Actually it WAS pretty funny, but it doesn't sound like YOU get it either.

It's called a spoof.

Oh no. We get it. Completely.

If that was your first comment, indiana50, welcome aboard.

Not my first Mike C, but one of the first. Thanks.

Oh no Mike H. This was more than just a spoof. I know it pains you to see it on national televison, but you very own left wing hate machine can't tolerate Olbermann anymore. He turns their stomach as well. Olbermann has become a parody of the angry bitter evil left.

You're welcome, indy.
And you're right, The Factor. The end, good night, end of discussion. You just *had* to acknowledge him, didn't you? I know, I'm no fun.

Factor: "but you very own hate machine can't tolerate Olbermann anymore. He turns their stomach as well."

Who are YOU to talk about a "hate machine"?

Mike C: "You just "had" to acknowledge hime, didn't you?

Damn Mike, I'm fully aware that you hate me for stupid reasons, but you must hate Robert Cox as well, since you absolutely refuse to follow his advice regarding your conduct on HIS blog!

There has been very little for conservatives to cheer about this year. But the SNL parody of KO was a side-splitting, cough-the-soda-through-your-nose FUNNY parody!

Ben Affleck managed to capture all the arrogant, pompus, blowhardiness of "Bathtub Boy" with his "KRAZY COMMENT", chair spinning, camera mugging idiocy!

Thanks SNL! Thanks Ben! The KO spoof might just take a little of the sting out of tomorrow's disasterous election results.

(I just have to add this brief comment - a spoof or parody generally exaggerates or takes the subject to a comical extreme. What made this parody so hilarious was the fact that KO is impossible to spoof. Watching Affleck was like watching KO - it was a dead on impersonation worthy of Rich Little or Frank Caliendo!!)

Well, we finally have the veil removed from SNOBamessiah's true attitude towards other people's money.....

"Right now, they are getting taxed at 36 percent. Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, they were being taxed at 39.6 percent. You're talking about a 3.6 percent difference, and, you know, for, you know, the average person who is making half a million, a million dollars -- people like you Sway -- that's chump change, that's nothing. But it could make a big difference for that young person who is trying to figure out whether they can go to college or not, if we could give them more of a break or give them more scholarships or grants to go to college."

###
A person or family making $500,000 a year would pay $3,363 in additional income tax under the Obama plan.

So, over three thousand dollars is "chump change?"

A person or family making $1,000,000 a year would see their tax burden increase by $28,301 under the Obama plan.

So, $28,000 is "chump change?"

Wow, I really appreciate the effete leftist's attitude towards money. And remember, this is the same man who, only 5 years ago, believed tax cuts should only be given to family's making less than 70K.....

I wonder what will keep him from having his cavalier attitude towards confiscating his fellow citizens' hard earned money from eroding that 200K ceiling for tax cuts/rebates?

Chump change?

"Watching Affleck was like watching KO - it was a dead on impersonation worthy of Rich Little or Frank Caliendo!!)"

I agree with some of your thoughts but Affleck just proved that spoofing KO isn't difficult at all.

Even most KO supporters believe he is sometimes way over the top in some of his 'special comments" rantings. The subject matter of some of them have been dead on and a service to the country, while the subject matter of others has been kind of ridiculous. The same thing can be said for his mannerisms, which are not always the same.

Most folks who hate KO will see it as funny....but they will also as a vindication of their hatred, and most people who like KO will also see it as humorous....but simply a playful poke at a sometimes over the top but otherwise very good commentator. This isn't that much different than the opposing ways that Sarah Palin defenders and detractors look at the spoofs that were done of her.

The very fact that SNL chose him as the subject matter of this parody is a testament to just how big he has become.


Anyone can be spoofed. If you don't believe that, then just try imagining how funny a spoof of Dobbs, Hannity, Beck, Mathews, or O'Reilly would be.

Cee, I thought you said you were through here?

As long as people like you continue to see minute adjustments of the SAME progressive tax system we have had since 1913 as "consfication", there really isn't any room for discussion or middle ground. I suspect that what you would really like to see is a flat tax, but even McCain isn't talking about that....so I guess in reality, they are BOTH "socialists"?

