Keith Olberman

[youcomebeforeyo]

I've just been watching a few videos of his on youtube. We don't get his show here in NZ so I can't really make a opinion on his show however he seems to be a journalist with half a backbone.

What's everyones thoughts/opinions on him as a commentator? I can see him branded a liberal or with left wing bias but the only way I can really see that is in that most of his attacks have been on either right wing commentators or the Bush admin.

[thatwasamoment]

yes, he has a left wing bias.

but i find him entertaining none the less

[x togepi x]

i love him. he's biased to the moderate left, but he admits it unlike most commentators who claim they're unbiased and "tell it like it is"

[youcomebeforeyo]

He's incredibly elaborate. I can see him being branded as "intellectual" which I suppose he is but it's brilliant language none the less.

[Drew Beringer]

He was an awesome sportscaster on ESPN back in the day haha

[bigmike]

He was an awesome sportscaster on ESPN back in the day haha
Haha, i was thinking that.

And he is biased to the left, however, i find him to be articulate and a very good journalist.

[mikeford]

he is the best journalist on television. end of story. he leans left, yes, but he's very upfront about that. he doesnt try to lie about his own bias, which is what a well known journalist should do since its impossible to be 100% objective.

_s7eQD5-iI8

if that video doesnt ring true in your brain and in your heart, i dont know what to tell you.

[bigmike]

he is the best journalist on television. end of story. he leans left, yes, but he's very upfront about that. he doesnt try to lie about his own bias, which is what a well known journalist should do since its impossible to be 100% objective.

_s7eQD5-iI8

if that video doesnt ring true in your brain and in your heart, i dont know what to tell you.
Wow, I hadn't seen that video until now. Amazing. Keith Olberman is the fucking man.

[FondestMemory]

quite possibly the best editorial writer doing television today. when he decides to make a point, he's probably the most efficient at driving that point home.

and also one of the smartest and funniest people in the world.

[mikeford]

theres a shit load of keith stuff up on youtube. i could post his stuff all day, but i suggest you just search "keith special comment" and watch everything that comes up.

[captainhampton]

Smug is a good word to describe him. I'd like to see him debate Hannity, O'Reilly, or Laura Ingram on foreign policy. He would get destroyed. sorry using big words does not make your point any better.

ohh but his show is only 30 minutes, no way you can fit a guest in 30 minutes blah blah blah. If you're going to slander the Bush administion and O'Reilly behind your microphone, then the least you should do is debate someone with an opposing viewpoint. you can't just talk tough behind a mic, that is gutless.

[Lueda Alia]

Smug is a good word to describe him. I'd like to see him debate Hannity, O'Reilly, or Laura Ingram on foreign policy. He would get destroyed. sorry using big words does not make your point any better.

ohh but his show is only 30 minutes, no way you can fit a guest in 30 minutes blah blah blah. If you're going to slander the Bush administion and O'Reilly behind your microphone, then the least you should do is debate someone with an opposing viewpoint. you can't just talk tough behind a mic, that is gutless.
I'd rather have him "talk tough behind a mic" if he's telling the truth, than have him lie like the other people you mentioned do.

[mikeford]

Smug is a good word to describe him. I'd like to see him debate Hannity, O'Reilly, or Laura Ingram on foreign policy. He would get destroyed. sorry using big words does not make your point any better.

ohh but his show is only 30 minutes, no way you can fit a guest in 30 minutes blah blah blah. If you're going to slander the Bush administion and O'Reilly behind your microphone, then the least you should do is debate someone with an opposing viewpoint. you can't just talk tough behind a mic, that is gutless.

his show is an hour. not 30 minutes. know before you speak.

he has served bill o'reilly on so many ocassions thats its laughable to even think he would get destroyed in anything by bill other than perhaps a dick sucking contest.


fuck your politics. tell me what you think of that fucking video you chump. wheres the fucking memorial?

[Drew Beringer]

he is the best journalist on television. end of story. he leans left, yes, but he's very upfront about that. he doesnt try to lie about his own bias, which is what a well known journalist should do since its impossible to be 100% objective.

_s7eQD5-iI8

if that video doesnt ring true in your brain and in your heart, i dont know what to tell you.

Amazing video, watched it last night actually.

[BlinkinDuke]

He was an awesome sportscaster on ESPN back in the day haha

He also used to be LA's local sports guy.

