hannity, Levin, Ingram, Limbaugh, and company continues(sic) to pollute our public airwaves with unchecked hate and half-truths against the left.......

Why would I or any other reasonable person have a problem with Keith Olbermann?"

Though he tries to seperate these two thoughts, they are, in fact, one interrogatory sentence, based upon fallacious cause and effect and flawed logic:

As long as X, why would I Z?

Even conceding that X is something he or any reasonable person would have a problem with, it does not follow that there is no reason to have a problem with Z. What that argument does show is selective attention, perception and retention coupled with a double-standard.

Example: As long as SUVs, tractor trailers and pick-up trucks driving south attain speeds over 100mph, weave in and out of traffic, tailgate and drive the wrong way in the northbound lane.....

Why would I or any other reasonable person have a problem with a fleet of hybrids driving east doing the same things...?

Now, what were we talking about?

Is a cable news network actually polluting the "public airwaves"? Pretty sure that's not the case.

And I think the whole "don't say mean things about Keith, Fox and Rush and (fill in the blank) are so much worse" thing has pretty well run its course.

There are plenty of websites where they bash Rush, and Fox, and Hannity, et al. This one is centered on the Kos spokesperson, Keith Olbermann.

This is why Olbermann and the usual anti-semitic radical left keeps trying to use Hagee against McCain....

"'The people here, liberal people, will not vote for Obama because of his attitude towards Israel,' Ms. Weitz, 83, said, lingering over brunch.

"'They’re going to vote for McCain,' she said.

"Ms. Grossman, 80, agreed with her friend’s conclusion, but not her reasoning.

"'They’ll pick on the minister thing, they’ll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color,' she said, quietly fingering a coffee cup. Ms. Grossman said she was thinking of voting for Mr. Obama, who is leading in the delegate count for the nomination, as was Ms. Weitz.

"But Ms. Grossman does not tell the neighbors. 'I keep my mouth shut,' she said.

"On Thursday, Mr. Obama will court Jewish voters with an appearance at a synagogue in Boca Raton, Fla. A longtime Democratic constituency with a consistently high turnout rate, Jews are important to his general election hopes, particularly in New York, which he expects to win; in California and New Jersey, which he must keep out of Republican hands; and, most crucially, here in Florida, where Jews make up around 5 percent of voters.

"This is the most haunted state on the electoral college map for Democrats, the one they lost by hundreds of votes and a Supreme Court decision in 2000, and again in 2004.

"'The fate of the world for the next four years,' mused Rabbi Ruvi New as his Sunday morning Kabbalah & Coffee class dispersed in East Boca Raton.

"'It’s all going to boil down to a few old Jews in Century Village,' he added, referring to a nearby retirement community."

http://tinyurl.com/6gr4t6

###
And it is so amusing coming fro kos...the radical leftist website is filled with anti-semites.

This is all about votes and wedge issues. It is a shame that as people like Mike H decry the use of such tactics, they are hypocritical enough to excuse it when their guy uses it.

I say keep trying, Olbermann. Hagee is a nonissue simply because McCain has an actual record that is positive regarding Israel that refutes the claims. SNOBamessiah has NO real voting or policy history regarding Israel....only unsupported rhetoric and his MEMBERSHIP in a church with close ties to Farrakhan's Nation of Islam....along with the bile from his spiritual advisor, close friend and church leader for over 20 years.

Let's see, the race is now about gender, race, anti-semitism and religion....Oh yeah!....SNOBamessiah is really making this election a UNIFYING one!

Oh, and along with Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, another prominent Democrat, and popular figure in the jewish community, may be backing McCain over Obama in the fall:

"In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Koch says McCain 'has no equal' when it comes to opposing Islamic terrorism. Though Koch says he disagrees with most of McCain’s positions on domestic issues, he could support him because of his strong national security credentials.

"Koch carries significant weight with many Jewish Democrats in New York and across the country. He also has a history of playing the maverick and crossing party lines.

"He has backed several New York Republicans, including Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg for New York City mayor, Al D'Amato for the U.S. Senate, and George Pataki for New York governor. In 2004 he endorsed his first Republican for president, George W. Bush. Koch actively campaigned in several states, including Florida and Ohio.

"Bush won both states."

http://tinyurl.com/4ahp5r

###
The fact remains that The Democrat party is being taken over by the radical left and many moderate, sane Democrats are not thrilled....a la the continued campaigning of HRC....

Read kos and see how they are approaching such people like Koch and Lieberman....they are being branded TRAITORS. Oh the Scarlet Letter mentality of the SNOBamessiah following kos kids and Olbermann....such love and tolerance!

SNOBamessiah is such a unifying figure (sarcasm)!

MikeH wrote:

"Robert, remember my comment in my email stating that you were probably throwing out the baby with the bathwater and creating nothing but a very boring echo chamber with your new and "improved" controlled comments feature? Well......the proof is in the pudding. Since May 16, you have averaged just about 10 short comments per thread. Yawn!"

I don't recall specifically, no but you might recall my posts about this matter. For four years I did not require registered commenters because I prefer allowing newbies to drop by and join in the conversation. I have plenty of experiencing with blogging and am well aware that requiring registration would dramatically cut down on comments - in the short run. I wrote about that several times. I allowed open commenting even when there were concerted efforts by OlbyLoons on Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, Air America Radio forums and other far-left online hangouts to organize "attacks" on this site to "shut it down". I allowed all sorts of vitriolic, over the top language including foul-mouthed ad hominem attacks on me. I am entirely confident that I have nothing to apologize for in making every possible effort to keep the comments open. But when things devolve to the point where comments include graphic references to bestiality, incest, child rape, etc. then I no longer feel I have any choice. We may disagree politically but I can't imagine you would defend the "right" of commenters to post such things on someone else's web site.

The downside of requiring registration in order to comment is less comments. The upside is that there is some measure of accountability among commenters and therefore a decreased likelihood of the sort of behavior which led me to change our policy in the first place.

Your description of our new policy as "controlled comments feature" reflects, perhaps, an inability to understand that there are TWO sides to "free speech". No one here is "controlling" your comments. You are free to defend Olbermann and the Democrats all you want on this site. All I ask is that you and other commenters here operate within some very widely drawn boundaries of taste. Not applying this to you but an OlbyLoon's right to defend Keith Olbermann ends when it is done by interfering with others right to criticize him. The individual(s) commenters who led me to change our policy were not, in my estimation, seeking to debate but rather to suppress debate by sowing chaos in the comments threads. Meanwhile other folks were attempting to actually shut down the site through DoS attacks (and if you do not understand that there is an element at Daily Kos that actively in engages in coordinate DoS attacks on anti-left/right-wing sites then you are simply uninformed).

Given all this what would you propose? That the registration requirement be removed? That's not going to happen. I always knew that once I made the decision to enable the registration features I would never go back to open comments. That's a big part of why I resisted making that change.

I wonder why you would even make this observation today? Are you feeling outgunned? You are the only Olbypologist commenting on this site these days. Apparently your solution is allow the same vile creatures who were posting here before back in. I have a better idea.

The solution to "bad" speech is "good" speech. If you think the comments section is an "echo chamber" then why don't you DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. We have no policy that prohibits a pro-KO point of view on this site (as your comments clearly show). We welcome pro-KO guest posts and have had them. We've always welcomes pro-KO commenters.

Rather than cry about it why don't you offer to write a guest post or two. Or how about recruiting some more folks like yourself to sign up to comment.

I will even help out...

CALLING ALL OLBYLOONS: If you would like to join MikeH in defending Keith Olbermann on this blog send an email to me at "robert_a_cox" at yahoo. If you can comport yourself in a manner like MikeH your are more than welcome to join in the discussion here at Olbermann Watch.