As for some of the OTHER "socialists" out there:'

- Were you aware that the earned income credit program was expanded by Reagan?
- Were you aware that this was at least partially done to decrease the pressure to increase the minimum wage?
- Have you ever stopped to consider that the greatest years of real growth in American economic and military power come during the years in which the top marginal tax rates were at 39% or higher?
- Has it occurred to you that we have been riding a false economy for the bulk of the 21rst century? An economy that was being fueled by little more than debt and speculation?
- Are you surprised that this era of reconing finally came to an economy that had was riding on such weak foundation in the first place?
- Are you aware that higher marginal tax rates actually INCREASES the incentitive for businessmen to create jobs because that in turn means that a higher percentage of the cost of employing that new hire is subsidized by the government?

The astonishing thing to me is how utterly selfish people such as yourself seem to be! A TEMPORARY experiment was made regarding tax policies in 2003 which did NOT work, and now people like yourself are breying like branded mules now that it is time to make the inevitable correction back towards the original policy that actually DID work! (balanced budgets - remember?). .....And yes, balanced budgets and deficits ARE important after all!

What people like you cannot and will not accept is that "redistribution" has ALWAYS been government tax policy, always will be, and could hardly be anything else......It's this head-in-the-sand denial you have that the redistributive policies have been almost entirely in the UPWARD direction for the last 8 years that makes it possible for you to scream "socialism", while simultaineously remaining blind to the fact that YOU also favor "socialism"....you just want that "socialism" to continue in YOUR favor, even though it is NOT working for the vast majority of Americans!

lol get a shovel lol

Nice try at changing the subject, MikeH. Please reread my post. Obama's characteriztion of the increased tax burden on family's making over 250K was, "chump change." His words not mine.

SNOBamessiah made no attempt to expand on the benefits of "balanced budgets" in his remarks. You are making that up out of nothing. In fact, most reliable, nonpartisan tax analysis of Obama's plans state he will NOT be able to balance the budget. So stop the spinning.

This is not about selfishness, it is about who is best to determine how to help our fellow. Government has proven, time and again, to be wasteful, corrupt and in fact destructive when redistribution is in full throttle.

You failed to note that I have mentioned in other posts that among my religious beliefs is a Jewish principle called tithing. Do you know how much of my gross income I tithe? Nearly 14% of my gross income, yearly, goes to my church and other charities. These organizations are much more effective in providing for the needs of the poor as they have been for centuries without having those funds be misused or used to basicaly enslave people in a lifestyle that is not to their benefit.

How much charitable giving did Senators Biden and Obama provide yearly over the last, say, 10 years?

How about you, MikeH?

Taxes are for funding the secular government. Expanding their "redistributive" abilities has been tried....it was called the war on poverty and it failed. It caused great damage to generations and created the entitlement mentality we see in millions of people today.

CHUMP CHANGE. Your guru's word, not mine. He did NOT say he would balance the budget with those tax increases, if fact he plans to simply send it out to others and expand government spending.

Without googling, MikeH, when does Obama promise to balance the budget?

Oh, and BTW MikeH, Obama's own analysis of the "chump change" transfer is simplitic. It is not chump change of 8,000 from Mr. and Mrs. Smith in NYC making 250K/year to Mary Q in East L.A. Remember, the increased taxes go to WASHINGTON and into the large, faceless bureaucracy and the PROGRAM that spits out the benefit takes off who knows how much off the top.

If the progressive tax system is the great answer you claim it is for helping the poor, why did it not make poverty disappear in the 20th Century?

And again, it is the ATTITUDE of our political leaders in regard to their salivating over my hard earned money. $9,000 is not chump change!

I would rather tithe my money, in Christian love, to my local charity helping my local poor eat, have good shelter and clothing, even help them with job training, than a faceless, inept and politically corrupt secular government that has failed time and again.

My tax money should go towards roads, police, the legal system, the military, keeping products and food safe, some specific and temporary federal safety nets and that's it.....Huge federally driven social programs are not the answer. Also, the democrats have shown themselves to be beholden to special interest groups and their programs are then geared toward "constituents" and is basically pork and waste only benefiting their next election.

So stop talking balnced budgets and surpluses....Obama is NOT talking about those things. He is about returning to the federal social engineering system that failed before.

Well. I'll be damned Cee. I have ALWAYS suspected that you were not telling the truth that day you posted that your income was around $60,000 a year. Now I know that you weren't.

My first clue was when you said you were a doctor, but $60,000 would be a pitifully poor salary for a doctor (but a very good one for a plumber).

My second clue to this was when you ACTUALLY seemed to believe that an individual making 30,000 would pay the marginal tax rates. If you really made only $60,000, you would have known that wasn't even close to being true.

Now, your $9,000 fugure is my second clue, and the 14% figure that you just claimed is another one. My question is - why did you ever say such a thing?.