I enjoy Olberman because he's one of the few (quite possibly only) liberal commentator to tell it how it is. Granted he does go overboard on his speial comment once in a while, but it doesn't detract from the show too much. But I think he's the best commentator know because a) I haven't seen Paul Behas or James Carville on anything daily and b) he's one of the few commentators with no future political aspirations. I think George Stefanopolis could be a good commentator, but he could feasibly go back to the political arena, and nobody would want him becauser they feel they can't trust the guy

[captainhampton]

his show is an hour. not 30 minutes. know before you speak.

he has served bill o'reilly on so many ocassions thats its laughable to even think he would get destroyed in anything by bill other than perhaps a dick sucking contest.


fuck your politics. tell me what you think of that fucking video you chump. wheres the fucking memorial?

if you knew anything, you'd know that Bush has made MANY MANY efforts to get the memorial. It is the city of New York's fault for that, they've told the president to stay out of it. but everything Keith says must be true right?

[mikeford]

yeah, i'm sure the guy who said its cool to tap anyones phone probably doesn't have the clout to get something built. you're right.

[captainhampton]

yeah, i'm sure the guy who said its cool to tap anyones phone probably doesn't have the clout to get something built. you're right.

for building the memorial, he doesn't. Bloomberg has the clout for that. you are wrong on the memorial and so was Olbermann.

[mikeford]

tell me some more bedtime stories

[captainhampton]

tell me some more bedtime stories

ok, you asked for it,

"
As anyone who lives in the New York area can tell you (and Keith does) rebuilding at Ground Zero has been held up for many reasons and that none of them have anything to do with President Bush.
First, it was 9 months before they removed all the debris from the site (I was there for that ceremony in June 2002, where were you Keith?).
Second, there was a major issue over insurance - whether the owner of the property on which the WTC was built could collect and how much. Until that money was paid out there was no money to finance any work on the site. An OlbyWatch readers notes "The dispute over the insurance settlement came about because the property owner claimed the attacks were two seperate events, while the insurers said it was a single attack, and therefore worth just half the money claimed. There were also concerned with how to replace the lost office space from WTC 1 and 2, when eight of the 16 acres at the site are to be reserved for the memorial (a problem mostly since solved with the purchase of the damaged Deutsch Bank building that was contaminated beyond repair on 9/11)."
Third, the WTC itself was not privately owned but sat on private property which was leased from a private company. The WTC was owned and operated by the Port Authority which is a special type of entity - an "authority" that is set up to be independent of the government(s) that create it. In this case the Port Authority was created by the states of New Jersey and New York. That same reader adds "The Port Authority authorization to assume the lead role in the site's rebirth came with a quid pro quo - agreeing to finance a new rail tunnel from New Jersey (via Keith's MSNBC stop in Secaucus) to midtown Manhattan which had nothing to do with WTC site. The officials there didn't want New York to be the sole beneficiary of all the PA's attention (in a similar way, New Jersey required the PA to buy the bankrupted PATH train system in 1962 before they would let them buy the WTC site and build the towers in the first place, so this is a long-standing interstate rivalry).
Fourth, the WTC site is in New York City and in New York State and, as noted above, involved New Jersey as well. So, any rebuilding had to get the approval of the Mayor of New York City and various city agencies, the Governor of New York State and various state agencies, the Governor of New Jersey and various state agencies, the insurance companies and banks and the property owner (Larry Silverstein). There was also the small issue of figuring out who might want to be a tenant in a building that will become the terrorists #1 target on the day it opens. As some may recall, during this period, the Governor of New Jersey was somewhat preoccupied with various scandals and ultimately resigned over a personal scandal at which point an interim Governor took over, and then New Jersey elected Job Corzine governor. And, of course, you had all of the familes of the victims which organized into various groups - all of which had some gripe with some aspect of the plan. No politican was prepared to get into a fight with the families. Then there was the city planning people, the architectural review board. Pretty much every state and city agency and every community group in the tri-state area wanted a say in what happened at the WTC site."

[captainhampton]

I'd rather have him "talk tough behind a mic" if he's telling the truth, than have him lie like the other people you mentioned do.

well i'm sure you know of the bill o'reilly lies website, but did you know that Olbermann has one too. Olbermannwatch.com. so don't act like everything he says is "the truth." the fact is that all of them make factual errors.

[wesgemm08]

Smug is a good word to describe him. I'd like to see him debate Hannity, O'Reilly, or Laura Ingram on foreign policy. He would get destroyed. sorry using big words does not make your point any better.

ohh but his show is only 30 minutes, no way you can fit a guest in 30 minutes blah blah blah. If you're going to slander the Bush administion and O'Reilly behind your microphone, then the least you should do is debate someone with an opposing viewpoint. you can't just talk tough behind a mic, that is gutless.