Finally, MikeH there is another measure of success here at Olbermann Watch besides comments (although comments ARE an important measure). If you click through SiteMeter (bottom, left rail) for Olbermann Watch you can see are traffic in terms of unique visitors and page views. If you look at the 12-month data you will see that in the period covering last spring and summer we were averaging about 40,000 unique visitors per month. You will then see that the traffic started to rise, hitting a high of 112K in March 2008. At some point along the way much of the traffic growth was the trolls repeatedly coming back into the site (which you referenced indirectly by noting the DECLINE in comments since March). I am not going to go through all the data with readers but what I care about is "legitimate" traffic. These are "real" readers, the kind of people we want on the site and the kind of people who will click on ads which helps cover the cost of the site (our blogads dried up as a direct result of trolls because our click-thru rate became VERY low and thus advertisers passed on buying ads on our site; our click-thru rate has now begun to recover nicely and I expect you will start to see blogs ad buys coming through over the next couple of months as our moving average improves).

Given all this what I am looking at right now is the limited post-registration required data and the preliminary data is promising. After a major drop between March and April (112k to 54k) caused by closing comments we have rebounded nicely (54k to 73k for a partial month). We are currently on track to hit 100,000 unique visitors in May which means we will be close to the troll-based numbers of 4Q07 and 1Q08 without trolls.

As noted, closing comments hurts in the SHORT RUN but over the long-run the more civil tone on the site (not "civil" per se but MORE civil than it was) helps. First, the number of commenters will grow over time and they will become more active as they realize the environment in the threads is healthier. Second, more readers who find the blog will stay to become regular readers. Third, other sites will be more willing to link us now that we've cleaned up the comments (not to mention radio shows as in the nice mention we got yesterday on national radio)

The problem then, MikeH is not that Olbermann Watch is "suffering" but that YOU are now outnumbered about 50:1.

I do not want that to be the case. I would like to get some more pro-KO voices on the site but I have no control over that. The problem as I see it is that OlbyLoons are, by definition, people who don't want to be responsible for themselves and therefore registering on this site and being accountable for what they say here is anathema to them.

MikeH, and any supporter of SNOBamessiah, will never go against Keith Olbermann because he is their chief propagandist and hitman on cable news. Along, with Matthews, Olbermann serves the democrat's campaign plans in pushing agendas, distraction and innuendo. No matter that he is supposed to be an objective journalist and treat both candidates for president fairly.....that standard has been abandoned at NBC NEWS!

And as far as defending Keith Olbermann, he is not defendable....so the silence will continue. In my opinion, the silence speaks volumes to the truth about what Olbermann always was and is.....a radical leftist shill.

And a zucchini.

Bravo....

johnny $ wrote: "Yeah, he makes fun of two guys who read comic books when they were kids, and then he goes off to public readings of Harry Potter!"

...how about Edward R. Douchebag's "Roadrunner/Wile E. Coyote" political analogies?

As Bugs Bunny would say: "What a palooka!"

But when things devolve to the point where comments include graphic references to bestiality, incest, child rape, etc. then I no longer feel I have any choice.

by Robert

mikeh, see this? People on your side caused Robert to switch to a register site. The same ones who you used to rely upon defense from which you needed so often! Why don't you cry to them?

I wonder if Tim Russert should allow MEET THE PRESS to be exposed to such a vile kos kid like Keith Olbermann.....

"Doocy said he also, 'heard a rumor that that guy, Keith Olbermann, might actually fill in for Tim Russert hosting 'Meet the Press.' (complete with graphic of Olbermann's head planted on Russert's body.)

"'Can you imagine how Tim Russert would feel if that guy filled in for him on the longest running television show in American history?' asked Doocy.

"Probably the same way Chris Wallace would feel if Bill O'Reilly filled in on Fox News Sunday. Which is why it will be a cold day in 'h' before either happens."

http://tinyurl.com/6mgdcj

Bob,

You're too nice, MikeH couldn't care less about the quality of this site. He has repeatedly decried it as being a "hate site", utterly aware of the particular connotations of that term.

His only real gripe with the new software is that he doesn't have the sock puppet and strawman sock puppet distractions and so must rely upon his own abilities in a debate.

In turn, my sole complaint is that access wasn't granted to a smarter liberal.

Goodness knows it shouldn't have been hard to find a liberal smarter than MikeH. Nearly everyone of any political persuasion is.

"Why would I or any other reasonable person have a problem with Keith Olbermann?"

by mikeh

I think this would be a GREAT title for a "Meet The Olbyloon" topic. It deserves a page of it's own.

First off, mikeh, Olbermahn is a discredited serial liar.

I do not associate with anyone else's remarks or point of view only my own. Even though I disagree with MikeH on the things he comments on here I would not hold him accountable for what other OlbyLoons post here. I would not endorse anyone else doing that either.

The point is not to blame MikeH for what other people wrote but to encourage him to either make better arguments or to find some other like minded individuals to help him make his case.

Either is preferable to whining about Olbermann Watch being an "echo chamber".

"By Scott on May 21, 2008 11:02 PM
MikeH

I suppose we could fix that by posting about 28 different posts each of "BU$HWIPES" and links to completely off-topic news articles and blog posts if your pining for the "good-old days." Throw in a few spam posts for good measure, and that would definitely up the comment count."

I'm surprised that we hadn't realized how some might be suffering without all those things that once said "home" to them here at OW.

MikeH, just let us know if you would also like a dozen or so comments either signed by Hag-zilla, Pastor DUMBF**K, Now, you TWO OLD BITCHES ...,HAG-ZILLA! FETCH!, DUMBSH...., and a few comments mooing at everyone to ease your transition into the new, gentler OW.

Grammie

Perhaps it will be mentioned on COUNTDOWN tonight because SNOBamessiah has decided to question John McCain's respect for the troops....Well Senator McCain has issued a wonderful statement attacking SNOBamessiah's attack on his character, especially as someone who actually served our country in uniform:

A snipet:

"I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has offered legislation with very generous benefits. I respect and admire his position, and I would never suggest that he has anything other than the best of intentions to honor the service of deserving veterans. Both Senator Webb and I are united in our deep appreciation for the men and women who risk their lives so that the rest of us may be secure in our freedom. And I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

[...]

"Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."

http://tinyurl.com/622xkq

###
What a shot. SNOBamessiah's chief cheerleader may bring this issue up but I doubt he will cover it fairly and give Senator McCain's great retort in full. Or perhaps Olbermann will decide to beat the dead horse call Hagee.

Check this out in the comments by a KozKid:

" * [new] Pastor Hagee - Just like Reverend Wright Except.. (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:elwior
Pastor Hagee doesn't have Reverend Wright's soft-spoken nature and careful sensitivity to make sure that he is not offensive to his listeners.

(In reality, I think Reverend Wright may be a little peculiar, but I think he has his community's best interest at heart. Not so with Pastor Hagee). "

Wright's "...soft-spoken nature and careful sensitivity to make sure that he is not offensive to his listeners." first struck me when I saw his sermon when he was pumping his pelvis back and forth while screaming that Bill Clinton is "riding us dirty" just like he "rode Monica dirty.

How could any Pastor top that for gentle sensitivity.

The Hagee issue is dead. McCain has consistently rejected his controversial views, now basically rejecting his endorcement after the last comments regarding The Holocaust.

Contrast this with how SNOBamessiah dealt with Pastor Wright, trying to have it both ways and he STILL is a member of Trinity UCC, a church with ties to The Nation of Islam and lead by minister who defends the views of Wright. The anti-American views of Wright and SNOBamessiah's slow and very unimpressive repudiation after 20 years will continue to dog him.

Hagee is now old news because of McCain's forceful and rapid rejection as well as his loose connections with the minister.

Olbermann can try as he might, but Hagee is not Wright and trying to use him as a wedge issue with regards to the Jewish vote is a nonstarter.....

Especially as McCain has Lieberman's and possible Ed Koch's endorcement.

Smackdown!

WooooooW! Don't put away the silly string and party hat's, mikeh. It's all hagee all the time from here on out on yuor favorite liars comedy hour!

How will KO and the rest of MSDNC stretch the Hagee non-story now?..it took Obama 20yrs to reject Wright it only took McCain a few months to reject Hagee...I mean How on one hand can they bash McCain for this and at the same time say it's no big deal for Obama?.