And furthermore Cee:

- While you may not consider $9,000 as "chump change", that amount of money could literally save someone else's life!

- Good for you if you actually do tithe 14% of your income, but programs like that, as good as they are, tend to be very selective about whom they help and why.

- You, just like everyone else on our planet don't get to pick and choose how your tax money is used.....I didn't like my tax money being used to invade a country that didn't attack us......so just get over it, OK!

- It doesn't matter that Obama isn't talking about balanced budgets at this moment. He IS talking about getting us back on the road that last achieving that end, which was accomplished when a Demcrat in the White House and we had a 39% marginal tax rate.

- An argument attacking a progressive tax code that begins with a false premise such as "why did it not make poverty disappear" is a red herring indeed. The fact that poverty 'did not disappear' doesn't change the fact that it certainly helped to diminish it.....and it did it in a much less haphazard way.

- Despite what you choose to tell yourself, your political leaders are not "salivating over YOUR hard earned money"!.....In most cases, they are using their best judgement to determine how to use AMERICA'S "hard earned money".

- The overused 'my hard earned money' argument in regards to those who have benefited the most from America's bountiful opportunities is a direct INSULT to all of those who have worked equally hard or even harder, but have achieved far less. Don't think for a minute that all those folks out there working two jobs just to get by are not hearing those INSULTS loudly and clearly.

- While you observe that Government has proven to be 'wasteful, corrupt, and fact destructive' regarding redistribution, you fail to add the FACT that unregulated business's and even charities have been even WORSE in this same regard. These flaws will always be more or less present within ANY human endeavor.

Finally Cee, you failed to address THE most important part of my post......The fact that higher marginal tax rates actually INCREASE the incentive to create jobs....and NOT the other way around.

And yet you seem to wonder WHY people like me skoff at your side's tax arguments, when just about every one of them turns out to be a LIE when you really look into the economics behind them

By MikeH on November 3, 2008 12:45 PM

"Watching Affleck was like watching KO - it was a dead on impersonation worthy of Rich Little or Frank Caliendo!!)"

I agree with some of your thoughts but Affleck just proved that spoofing KO isn't difficult at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Mike, as grateful as we and Keith Olbermann are for the clarifying observation that "anyone can be spoofed"... no, not everyone can be accurately spoofed as being a liar, a race baiter, a demagogue, and a hyperbolic partisan extremist completely lacking in perspective, integrity, and professionalism.

And no, most of supporters of Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Anderson Cooper, or Chris Matthews would NOT find a spoof underlined by THAT premise to be particularly "playful".

This slap administered by people who likely agree with Olbermann's politics, and supported by other other people who likely do too, is a little "coming to Jesus meeting" by Olbermann's own brethren. The slaps may be couched in the pretext of comedy, but such characterizations are the worst sorts of brands for anyone in Olbermann's particular field.

Keith Olbermann would do well to listen to the smarter, better people in his own camp, before Keith does finally marginalize himself to the point where his ONLY defenders are just the odd blog lizard, whose blathering defense of him is really based upon an animus towards political opponents, more than any appreciation of Olbermann, himself, or his career.

"The fact that higher marginal tax rates actually INCREASE the incentive to create jobs....and NOT the other way around."

That is an arguable point, MikeH. Economists have various opinions regarding that "fact," especialy on where the ceiling is and in what economic REALITY such higher rates would no longer serve as such an incentive.

No business activity occurs in a vacuum and making the assumption that higher marginal tax rates alone cause increased employment is exactly that, an assumption. What about the other influences higher marginal tax rates have on people's behavior?

I have seen the historical arguments for such an opinion as your's(FDR and Clinton), and the cause/effect is an assumption. Just as supportable an argument for the good economy and low unemployment under Clinton in the late 1990's is the availability of credit fueling investment in the internet.

I did not just fall off the turnip cart.

Your world-view is evident here, MikeH. The federal tax policy is not only about businesses creating jobs, but entrepreneurs taking risks on new ideas and finding the investors to back such, making whole new technologies, industries that then translates to economic growth and jobs, here.. R+D is the foundation for continued economic growth and taking capital away from the very investors fueling this process is a recipe for disaster.