This kids back?? HAHA, haven't you already been owned enough on this website

[mikeford]

republicans who think they are into punk make me sick. get the fuck outta here with this bullshit.

[captainhampton]

republicans who think they are into punk make me sick. get the fuck outta here with this bullshit.

that was a very well thought out response to the evidence i provided. what this has to do with punk rock music, I have no idea.

[captainhampton]

This kids back?? HAHA, haven't you already been owned enough on this website

oh man I sure got owned on this thread. anyways, no one taking a conservative view is ever going to win an argument on this site no matter what facts are provided. look at all the people on this thread who praised Keith's comments about Bush being to blame for the Memorial not being built yet. it's obviously not the case, yet no one here is going to step up and say "you know what, in this particular situation Keith was wrong to put the blame on the president."

[wesgemm08]

oh man I sure got owned on this thread. anyways, no one taking a conservative view is ever going to win an argument on this site no matter what facts are provided. look at all the people on this thread who praised Keith's comments about Bush being to blame for the Memorial not being built yet. it's obviously not the case, yet no one here is going to step up and say "you know what, in this particular situation Keith was wrong to put the blame on the president."

Well, I really don't know every single aspect about this, but from what I have seen, the president has never stepped up in a major speech and said that this has to get built/made. I've seen him talk alot more about his future presidential library than a 9/11 memorial getting built, which is rather pitiful.

And you are going to call other people hardheaded when you were the one attacking John Kerry for a botched joke(saying it was against the troops and not a crack at the president), even after presented with the full speech(which surprisingly wasn't shown on fox news).

[captainhampton]

Well, I really don't know every single aspect about this, but from what I have seen, the president has never stepped up in a major speech and said that this has to get built/made. I've seen him talk alot more about his future presidential library than a 9/11 memorial getting built, which is rather pitiful.

And you are going to call other people hardheaded when you were the one attacking John Kerry for a botched joke(saying it was against the troops and not a crack at the president), even after presented with the full speech(which surprisingly wasn't shown on fox news).

John Kerry did insult the troops, but if you want to continue that argument, take it to that thread.

back to the issue, Bush can do nothing, it is state land not federal land. He has been very vocal in the process, but was told it was a state issue. now Olbermann on 9/11 of this year went to the World trade Center site to sit there and bash Bush and his administration for not having a memorial built 5 years later. this isn't a Bush issue, if he wants to bash Bush on Iraq, fine. but to go on TV on 9/11 and mislead his audience into thinking that it was Bush's fault that nothing was built yet is disgraceful.

[wesgemm08]

John Kerry did insult the troops, but if you want to continue that argument, take it to that thread.

back to the issue, Bush can do nothing, it is state land not federal land. He has been very vocal in the process, but was told it was a state issue. now Olbermann on 9/11 of this year went to the World trade Center site to sit there and bash Bush and his administration for not having a memorial built 5 years later. this isn't a Bush issue, if he wants to bash Bush on Iraq, fine. but to go on TV on 9/11 and mislead his audience into thinking that it was Bush's fault that nothing was built yet is disgraceful.

thanks for proving my point about you.

[captainhampton]

thanks for proving my point about you.

i am 100 percent right about Olbermann getting his facts wrong. you can't dispute that.

don't try to turn this into a John Kerry issue.

please own me, own me now on this Olbermann issue.

[wesgemm08]

lets use a little analogy, congress couldn't directly change the steriod policy in major league baseball, but members coming forward and saying that changes needed to be made, led to a rules change. This would also be true if the president came forward and DEMANDED that this memorial needed to be built, the people would do what needed to be done to get it built. It's called influence from a higher power.

[captainhampton]

lets use a little analogy, congress couldn't directly change the steriod policy in major league baseball, but members coming forward and saying that changes needed to be made, led to a rules change. This would also be true if the president came forward and DEMANDED that this memorial needed to be built, the people would do what needed to be done to get it built. It's called influence from a higher power.


Thanks, I'll take my bow and shake hands later.

he does not have that kind of power. do you not get that? he tried and he tried to get them to get the memorial built, I have said that many times.

I think it is terrible that nothing has been built yet, I think we can all agree on that. If Keith wants to rant about Pataki and Bloomberg and New York not getting the job done, then it would have been fine. but he didn't give any blame at all for them. instead on 9/11 he put the blame on Bush, who has no power at all with this issue. seriously man, it's ok to say Keith was wrong to do that. cmon have some guts and say Keith was wrong.