I guess they'll have to try to make a big deal out of McCains medical records release and suggest he's trying to hide some something by restricting the number of Reporters who can access it...there I just did KO work for him. LOL!!

J$: "If you don't want to discuss it, then why did you rush out with an email and beg Mr. Cox to let you be a commentor here?"

Lets see, where do we start Mr. Johnny distortion himself?

First off, I hardly "rushed" out with an email. I actually waited for several weeks after the initial 'invitation' before doing it...mostly just to see if Robert would indeed approve an opposition voice. To his credit, he did.

Second, I did anything BUT 'beg' for the dubious 'privilage'. Maybe you could get him to share the email with you and then see if you could still spin it that way in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. ..... Knowing you and how you operate however, you could probably spin a knot in a reinforced steel post.

Third, if YOU were the site's owner instead of Robert, I never would have sent that email at all. You see, Mr. spinmaster, YOU are the one who has been railing against so called "off topic" posting, NOT Robert Cox!

You see Johnny, If you can't see the relationship between defending an ideology represented by a commentator, and defending the commentator himself, that's YOUR problem Jack!

And finally, if you can't see the obvious hypocrisy of attacking a commentor whose ideology you happen to dislike, while claiming the proliferation of opposition commentators who are themselves FAR more hateful, deceptive, and insulting than KO is somehow irrelevant, then you have yet another problem tainting your own objectivity.

PS....Have you noticed how the commenting on this thread took off like a rocket after I (apparently, the ONLY opposition voice), chimed in last night? ....Think about it!

"How will KO and the rest of MSDNC stretch the Hagee non-story now?.....The same way the media, including "MSDNC" continued to "stretch" the Wright "non-story well after he had rejected his ideas, and then him."

"I mean, how on one hand can they bash McCain for this and at the same time say it's no big deal for Obama?......It's called payback!......Or fighting fire with fire!......Or jumping into the gutter to engage your opponents because they refuse to come out on their own!

Cecelia: "In turn, my sole complaint is that access wasn't granted to a smarter liberal."

While there are certainly plenty of "smarter liberals" out there than myself, if you are the embodiment of a 'smart conservative', then their services would be better utilized elsewhere.

> the obvious hypocrisy of attacking a commentor whose ideology you happen to dislike, while claiming the proliferation of opposition commentators who are themselves FAR more hateful, deceptive, and insulting than KO is somehow irrelevant

Well you tell me, genius. If you go over to the I Hate Bill O'Reilly site and start posting there about how terrible Keith Olbermann is, how far do you think you will get? They'll boot you out so fast you won't even feel it until after you're out the door. We are much more tolerant here. We permit Olbyloons to come here and spin, divert, and distort to their heart's content. But that doesn't give you some sort of all-day free pass to do it with abandon. There is a thing here called dialogue. When you say something, that gives others the right to respond, and to point out how lame your attempts to distract from the topic of Olbermoronn really are. You may think your off-topic stream-of-consciousness drivel is untouchable and beyond criticism. But it ain't. You want an echo chamber, go back to the hounds, or Kos, or wherever you regular haunts are.

> YOU are the one who has been railing against so called "off topic" posting

So posting about everything EXCEPt Olbermann at Olbermann Watch is NOT off topic, it's "so called" off topic? Tell me, is the ocean made out of "so called" water? Is it "so called" snow that falls in the Winter?

> First off, I hardly "rushed" out with an email...

Oh I know all that stuff. I just wanted to see how easy it was to bait you. Thanks.

Well, Mike, how is that the owner of this "hate site", who also the man who gives the deceptive and intolerant Johnny Dollar virtual carte blanch over the site, can be so acceptable to you, whereas his "voice" so to speak (JD), is not?

As with all your thoughts, this too is riddled with faulty reasoning. You have posted here for years, and have seen a degree of respect for free speech that even consistently acquiesced in the face of the worst sort of disrespect, ill intentions, and abuse from others who trolled here. Yet when the change they forced upon the site came about, you had to report that you were surprised that this same person gave you the means to post here.

Frankly, it's not Johnny Dollar you need to be criticizing but yourself. You have been extended every hospitality, but have done nothing but issue a pejorative against the site that would put OW in league with some racist or antisemitic organization, routinely imply that its main blogger is intentionally deceitful, and insultingly report that you were shocked when accorded the same consideration by the blog owner that you callously took for granted for years.

You should be grateful to Bob Cox. If I were him, I'd boot you out just for doing your little "I wouldn't have bothered if you, Johnny, owned the site rather than Bob" dance. Correction. I'd boot you out for being a clueless and self-congratulating bore.

"So not posting about Olbermann at Olbermann Watch is not off topic, it's "so called" off topic."

YOU are about the only one here who really seems to have a problem with "off topic", but clearly related posts (well, when it's done by an "olbyloon", anyway)

Cecelia just said that I "routinely imply that it's main blogger is intentionally deceitful, and insulting."

When J$ made the decision to intentionally misrepresent (see above) what I have done, and then take it upon himself to scold me for posting something he personally deems to be "off topic" in seeming direct opposition to the site's owner, he has earned every bit of scorn I have implied.

And then Cecelia followed up with THIS little gem; "correction. I'd boot you out for being a clueless and self-contratulating bore."

The problem with doing that is that he would have to boot you off as well for the very same reasons.

Oh yeah... so it's "off topic" for Johnny to respond to what you write to or about him! And it's "off topic" to issue a post chiding you for being "off topic"....

No wonder you're pathologically unable to admit that Rush Limbaugh doesn't do any network or cable channel political coverage anchoring and that his not-one-tenth-as-astute-but-every-bit-as-partisan-- flawed attempt at a clone-- Keith Olberman DOES.

Again, Bob..of all the liberals...

"I mean, how on one hand can they bash McCain for this and at the same time say it's no big deal for Obama?......It's called payback!......Or fighting fire with fire!......Or jumping into the gutter to engage your opponents because they refuse to come out on their own!

by mikeh

Thanks for proving what a hypocrite you are, again!
>>>>
Chris Mathews absolute destruction of RW radio commentator

by mikeh

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

By Olby Sucks on May 16, 2008 12:28 PM

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

? then take it upon himself to scold me for posting something he personally deems to be "off topic"

Don't you understand, Cecelia? It's not enough that MikeH can post whatever drivel happens to pass through his mind at any given moment, despite its irrelevance to the subject matter of this site. He's upset because when he does it, somebody actually criticizes him!

This is an astonishing parallel. Like Keith Olbermann, who gets nauseous any time he is faced with a viewpoint different from his own, our MikeH thinks that whatever he posts should be immune from any criticism whatsoever. He seems to believe that he has some sort of God-like status where mere mortals are not entitled to utter as much as a syllable of dissent from his holy writ. And if someone dares to disagree, then that person "has earned every bit of scorn I have implied".

See. Just do whatever MikeH wants, agree with whatever MikeH posts, and above all, NEVER criticize MikeH for being spectacularly, gloriously off-topic. Do so and you will earn his majesty's "scorn".

Talk about hubris.

Mike,

You must be enjoying yourself because you are, again, "The Belle of the Ball" on OW.

By MikeH on May 22, 2008 9:09 P

While there are certainly plenty of "smarter liberals" out there than myself, if you are the embodiment of a 'smart conservative', then their services would be better utilized elsewhere."

And in your case OW would be been off if Bob would just utilize a liberal bot.

mikeh, what do we owe you for the 6 posts you generated? Out of the 6, you avoided 4 of them. Shocker!

J$: "He's upset because when he does it, somebody actually criticizes him!......Trust me, I'm anything BUT "upset".

And then this: "our Mikeh hinks that whatever he posts should be immune from any criticism whatsoever.".....And whether you understand it or not, that statement illuminates you as being every bit as biased as you say KO is. You seem to confuse responding to criticism with criticism with claiming "some sort of God-like status".

If you can't see that I don't come here for validation of any kind, then I'll have to add that to your list of obvious shortcomings.