I like this nice summation of the likely effects of the left's (SNOBamessiah's) antiquated and radical view on tax policy:

http://www.theamericanscene.com/2008/07/31/how-high-taxes-kill-jobs

So MikeH, your simplistic view about taxes and free enterpise mirrors your messiah's. A lawyer with NO real world business experience does not inspire my faith. In fact, based on his associations/positive opinions with far leftist socialists like Reverand Wright, Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers, SNOBamessiah is more likely intent on basically ending the capitalist system that is responsible for the most accelerated and broad progress history has ever witnessed.

We may see, if the results of the election match that of the polls. I will plan my financial future based on the result.

Oh, and please show me when and how you came to the conclusion I only make 60K/year. I do not recall divulging such information.

And finally, as my original argument applies to OBAMA's HONESTY and ATTITUDE, MikeH, I do not TRUST him to even keep his promise of a middle class tax cut because he has changed his positions before on substantive issues as time, the audience and/or events have forced him to....all the while claiming to be "consistent."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3LZNc_TP_o

###
Obama is a politician and is NO different than those liberal ones that came before him. His "fundamental change" is simply code for an attempt to resume the policies that have been tried before and produced such poor results. Promising people things is nice, but he will have to deliver, and deliver quickly if he becomes President. If this does not happen, I will be glad to see him and the radically left congress wallow in their defeat an try to make excuses for their inability to lead and produce their promised results.

Oh, and by the way, the conventional wisdom is that Iraq IS on a path of success and that current well evolving situation will now become the next president's situation to successfully complete. The democrats failed to make it fail under Bush, so now it is up to the next President to complete the task.

History will judge the next Commander-in-Chief as either the great hero in completing the successful emergence of Iraq as a democratic ally or as the one who caused it to slip back into the civil strife it was emerging from for the last 2 years.

And then there's a nuclear Iran.

And then there's Russia.

I know a "President Obama" will screw them up as well.

Lots of albatrosses Obama or McCain will have to handle.....Mmm, I can't wait to see this!

And, if for no better reason than to warn my less concerned citizens over the line of reasoning Obama and his most zealous supporters are advancing, I leave tonight with this final quote.....

"...where the Marxist ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose horrors were now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world. Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic."

Pope Benedict XVI

###
WHEREVER POLITICS TRIES TO BE REDEMPTIVE, IT IS PROMISING TOO MUCH. WHERE IT WISHES TO DO THE WORK OF GOD, IT BECOMES NOT DIVINE, BUT DEMONIC.

Good night and good luck.

"Thinking such as your's is a cancer on our nation that needs to be cut out." MIKE posted 10/4/07 7:02PM

Sure Affleck’s skit was over the top but like all things funny, there was a big grain of truth to it.
Keith does over act, he does use his show for personal attacks, uses doctored pictures to try to embarrass his foes and many times has nothing relevant to say.

I’m sure Keith will try to get Ben on his show and have fun with the whole thing.
Ben did a great job in capturing the true essence of what Keith’s show is all about for one hour a night.

Cee, very well said. I just pray and hope that we all come through this most demonic time of our lives. As in the most recent past, just if, OsamaObama makes it, I fear that the Pelosi & Co. will walk out on themselves as they have in the past and wreak havoc for this Nation. With their control over the past 2 years, they have done zilch, nada, nothing to help this country out one bit. Besides Bush's ratings, the Dem's have the worst approval ratings in the history of the United States. Could someone please bring back Reagan? As I said in earlier posts, OsamaObama keeps dropping the dollar amount on us. It was originally at $250,000, now i've heard it as low as $75,000. The manBOY can't be trusted.
The Cancer on this nation IS Obama, and he needs to be cut out and tossed away.
All we can do overnight is pray that some people that that are on the fence, will think it over and make the RIGHT decision.

It was funny if it were not so hypocritical. Earlier this evening on MSNBC they had an Obama spokesperson and she claimed the number was $250,000. Not 5 minutes later, Obama ran an add on NBC and he said it was $200,000. I have heard others in the camp go down to $175,000 and that is before Nancy gets her hands on it. Here go gang. The good news is the IRS is way understaffed and likely to stay that way.

i was starting to get agitated with the skit but of course Keith is like that so the skit was dead on, i guess.

but what got me was 'Ms. Precious Perfect'.

i doubt that they were talking about his cat. im pretty sure they were referring the cat to Keith's, i guess somewhat attractive' GIRLFRIEND, katy turr.

Keith seems like the guy who would do anything and stomp and bitch at anyone to please her. but also i would like to assume that while Keith is off occupying space at 30 Rock instead of me, his 'Precious Perfect' is being 'pleased' by a much younger, less ego man.

I love it
I adore it
I'm crazy about it