[wesgemm08]

he does not have that kind of power. do you not get that? he tried and he tried to get them to get the memorial built, I have said that many times.

I think it is terrible that nothing has been built yet, I think we can all agree on that. If Keith wants to rant about Pataki and Bloomberg and New York not getting the job done, then it would have been fine. but he didn't give any blame at all for them. instead on 9/11 he put the blame on Bush, who has no power at all with this issue. seriously man, it's ok to say Keith was wrong to do that. cmon have some guts and say Keith was wrong.


Yea, the president of the United States does not have the power to influence things to get done.

[captainhampton]

Yea, the president of the United States does not have the power to influence things to get done.

it is that state's decision, his influence can only help so much.

let me hear you say it, "it is New York's fault not Bush's for the memorial not getting built" or try this "Keith Olbermann was wrong"

let me ask you this, do you put the blame on Bush for the memorial not being built yet?

[wesgemm08]

it is that state's decision, his influence can only help so much.

let me hear you say it, "it is New York's fault not Bush's for the memorial not getting built" or try this "Keith Olbermann was wrong"

let me ask you this, do you put the blame on Bush for the memorial not being built yet?

The blame obviously falls on a lot of people, but yes, as the most powerful person in the United States, he should use his power to demand that something like this gets done, and with enough effort, it would.

Go bring up some blogs now that defend the president please, you're pretty good at that.

[captainhampton]

The blame obviously falls on a lot of people, but yes, as the most powerful person in the United States, he should use his power to demand that something like this gets done, and with enough effort, it would.


he tried using his power, it did not work, it is not that simple. you obviously don't get it, i am done responding to you.

anyone else want to blame Bush for the memorial not being built, be my guest.

[wesgemm08]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060911-3.html


there you go, 5 years to the day of 9/11, the president gives a 20 minute primetime speech seen on every major network. The president does not once address the need for a memorial to be built, he spends the time trying to link 9/11 to Iraq.

So obviously, he is not trying very hard to get a memorial built, which is pitiful. Given his extreme amount of power, it is his duty to see that something so important gets done, even if he himself can not directly do it. Never did I say that all the blame falls on him, but yes, some should.

[thatwasamoment]

bush not being responsible for a monument not being built is the only thing you can argue.

[youcomebeforeyo]

I think the memorial wasn't so much the point of that video, he was trying to use it more as a metaphor for the situation of the US 5 years post 9/11. I also think Captain Hampton has a point if it is state owned land that it's not nessecerily Bush's fault.

[captainhampton]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060911-3.html


there you go, 5 years to the day of 9/11, the president gives a 20 minute primetime speech seen on every major network. The president does not once address the need for a memorial to be built, he spends the time trying to link 9/11 to Iraq.

So obviously, he is not trying very hard to get a memorial built, which is pitiful. Given his extreme amount of power, it is his duty to see that something so important gets done, even if he himself can not directly do it. Never did I say that all the blame falls on him, but yes, some should.

that has no relevance at all, just because he didn't address the memorial in a speech.

please research this, you don't have a clue what's been going on.

[wesgemm08]

that has no relevance at all, just because he didn't address the memorial in a speech.

please research this, you don't have a clue what's been going on.

How is it not relevent?? How about you link me to some blogs so I can do some research.

[x togepi x]

he does not have that kind of power. do you not get that? he tried and he tried to get them to get the memorial built, I have said that many times.

I think it is terrible that nothing has been built yet, I think we can all agree on that. If Keith wants to rant about Pataki and Bloomberg and New York not getting the job done, then it would have been fine. but he didn't give any blame at all for them. instead on 9/11 he put the blame on Bush, who has no power at all with this issue. seriously man, it's ok to say Keith was wrong to do that. cmon have some guts and say Keith was wrong.

Keith's thesis was that Bush took the unity of the American people post-9/11 and turned it into the same polarized country that it was before 9/11 with his "democrats help the terrorists" rhetoric. The reason why the memorial hasn't been built is partially based on polarization within the groups that are trying to get it built. Thus, in Keith's mind, Bush does have some blame, as he took 9/11 which was a sacred event, and turned it into some cheap political thing. As 9/11 ceased to be sacred, it made it easier for people to block the construction of the memorial.

It's not that Bush *literally* caused the memorial to not be built, it's that Bush's actions made a social climate where the memorial wouldn't be built on time.

[captainhampton]

start with the New York Times.