No wonder you're pathologically unable to admit that Rush Limbaugh doesn't do any network or cable channel political coverage anchoring and that his not-one-tenth-as-astute-but-every-bit-as-partisan-- flawed attempt at a clone-- Keith Olberman DOES.

by cecelia

If only mikeh understood that..............

Rico: "You must be enjoying yourself because you are again, the "Belle of the Ball" on OW."

What other reason would there be for commenting on this blog?

BTW, weren't you the one who commented how much you enjoy the occasional exchanges I have with Cee?

> If you can't see that I don't come here for validation of any kind

Of course you didn't. You came here to defend an indefensible propagandist by continually changing the subject and diverting the discussion to everything else under the sun. To you that isn't validation. That's, like, a real fun Saturday night.

Talk about hubris.

By johnny dollarAuthor Profile Page on May 22, 2008 9:59 PM

A better term be "humus".

MikeH, doesn't ask for much, Johnny. Just to scornfully express that he has no interest in or intention to take up the topic of the site, give Bob advice on how to run things, whine about how deceptive you are, imply the site is an organized hate group, and tell everyone how caring and compassionate he is and they are not.

Don't mess that up for him by pretending that OW isn't grateful for it.

J$: "Of course you didn't. You came here to defend an indefensible propagandist"

"Indefensible" is strictly in the eye of the beholder, and contrary to your silly assertion, your thinking is no more "clear" than mine.

I've seen republicans take a virtual jackhammer to the country I love, it's ideals, it's constiturtion, and it's future for 7 looonnng years, so please spare me your righteous indignation for not having a particular problem with Keith Olbermann fighting fire with fire.

and tell everyone how caring and compassionate he is and they are not.

by cecelia

And how big his house is, how beautiful his wife is, how many cars he has and how many soldiers have died "needlessly."

By MikeH on May 22, 2008 10:21 PM

J$: "Of course you didn't. You came here to defend an indefensible propagandist"

"Indefensible" is strictly in the eye of the beholder, and contrary to your silly assertion, your thinking is no more "clear" than mine.

I've seen republicans take a virtual jackhammer to the country I love, it's ideals, it's constiturtion, and it's future for 7 looonnng years, so please spare me your righteous indignation for not having a particular problem with Keith Olbermann fighting fire with fire."

You don't see a certain self-referential element to this sort of argument at all do you.. It's as logical as the day is long to you and the fact that it's one built on a self-referential/arguable premise, bothers you not at all.

Well why would it. You're only talking to rightwingers and rightwingers are the only folks dumb enough not to believe it.... round and round your mind goes...

Oh, it's perfectly in context and you've perfectly laid down you feelings about us and this place. You are only here because the board is friendly to you and your rants in a way that other blogs (left or right) would not be, and so makes it's easy for you to argue with rightwingers. I use the word "argue" loosely here because what you really do is to take issues that are complex -- like war and the role of govt as benefactor, etc, take the most elemental line (I want the govt to help people, I don't want soldiers to die, bad war=war one couldn't win) and issue not a hint that a contrary position could possibly be based on less rudimentary but every bit as lofty, concerns.

How could anyone doubt for a second your disdain for the role of the site, the Republicans here, or that your own validation as being "wonderful" is not your sole quest, goal, and concern.

You've consistently make that loud and clear.

And how we run a "hate site". We mustn't ever forget that. Of course one might wonder why MikeH would want to even read, let alone ask to be allowed to contribute to, a "hate site", but I don't think we even want to contemplate what went into that calculus.

"By MikeH on May 22, 2008 10:14 PM
Rico: "You must be enjoying yourself because you are again, the "Belle of the Ball" on OW."

Now that is the absolute last straw, MikeH.

Let me remind you and don't you ever forget that I am THE belle of the ball!

I never thought I would live so long as to be so grossly insulted by such a nonen......

Well, let's leave it at that.

Grammie: "Now that is the absolute last straw, MikeH."

I didn't say I agreed with Rico janet!

Johnny, Mike has today told us that he thinks the premise of the site is not only hateful but specious and that he has no intention of engaging in that discussion WHILE simultaneously telling Bob what he should be doing for the site (getting more liberals in here... coincidentally something that might help Mike...). When he does entertain the subject of K.O. it's to tell us that our complaints don't matter because Republicans and FNC are so much worse.

In the course of being told that the site mission is specious. The site content deceptive and hateful. And that the mentality of the site population is the bane of the entire country, I very do want to discuss the "calculus" of a guy who then says he's not here for his own validation...

If this were my site, Cecelia, you would be CotD. And you know what that means!

Cecelia: "what you really do is take issues that are complex -- like war and the role of government as benefactor, etc. take the most elemental line (I want the government to help people, bad war=war one couldn't win) and issue not a hint that a contrary position could possibly be based on less rudimentary but every bit as lofty, concerns."

What YOU really do is take arguments that are complex, then you over simplify them, then you paraphrase them to suit your own partisan purposes, and finally (falsly) imply that I have somehow contradicted myself again. You do this over and over again in place of making any valid argument to the contrary.

For example, if you REALLY believe that my belief against the Iraq War can somehow be marginalized as being as simplistic as "bad war=war one couldn't win", then your reading comprehension is as pathetically bad as your logic.

Mike, may think this hateful site is a crock of dung with a bogus premise and populated by people who wish to destroy the country, blogged on by a liar and a cheat, and owned by a rightwinger who uncharacteristically treated him fairly.... but that does't mean that Mike doesn't have some goals for improving the site.

They would be to have M. Flucker Schultz back in here calling every Obama critic "racist", Patsy intellectually debating PASTOR DUMBFUCK...IN ALL CAPS, and all and sundry a'lib doing conservative sockpuppets and bestiality posts.

Well, thanks, Mike. You may think we're a bunch of fascist cretins on a dumb hate site, but it's nice to know you have our best rather than your own validation in mind...

Johnny, you know how to treat a lady...

I hope I will be forgiven for posting the same comment on two threads but since MikeH is active on this thread and is the only apologist we have for KO perhaps he can provide an answer to my question.

By Grammie on May 22, 2008 6:03 PM
"By the way I would love to know when he calls whoever "Cold Blooded Killers"..who is supposed to have been killed by them.."

Mlong your comment is the first time I have ever seen the question approached from that angle. Looking at it that way opens up a whole new world of what the puke might have meant.

KO, you have now edited your comment to ONLY mean THE CABINET AND THE PENTAGON are "cold blooded killers". Exactly who have these dozen or so "cold blooded killers" killed?

How about documenting a cold blooded killing for political purposes by a cabinet member, say Secretary Condelizza Rice. Who did Condi Rice "cold bloodedly kill for political purposes"?

Grammie

J$: "And now we run a "hate site".

I think this is about the third or fourth time I've been accused of making this comment, complete with quotes in your last post. And Cecelia just hinted that I implied it again today.

The problem is that you will have to go back sometime before you will find such a quote you can attribute to me, ..... certainly well before this site was changed to registration only, ..... and I don't believe you will find where I even hinted such a thing on this thread.

Don't look, mikeh!

Chris Mathews absolute destruction of RW radio commentator

by mikeh

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

By Olby Sucks on May 16, 2008 12:28 PM

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

Mike, if you're saying that your references to Olbermann Watch as being a "hate site" only applied before registration when there were more liberals on board, that will indeed be worth considering.

More likely you're suggesting that since you haven't used the term in a while, you shouldn't have to account for it now when it's inconvenient for you.

THAT'S the sort of argument from you that we're more than familiar with...

certainly well before this site was changed to registration only, ..... and I don't believe you will find where I even hinted such a thing on this thread.

by mikeh

Oh, so now it's not a "hate site?" What's different, besides registering?

So, if I call you a worthless piece of shit tomorrow it gets wiped away? We can all act like I never said it? Sounds good......

OS, I nominate you for the OW Comment of the Month!

"More likely you're suggesting that since you haven't used the term in a while, you shouldn't have to account for it now when it is inconvenient for you."

The point you keep missing is that it doesn't make a hill of beans whether I've ever said such a thing in the past or not. It's not about me, and I make the assumption (perhaps falsely) that you understand that it isn't about you either.

While I could argue that it is certainly forgivable if I once termed a site that routinely calls opponents "olbyloons", with the obvious intent of at least irritating them, ..... or one that routinesly calls the object of it's scorn "fatass", and has even been known to focus on his perceived lack of sexual prowess, to site just a few examples, a "hate site" ..... I won't!

It's not about me,

by mikeh

And here we have the infamous back pedal..........

"So, if I call you a worthless piece of shit tomorrow it gets wiped away?"

You effectively call anything, everything, and everybody you disagree with that or worse EVERY time you make a new post....you razz and jeer every commentor, pundit, or poster who dares to disagree with you.....without EVER feeling you need to make a coherent argument to counter their own.

And then you have people like Janet cheering for you....and they in turn wonder why people like me tend to scorn the way they think.

"And here we have the infamous back pedal.........."

That was anything but a "back pedal."

But it does serve to illustrate why I ignor most of your post these days.

Is this not a coherent argument? I think it is, since you brought it up......and have avoided it like the plague. Shocker!

Chris Mathews absolute destruction of RW radio commentator

by mikeh

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

By Olby Sucks on May 16, 2008 12:28 PM

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

By Grammie on May 22, 2008 3:17 PM
"By Scott on May 21, 2008 11:02 PM
MikeH

I suppose we could fix that by posting about 28 different posts each of "BU$HWIPES" and links to completely off-topic news articles and blog posts if your pining for the "good-old days." Throw in a few spam posts for good measure, and that would definitely up the comment count."

I'm surprised that we hadn't realized how some might be suffering without all those things that once said "home" to them here at OW.

MikeH, just let us know if you would also like a dozen or so comments either signed by Hag-zilla, Pastor DUMBF**K, Now, you TWO OLD BITCHES ...,HAG-ZILLA! FETCH!, DUMBSH...., and a few comments mooing at everyone to ease your transition into the new, gentler OW."

MikeH, when you start playing the holier than thou card b/c of words such as "olbyloon, fatass etc while you piously refrain from calling OW a hate site for using such terms you are, and always have, turned a blind eye to the truly hateful, obscene and profane comments from your ideological buddies.

I remember your expressing surprise and dismay when Bob started exposing those mentioned above that you couldn't understand why they would resort to such b/c they were so smart and made such good points.

Give me a break.

Oh, so now it's not a "hate site?" What's different, besides registering?

Another coherent argument from me......avoided by mikeh.

"......and have avoided it like the plaque. Shocker!"

No, it really wasn't a "coherent argument"....but I DID address it anyway...at 12:03 AM.

Oh, I forgot, having questions answered with a question zooms completely over your head every time!

By MikeH on May 22, 2008 11:44 PM

While I could argue that it is certainly forgivable if I once termed a site that routinely calls opponents "olbyloons", with the obvious intent of at least irritating them, ..... or one that routinesly calls the object of it's scorn "fatass", and has even been known to focus on his perceived lack of sexual prowess, to site just a few examples, a "hate site" ..... I won't!"

Oh, I've no doubt you "wont" and that you don't want to go there. But let me address the little self defense that you did try to slip in-- No, it's not "forgivable" for you to use a designation that carries a particular and particularly negative connotation that "hate site" carries. You were fully aware of that connotion when you used it, and you were fully aware that you were using it in conjunction with being a site largely comprised of those....to use your little tactic... of a differing ideology. You had every intention of term this a rightwing hate site, in all the connotations of the word. In THAT context, "Fat ass" and "Olbyloon" are rather innocuous insults, don't you think. That makes your characterization all the more galling. Take a trip over to Daily Kos and see... Better yet, trying being called a "cold blooded murderer" or someone who doesn't care if soldier die.

Oh, no. You will be held accountable for that characterization. You will be forced to openly equate the heinous insult of "Olbyloon" with a designation one would give to a KKK site. Oh, yeah. It most certainly IS about YOU.

I notice that so far you, MikeH, have ignored my question from my 11:25 comment.

To make it as easy as possible to get an answer from you let me repeat the question:

KO, you have now edited your comment to ONLY mean THE CABINET AND THE PENTAGON are "cold blooded killers". Exactly who have these dozen or so "cold blooded killers" killed?

How about documenting a cold blooded killing for political purposes by a cabinet member, say Secretary Condelizza Rice. Who did Condi Rice "cold bloodedly kill for political purposes"?"

Grammie

Grammie" "I remeber your expressing surprise and dismay when Bob started exposing those mentioned above that you couldn't understand why they would resort to such b/c they were so smart anf made such good points.

Give me a break."

What's your point Grammie?

Grammie: "how about documenting a cold blooded killing for political purposes by a cabinet member,"

What confuses me is exactly why are you asking me to document a claim I haven't made or defended?

"What's your point Grammie?"

My point is that you are hypocritical and always wiggle around avoiding any and all direct questions.

Let's try again, shall we?

By Grammie on May 23, 2008 12:00 AM
By Grammie on May 22, 2008 3:17 PM
"By Scott on May 21, 2008 11:02 PM
MikeH

I suppose we could fix that by posting about 28 different posts each of "BU$HWIPES" and links to completely off-topic news articles and blog posts if your pining for the "good-old days." Throw in a few spam posts for good measure, and that would definitely up the comment count."

I'm surprised that we hadn't realized how some might be suffering without all those things that once said "home" to them here at OW.

MikeH, just let us know if you would also like a dozen or so comments either signed by Hag-zilla, Pastor DUMBF**K, Now, you TWO OLD BITCHES ...,HAG-ZILLA! FETCH!, DUMBSH...., and a few comments mooing at everyone to ease your transition into the new, gentler OW."

MikeH, when you start playing the holier than thou card b/c of words such as "olbyloon, fatass etc while you piously refrain from calling OW a hate site for using such terms you are, and always have, turned a blind eye to the truly hateful, obscene and profane comments from your ideological buddies."

Let me reiterate that for you MikeH.

You are a hypocritical, sanctimonious pious weasel.

That is my point.

Cecelia: "Fatass and Olbyloon are rather innocuous insults, don't you think?"

NO......i don't!!

Grammie: "You are a hypocritical, sanctimonious pious weasel."

Not THAT'S one thing I like about this site!

You're angry because I have once AGAIN rejected your inane attempt to paint me with the brush of others you identify as somehow being on my 'side', even though I am on record as having rejected their tactics as surely as I have rejected thoe of "Olby Sucks".

Eventually I get people like you to show your true colors by resorting to name calling and insults.

> or one that routinesly calls the object of it's scorn "fatass"

Well if that makes this a 'hate site', then what does that make Olbermann, who called Roger Ailes "Fat Ass", on national television no less?

Clue for the clueless: that's the very reason we use phrases like that. To see the righteous indignation spewing from Olbypologists over such hateful language. Then we drop the other shoe: the hateful language is a quote from Olbermann himself.

"By MikeH on May 23, 2008 12:16 AM
Cecelia: "Fatass and Olbyloon are rather innocuous insults, don't you think?"

NO......i don't!!"

Given a hypothetical choice would you prefer to characterized as a "fatass" or an "Olbyloon" or characterized as any (just a few for the flavor) of the following:

DUMBFUCK
ARE YOUR SERIOUS, YOU FUCTOID...
FOR A REVISIONIST HISTORI...
DUMBFUCK IS BOVINEQUEEN'S...
AND DUMBFUCK Cee FALLS FO...
Ronco! You BEARDLESS PUSSY...
Sweet! Pastor DUMBFUCK IS...
SHUT UP! DUMBSHIT! I mean...

Just asking.

Well if that makes this a "hate site", then what does that make Olbermann, who called Roger Ailes "Fat Ass", on national television no less?

Another question is what does that make YOU ever since Olbermann made himself WPITW for doing it while noting his own "fat" ass....on national television no less.

If I remember correctly, YOU never even gave him any credit for doing that....and unless I'm mistaken, you're STILL calling him "Fatass"!