[captainhampton]

Keith's thesis was that Bush took the unity of the American people post-9/11 and turned it into the same polarized country that it was before 9/11 with his "democrats help the terrorists" rhetoric. The reason why the memorial hasn't been built is partially based on polarization within the groups that are trying to get it built. Thus, in Keith's mind, Bush does have some blame, as he took 9/11 which was a sacred event, and turned it into some cheap political thing. As 9/11 ceased to be sacred, it made it easier for people to block the construction of the memorial.

It's not that Bush *literally* caused the memorial to not be built, it's that Bush's actions made a social climate where the memorial wouldn't be built on time.

so why did he not blame New York city? why does he put the blame on Bush?

[x togepi x]

so why did he not blame New York city? why does he put the blame on Bush?

did you read the part where I said, in Keith's opinion, Bush's rhetoric is what polarized the nation again and made 9/11 a cheap political ploy instead of a sacred event in history?

You could see why he'd blame Bush for that, as if 9/11 stayed sacred, New York wouldn't be able to screw around on this monument.

[captainhampton]

here is Keith's guest list since last May:
May 22: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
May 30: Rep Barney Frank (D)
June 9: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
June 15: Bob Schrum (D)
June 16: Rep John Murtha (D)
June 19: Al Gore (D)
June 20: Sen Jack Reed (D)
June 20: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
June 23: Al Gore (D)
July 5: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
July 12: Barbara Boxer (D)
July 13: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
July 26: Bill Richardson (D)
August 8: Daily Kos (D)
August 9: Joe Trippi (D)
August 30: Howard Dean (D)
August 31: Barbara Boxer (D)
August 31: Rocky Anderson (D)
September 5: Tom Kean Jr (R)
September 6: Richard Ben-Veniste (D)
September 7: Sean Maloney (D)
September 8: Mack McLarty (D)
September 11: Max Cleland (D)
September 20: Jane Hamsher (D)
September 22: Bill Jefferson Clinton (D)
September 26: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
September 28: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
October 16: John Ashcroft (R)
October 18: Joe Trippi (D)
October 20: Barack Obama (D)
October 26: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
October 31: Joe Trippi (D)
November 6: Howard Dean (D)
November 22: Lawrence O'Donnell (D)
November 30: Joe Trippi (D)
December 6: Russ Feingold (D)
January 3: Barney Frank (D)
January 4: John Murtha (D)
January 4: Jay Rockefeller (D)
January 11: Russ Feingold (D)

[x togepi x]

yeah, way to prove that he's editorializing and not debating, which is what i've been saying all along.

this list also doesn't prove that he tried to get republicans on his show. maybe they wouldn't show up since he wouldn't throw them soft ball questions.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

The point is, when I tune into Keith Olberman I know what I'm getting. He wants me to know. His bias is pretty much the basis of the show. With Bill.....not so much.

[captainhampton]

yeah, way to prove that he's editorializing and not debating, which is what i've been saying all along.

this list also doesn't prove that he tried to get republicans on his show. maybe they wouldn't show up since he wouldn't throw them soft ball questions.

that's def not true.

and can you give me the quote where Keith said he is in fact liberal.

[x togepi x]

that's def not true.

and can you give me the quote where Keith said he is in fact liberal.

how is not true?

just listing his guests shows nothing about how he tried to get on the show.

i don't have the quote. It was on the MSNBC coverage of the 2006 election.

[captainhampton]

The point is, when I tune into Keith Olberman I know what I'm getting. He wants me to know. His bias is pretty much the basis of the show. With Bill.....not so much.

i may be wrong, but i thought Keith identified himself as an independent. give me a quote where he says he is biased and that is the basis of the show.

because you can't say your an independent and then have a guest list like that.

[captainhampton]

how is not true?

just listing his guests shows nothing about how he tried to get on the show.

i don't have the quote. It was on the MSNBC coverage of the 2006 election.

you really think republicans are scared of Keith? or wouldn't like the chance to defend themselves from the slander he uses on his show. please.

[x togepi x]

you really think republicans are scared of Keith? or wouldn't like the chance to defend themselves from the slander he uses on his show. please.

I know that politicians, regardless of political affiliation, don't like going to shows where they won't be asked easy questions.

You also need to learn the definition of slander.

The fact is, all you're doing is proving Keith is liberal, which is a given fact that anyone here will tell you. Tell me how that's any different than Bill, who also has a bias.

[captainhampton]

I know that politicians, regardless of political affiliation, don't like going to shows where they won't be asked easy questions.