Yes, I suppose it is all relative... In light of being called people who have taken a jackhammer to the country-- it's institution, its Constitution... we'd probably think it trivial and teasing to merely be designed with a term defined as being irrationally fond of fat ass Keith Olbermann by the owners of this "hate site"...

Grammie, it's certain aly no wonder you have such a problem not attriduting Obama with something his preacher has said.

You can't even get it through your thick skull that I wasn't the one who posted "BUSHWIPES, BOVINEQUEEN, HAGZILLA, DUMBFUCK".....or whatever.

"In light of being called people who have taken a jackhammer to the country-- it's constitution.."

You could start by dropping the pious emotionalism and kindly explain exactly why you disagree with that assessment....instead of pouting out your erroneous and ridiculous implication that I was somehow talking about you instead of our GOVERNMENT?

mikeh, you didn't address jack shit. You keep spinning and lying, though. It is who you are. I'm done.

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

For a guy who isn't here to stay "on topic" (on a board designed to critique Keith Olbermann) because Olbermann is just "fighting fire with fire", it's sort of funny the distinctions he can then make over who said what and the relative perniciousness of terms like "olbyloon" and "fat ass"...

Cecelia, what's REALLY sort of funny" is how you never fail to avoid addressing the argument at hand in favor of yet another diversion.

BTW, who the hell are YOU to determine exactly WHICH spurilous personal insults should be taken lightly, and which ones shouldn't?

"In light of being called people who have taken a jackhammer to the country-- it's constitution.."

You could start by dropping the pious emotionalism and kindly explain exactly why you disagree with that assessment....instead of pouting out your erroneous and ridiculous implication that I was somehow talking about you instead of our GOVERNMENT?"

So I'm supposed to persuade you as why you are incorrect in terming me as someone who has indirectly shredded the institutions of my own country and it's Constitution, while you equate calling Keith Olbermann "fat ass" and his supporters "Olbyloons" with a term designed for sites that foment racial and ethnic hatred?

"You're angry because I have once AGAIN rejected your inane attempt to paint me with the brush of others you identify as somehow being on my 'side', even though I am on record as having rejected their tactics as surely as I have rejected thoe of "Olby Sucks".

Eventually I get people like you to show your true colors by resorting to name calling and insults. "

I associated you with them, MikeH, b/c you associated yourself with them.

You associted yourself by sometimes praising your ideological brothers for their commentary.

Even more telling is that you never once criticized or expressed displeasure when your ideological brothers burrowed deeper and deeper into using accusations and tales of bestiality to denigrate just another commenter here.

You never once criticized or expressed displearsure when your ideological brothers used obscene and profane simply to use it against others.

You never once criticized or expressed displearsure when your ideological brothers used words such as Hag, Bag and Gag, sluts, whores, fag hags, harridans and on and on to address the only ladies here.

"Eventually I get people like you to show your true colors by resorting to name calling and insults."

Now if you really mean that I will be glad to use those terms that you are comfortable with and eschew fatass and olbyloon and strictly use what you have endorsed by your silence:

DUMBFUCK
ARE YOUR SERIOUS, YOU FUCTOID...
FOR A REVISIONIST HISTORI...
DUMBFUCK IS BOVINEQUEEN'S...
AND DUMBFUCK Cee FALLS FO...
Ronco! You BEARDLESS PUSSY...
Sweet! Pastor DUMBFUCK IS...
SHUT UP! DUMBSHIT! I mean...

Grammie

"So I'm supposed to persuade you as why you are incorrect in terming me as someone who has indirectly shredded the institutions of my country."

Are you the government?

Or is your REAL argument that one should virtually walk on eggshells when criticizing one's own elected government in order to avoid inadvertly insulting the sensibilities of those who may have made the honest mistake of supporting it's errant policies.

Talk about political correctness!

By MikeH on May 23, 2008 12:56 AM

BTW, who the hell are YOU to determine exactly WHICH spurilous personal insults should be taken lightly, and which ones shouldn't?"

Someone with commonsense. Someone who understand there's a difference between being called fat ass or an Olbyoon from being designated as some one who by their vote, ipso facto supports tyrants and extremists and as Olbermann says "cold blooded killers".

Terms like Olbyloon and fat ass as compared to the above is most definitely NOT "fire with fire", Einstein. It's a pea shooter as compared to a flame thrower, and the fact that someone has to explain THAT to you, makes YOU precisely who the hell you are...

> since Olbermann made himself WPITW for doing it while noting his own "fat" ass....on national television no less. If I remember correctly, YOU never even gave him any credit for doing that.

Wow, MikeH comes out of the closet as a full-fledged Olbypologist! And like most Olbypologists, he doesn't get the facts exactly right. He didn't make himself WPitW, he only gave himself the bronze. Then you compound that by saying that I 'never even gave him any credit for that", which of course is a lie because I noted it, appreciated the speck of decency that it showed, but also pointed out the reason why it was in his self-interest to do it.

So you defend Olbermahn with a falsehood, then lie about I what I wrote. But hey, all in a day's work when you're spending your Friday night typing irrelevancies at a hate site.

Grammie: "I associated you with them b/c you associated yourself with them."

You are unbelievable! I associated with YOU on this blog as well. I have conservative friends. I even have a few with crazy political beliefs a-la Reverend Wright or Hagee.

Which one of all of the above's collective beliefs or actions are you going to try to tar ME with next?

J$: "You defend Olbermann with a falsehood, then lie about what I wrote"

This is why your definition of "lies" has no credibility Johnny. You just accused me of lying when I emphatically did not lie. And thanks to you, I just learned that WPITW "bronze" doesn't REALLY count as a WPITW. Nice spin Mr. spinmaster!

If you REALLY believe your callous "mention" of the incident qualified as 'giving credit', you are farther gone than even I thought you were.

And you ARE still calling him "fatass", are you not?

By MikeH on May 23, 2008 1:03 AM

"So I'm supposed to persuade you as why you are incorrect in terming me as someone who has indirectly shredded the institutions of my country."

Are you the government?

Or is your REAL argument that one should virtually walk on eggshells when criticizing one's own elected government in order to avoid inadvertly insulting the sensibilities of those who may have made the honest mistake of supporting it's errant policies.

Talk about political correctness!"

Well, I'll aver that the term "Olbyloon" includes those who have made the honest mistake of supporting the fat ass demagogue Keith Olbermann. And you can aver that you mean no disrespect towards those who continue their "honest mistake" by supporting the shredders of the Constitution and America's institution still.

We're still left with two facts-- 1. You're the guy who walked on eggshells so much that you had to designate a blog calling a little watched partisan demagogic journalist "fat ass" as a "hate site" and thererfore SHOULD answer to what you imply us indirectly via our support of such folks by our informed vote...

2. "Olbyloon" is doesn't begin to come any where near the insult of THAT...

Cecelia: "It's a pea shooter as compared to a flame thrower, and the fact that someone has to explain THAT to you, makes you precisely ho the hell you are..."

And the fact that you still can't comprehend that YOU are anything but the final authority about whom should be insulted most about what makes me damned glad I am who I am, and not who you are.

"Olbyloon" is doesn't begin to come any where near the insult of THAT..."

Poor, poor, wittle picked on Cecelia!

I can't criticize my government without insulting poor wittle Cecelia in the process. I guess that means I can't criticize my government at all. How convenient for your beliefs!

Your arguments simply waaayyyy are too bizarre to be confronted with common sense or logic.....so I think I'll just say goodnight!

ARE YOUR SERIOUS, YOU FUCTOID:

"You are unbelievable! I associated with YOU on this blog as well. I have conservative friends. I even have a few with crazy political beliefs a-la Reverend Wright or Hagee.

Which one of all of the above's collective beliefs or actions are you going to try to tar ME with next?"

For starters you have misread the term (intentionally?) "associated". As I suspect you knew already I used "aasociated with" in the sense of agreement and support. By your interpretation I am "associated" with Flucker, Bobo and Patsy.

My comment was based strictly on what you said and did not say on OW over the last year or so. Therefore I used "associated with" based solely on your comments and just as pertinent what you never ever objected to.

St Thomas Moore made the argument in his trial that silence is acquiessence and approval. I know I have challenged quite a few who were supposedly on my side of the aisle.

Who did you challenge on your side?

"I used "aasociated with" in the sense of agreement and support."

SO!!!

The fact that I agreed with them politically did not mean I approved of their tactics.

Is that rather simple concept REALLY that difficult for you to understand Grammie?

BTW, I "challenged" several of them more than once regarding their tactics and I think you damned well know it. In fact, I think that is exactly WHY you keep throwing them back in my face.

Goodnight!

To everyone not named MikeH.

The comment numbers are up. KO lied tonight. He lied again. Rachel had an orgasm. KO does a lousy Oliver North impression. All's left in OlbyWorld.

MikeH,
I Hagree it's not Wright that you are piqued on. Hang in there, it could be worse.
And even though Jerimiah was a bullfrog, Michelle wouldn't let him get Pastor for the campaign kick off

> If you REALLY believe your callous "mention" of the incident qualified as 'giving credit'

A minute ago you claimed I NEVER EVEN gave him ANY credit. That's demonstrably false, as you apparently learned when you looked up the post, and are now claiming that well, it wasn't ENOUGH credit for you to consider it "ANY" credit. Or to put it another way, you are contradicting yourself. Sort of like when Oralmann claimed nothing was edited from his Special Komment, until the criticism rained down on him and he explained it away by suddenly claiming it was because of this key sentence that he edited out. Are you sure you don't live with a girl young enough to be your daughter by the name of Katy?

> You just accused me of lying when I emphatically did not lie.

Yeah, right. "You NEVER EVEN gave him ANY credit":

But the highlight was KO making himself a nominee (nothing worse than bronze, of course), because he admits that he slammed Glenn Beck for something he himself had done (when he called Roger Ailes "fat ass"). Of course there was a bit of Olby dishonesty here: "It occured to me that I had once called Roger Ailes 'fat ass'". It occured to me?!? You mean, it occured to you after Olbermann Watch pointed it out and humiliated you. Presumably we should be grateful for even a microspeck of responsibility from Herr Olbermann, but he could at least be honest about who pointed it out.

Yep, I'm still calling him "Fat Ass". He put the phrase in play. He only did a pseudo rollback of it when he was caught smearing Glenn Beck for doing the same thing, and Olbermann Watch nailed him on it. So he's still Fat Ass. And if you don't like it, then you should complain to Olbermann. I'm only using his words. Of course I try to have leave some distance between myself and the odious Olbermann. I won't use the c-word. I won't tell someone to go kill themself. I won't suggest that they do something overly intimate with their mother. Those are some choice bits of phraseology from your hero that I won't adopt. But you can defend them as "fighting fire with fire" if you like. Or maybe you can tell us why that is not hate speech, but Olbyloon is.

To the Olbypologist, their hero can do no wrong. No matter what vile, ugly filth comes out of his diseased mind, it's all OK. But "Olbyloon" is hate speech.

Yeah, right, whatever.

Mike, I'm sure if they are your friends, then they are capable of reasoning that you mean them no disrespect when you say that it's merely Republicans pols (as opposed to the those who support them) who have worked to shred the Constitution and to tear down America's institutions. I'm sure they might be capable of thinking that your calling the president and his Administration tyrants and thugs, is by no means the sort of criticism that goes beyond the ordinary, and that it is just merely the jib and joust of average political opposition.

I'm sure YOUR friends would feel consoled when you tell them that their support of real enemies to the Republic is merely an honest mistake.

But then, they don't know you referred to other people as being the equivalent of anti-semitics and racist merely for calling you Olbyloon and therefore your own speech deserves the same scrutiny.

Even they, not you, might understand that....

Ramjet, thank you for a moment of sanity!

To continue on in the insanity b/c I can't hep myself:

DUMBFUCK ,

"BTW, I "challenged" several of them more than once regarding their tactics and I think you damned well know it."

How about just a few citations to prove it b/c if you ever did I sure missed it.

"as you apparently learned when you looked up the post,"

Well, well Johnny...THAT was an outright lie on your part! I looked up nothing. I remember your tepid response quite well because I specifically looked to see how you would react the night he made himself a WPITW. ..... And once again, a mere mention claiming ulterior motives did NOT qualitfy as giving him credit.

And as long as you keep regularly calling people you are criticizing things like "fatass", etc. regardless of the reason, you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be NO better than the person you are attacking.

> Well, well Johnny...THAT was an outright lie on your part!

Do you think we're idiots? That was a lie? It was a guess, a supposition. The tip-off is the word "apparently". You did notice it, right? Do I need to define it for you?

> I remember your tepid response quite well

Now I may be wrong, but there was an Olbypologist who boasted that he didn't even bother to read the recaps. Might that have been you? That would be most interesting indeed. Olbermann didn't edit, until he did. You didn't read the recaps, except when you did. Assuming that it's you I'm remembering, of course.

> you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be NO better than the person you are attacking.

Bingo! The man finally catches on. At least for one night. But as usual, doesn't quite get it right. I deliberately use his words and insults and smears so that people like you will get all hot and bothered about them, while simultaneously letting Oralmann get away with them night after night.

And by the way, if truly WERE no better than Olby, then I would have some choice words for you about your mother, and how you should end your life. So you didn't get that right either.

But I will give you this. There was one thing about your post that is right on point and indisputably accurate:

" By MikeH on May 23, 2008 1:55 AM "

"How about just a few citations to prove it b/c if you ever did I sure missed it."

Of COURSE you didn't Grammie.....you 'see' exactly what you wish to see....like any good partisan.

One difference between me and you is that, ... even though I don't recall ever seeing YOU challenge anyone on your political 'side' either, as you claimed, I didn't respond by effectively calling you a liar by demanding that you dig up 'proof' in the form of a "citation".

Gnite....really!

"Now I may be rong, but there was an Olbypologist who boasted that he didn't even bother to read the recaps."

And that somehow means that I have never made an exception, for specific reasons?

As for your "Fatass" excuse, it doesn't hold water.....unless you hold the absurd belief that a one time transgression justifies a continuously parroted response?

Well you HAVE accomplished one thing.....You got me talking about your obsession!

G'nite!

In a early post I predicted that KO would start attacking McCain though his experience in the Military and as a POW..well he came close tonight when he mocked his Military background,accused him of being AWOL and not caring about the Troops because he didn't vote on a bloated GI bill.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/05/23/olbermann-awol-mccain-supporting-himself-instead-troops

As Newsbusters pointed out it was only a short time ago He attacked Ann Coulter for making disrespectful remarks about to McCain's Military background'

Man it's scary that I know how KO thinks...I'm beginning to think that my prediction of KO coming out as a 9/11 "Truther" is coming closer to reality every day. LOL!!!

At one time, many Olbyloons here at OW were apologists for the vile and impotent Democrats in Congress as they never fulfilled their campaign promises to "end the war." Is seems the only leftist ideologue left posting here, MikeH has also decided to overlook these great leaders' cynical actions, including the sainted and self-described "blessed-one" SNOBamessiah, when they claimed to be able and ready to "bring the troops home," yet abandoned such real action once they gained the power....

Now a democrat congressman fro PA, Paul Kanjorski, finally admitted what clear thinkers like myself knew all along....the democrats opposition to the war was a POLITICAL CALCULATION, and NEVER anything else.....

"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."

http://tinyurl.com/47vh8l

###
This simple admission gives me a sense of relief to know that the PARTY I now oppose is comprised of people ready to use war as a political weapon for their own selfish purposes. Men and women willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect freedom and democracy is no more than a policy point to manipulate worried and fearful voters for the democrats, including SNOBamessiah.

What does this mean for the future....Well I know that Presidential candidate SNOBamessiah now says he understands a quick withdrawl against the advice of military expersts "may" be a problem and he would reserve his right to change his mind about withdrawl....wow....what a leader! Promises to "bring the troops home," is empty political pandering and I challenge those same leftist apologists to respond to the revelation above.....

I doubt any real MSM coverage of this little revelation will take place....especially by the leftist shill, Olbermann.

This is why your definition of "lies" has no credibility Johnny.

by mikeh

This pure idiocy from someone who has NOT ONCE debunked a single lie due to time constraints.......LOL!

Cee,

This is such a major story that I would bet, will get spiked on OW.

This is the answer I wrote to one of your comments on the thread Olbermann Watch Election Night Open Thread! on May 6. It was the last comment on the thread and I thought you had not seen it b/c you, if I remember correctly, took a break for a week or so from OW about then. I think it is very pertinent to the subject we were discussing.

"By Grammie on May 9, 2008 3:48 PM
Let me reply to you, Mike, on a theme by theme basis. The first theme is Janet's craven refusal to stand up for right and against wrong
as you meticulously and in detail pointed out all my failuers:

"Janet: "Since you gave us the choice to believe it or not I feel free to suggest that if you behave with her the same way you behave here she might be afraid to suggest anything diffeent."

What you seem absolutely blind to is that these kind of things are supposed to work BOTH ways!

- I can have my patriotism, my honesty, my ethics, and my sincerity attacked repeatedly....and Janet remains silent!

- I can have someone repeatedly resort to name calling against me while I do none of that myself......and Janet remains silent!

- The original OW troll who now uses a disgusting word as part of his own moniker can jeer and razz every comment I make while never actually making a counterpoint himself......and Janet remains silent!

- My own motives and humanity can be questioned repeatedly.....and Janet remains silent!"

Mike, are you seriously openly declaring in a public forum that a woman just about old enough to be your mother had some obligation to fight your battles for you and you are upset that I did not do so and am hypocritical by my failure to protect you from all those meanies.

Secondly, when did you EVER stand up for me, or the other ladies here, who were continuously called sluts, slovens, whores, fag hags, Gag, Hag and Bag, vicious, snarling, sadistic, war monger, blood thirsty, liars and on and on and on by just ONE from your side that you complimented several times, Capon Flucker? When did you ever take Patsy and Flucker to task for their obscenities towards Cee and Royal King?

" But just let me appear to be questioning the patriotism or motives of someone you percieve to be on your 'side'......and Janet rises up with indignation!"

You were also questioning MY patrotism and motives b/c your original respone was to a comment that I made in which you implied, so strongly as to almost rise to stated, my patriotism and motivation when you said:

"Grammie: "If the Dems do not win I think there will be Dems heads exploding around the country."

"If being depressed because you see your country going down the tubes right before your eyes is the same thing as having your 'head explode', then you're certainly right.

For people like me, it's ALL about what is good for our country, and it's future, not some school rivalry....."

I was discussing the horse race aspect of the Presidential Campaign and likely reactions from both sides of the aisle and you piously declare that you and those like you only have the good of the country in your minds and hearts as opposed to those who pretend it is a school rivalry. You have accused me of making these accusations more than once so how about coming up with some citations to back you up.

"The funny thing is that you decry both Olbermann and posters like myself for their lack of objectivity, when there is absolutely NOTHING objective about your own."

Olbermann, yes! Others, not that I remember ! So what?

"If you think I'm being insensitive to people such as yourself because I have nothing but contempt for your continuing to excuse not only a war that should never have been fought, but it's original house of cards rational for fighting it, then why in the hell would do you think I would care whether you like me or not? ..... And if you continue to make the mistake of confusing contempt for some of your opinions with contempt for you personally......then thats YOUR problem!"

Insensitive is not what I implied about you. One would have to posess some sensitivity to be sometimes insensitive. I also don't give a tinker's damn whether you like me or not. Nor do you need to bald face say that you are contemptious of those who don't agree with you b/c it oozes, drips and forms puddles around you. [Hint: I don't think too many people here like you].

"I'll continue to reserve such concern for the ONLY ones who have been asked to actually sacrifice for this travesty;.....the troops and their families!"

Concern is neither called for nor welcomed here, as I see it.

What is called for and welcomed here is what is generally desired in halfway polite society, a reasonable respect for those conventions that smooth the way for an exchange of ideas. That does not mean that I want sites that are as bland as Tapioca but it does mean that generally we predominantly adhere to a civil tone and refrain from making over the top accusations and displaying a completely contemptious attitude towards others.

Might I point out that you seem to be proud that you so contemptious of others?"

Wow! This thread certainly took on a life of its own. Ironically, this argument involves the same guy who was complaining that the comment threads were too short. This one is up to 140+ comments. Setting aside the content of the debate, I am hoping that the rapid nature of the replies is in part a reflection of the fix we made to the server which hosts OW the other day. The load on the server has been decreased dramatically in the past week and maybe the site is loading faster and the comments posting faster. I hope so.

As far as this actual debate, please remember that no one on this blog is allowed to make a final determination as to whether something is right or wrong except me.

Now, I am going to have to take MikeH's side on a key point. MikeH is NOT responsible for the foul-mouthed posts made by other people on this site and the constant effort to associate him with those remarks is unfair. More than unfair it is actually kind of ass-backwards. The people most concerned with the foul-mouthed remarks before we had registered comments are now the ONLY people who are posting foul-mouthed remarks on this site. In an attempt to "show" what kind of vile language was being used, SOME people here (you know who you are) have been repeating that very language on this site over and over. I want the folks doing that to think about that for a moment. You complain for months about certain words being used and now, after we went to a lot of time and effort (and money) to fix things so that sort of language would not appear on the site YOU are now posting that very same language on this site. Kind of dumb, isn't it.

At the same time, I am going to have go against MikeH on his concern over the use of the term "fat ass" and "OlbyLoon". First, once Keith uses a term like "fat ass" to attack someone he is then fair game FOREVER. There are no "take backs". What is this, third grade? You call someone "fat ass" or "houseboy" or "slut" on national TV you own it; you don't get to go on TV some other night and try to take it back. It's all well and good that he acknowledged it was inappropriate and hypocritical but it does not make it go away. By that token, MikeH would be criticizing Olbermann every time he attacked Bill O'Reilly over the Andrea Mackris lawsuit even though Bill settled the case in a way that was satisfactory to her and addressed the matter on national TV. See how that works, Mike? On OlbyPlanet there are no "takebacks", ever, for anyone, so long as they are on Keith's list.

Now, what we do here at Olberamnn Watch is basically do unto Keith what he does unto others. If he (or you) don't like getting a taste of his own medicine then he can solve that by stop engaging in the sort of despicable behavior that has come to define him.

I suppose Keith imagines that he is going to go down in media history as some sort of heroic figure. I seriously doubt it. As Tony Snow once said, Keith can fit all of this friends in a phone booth. Keith has managed to alienate just about everyone he has ever worked with in his career. You think that's because of Olbermann Watch? The fact is that Keith is well known as a complete schmuck throughout the broadcast industry. He also happens to be very smart, a very good writer and a very good anchor. There is always some news organization out there willing to hire someone like Keith who promises to be the "savior" to help a struggling organization. The hope is to recapture the "SportsCenter" magic. Keith was never able to do it. He fell into his OlbyLoon Lefty Schtick almost by accident and was smart enough, if you want to look at it that way, to know a good thing when he saw it. I will go even further and say that I have little doubt that Keith does not believe most of what he says. He plays to the dopey far-left crowd and you dopey far-lefties are so desperate to have someone take you seriously that you settle for a phony like Keith. If Keith REALLY cared about liberal issues do think he would have the long-standing reputation he has for stalking and harassing female co-workers? If Keith really cared about people you think he would be using his literary talent and wit as a weapon to try and emasculate male co-workers. There is a song from the musical Hair called Easy To Be Hard which nicely sums up Keith. Listen to it some time.

I agree with much of your assessment of Olbermann, except that I think he really does hate Bush as much as the liberals, maybe more.

I agree. He is loaded with hatred for anyone who disagrees with him.

Bob,

If you were not talking about me you should have.

You are absolutely right! I exhibited a complete lack of judgment and proper behavior.

I apologize and promise that it will not happen again.

Grammie