You also need to learn the definition of slander.

The fact is, all you're doing is proving Keith is liberal, which is a given fact that anyone here will tell you. Tell me how that's any different than Bill, who also has a bias.

i think Keith is a liberal. I believe and i could be wrong, that Keith considers his show fair and that he is independent. If you can find a quote from Keith saying that he is liberal or his show is from the liberal point of view, then I will shut up and you will be right.

and about Bill, yes of course he leans conservative, but opposing viewpoints are heard on his show.

[x togepi x]

i think Keith is a liberal. I believe and i could be wrong, that Keith considers his show fair and that he is independent. If you can find a quote from Keith saying that he is liberal or his show is from the liberal point of view, then I will shut up and you will be right.

and about Bill, yes of course he leans conservative, but opposing viewpoints are heard on his show.

Even if he thinks he's "independent", no newscaster/commentator is truly independent. All of them have biases. More importantly, i've been saying keith's liberal over and over. It doesn't matter.

You keep saying "oh keith's bad because he doesn't allow opposing viewpoints"...but that's what you do when you editorialize, you don't use opposing viewpoints. The point is that you give your opinion. The only reason he has people who agree with him on there at all, is just to make him look more credible.

[captainhampton]

Even if he thinks he's "independent", no newscaster/commentator is truly independent. All of them have biases. More importantly, i've been saying keith's liberal over and over. It doesn't matter.

You keep saying "oh keith's bad because he doesn't allow opposing viewpoints"...but that's what you do when you editorialize, you don't use opposing viewpoints. The point is that you give your opinion. The only reason he has people who agree with him on there at all, is just to make him look more credible.

we're never gonna agree on anything. do you like pizza?

[Jason Tate]

i think Keith is a liberal. I believe and i could be wrong, that Keith considers his show fair and that he is independent. If you can find a quote from Keith saying that he is liberal or his show is from the liberal point of view, then I will shut up and you will be right.

and about Bill, yes of course he leans conservative, but opposing viewpoints are heard on his show.
When you lie, it makes everything you say seem like a lie.

[x togepi x]

we're never gonna agree on anything. do you like pizza?

i just ate some so yeah.

[captainhampton]

i just ate some so yeah.

nice. great success.

[preppyak]

iand about Bill, yes of course he leans conservative, but opposing viewpoints are heard on his show.
"heard" is perhaps not the word...they are present, but so rarely heard.

Remember the video link where he debated on an NBC show (not his show), where the Krugman said that Bush's tax cuts would lead to a loss of jobs...and O'Reily, far from an economy major, proceeded to YELL at him on air about how he was a liar and he was spinning things from the book HE had written. It was hilarious, because O'Reilly is the definition of Ad Hominem in debate, he openly bashes his opposer's, and does not do much outside of stick to talking points when he responds. I've seen his show plenty of times...it's great entertainment, but terrible political debate.

I mean, he openly told a professor of economics at Princeton, a man holds a PhD in it from MIT, and has taught at MIT, Yale and Stanford before Princeton that he knew NOTHING about economics and how it works. Despite his degree being in Communications, not Economics....his first job was not analyzing market trends, it was reporting the weather in Scranton, PA.
did you read the part where I said, in Keith's opinion, Bush's rhetoric is what polarized the nation again and made 9/11 a cheap political ploy instead of a sacred event in history?

You could see why he'd blame Bush for that, as if 9/11 stayed sacred, New York wouldn't be able to screw around on this monument.
he tried using his power, it did not work, it is not that simple. you obviously don't get it, i am done responding to you.

anyone else want to blame Bush for the memorial not being built, be my guest.
Sure...his point was that the Congressman had about as much possible influence as Bush does to this monument through direct political action...and yet, baseball somehow magically has a much harsher steroid policy. Congress, in the public eye, also has a lot less clout compared to Bush...so if Bush had gone after steroids, Bond's would probably already be out of the sport...

He's not talking direct political action...you are correct, it is a state issue...but, what they have turned politics into is manipulation through speech.

Bush has the ability to tell the state he will support cutting their funding if they fail to build the monument....he can openly make public speeches about how they are failing in their duty to build the monument...he could be vocal AT ALL...on the anniversary of the occasion, and even take a few seconds to even mention it.

I mean, he convinced the nation that Iraq and 9/11 had ties, but he can't get a building built....I think you are selling him WAY short on this issue...he just doesn't care that much

[captainhampton]

"heard" is perhaps not the word...they are present, but so rarely heard.

Remember the video link where he debated on an NBC show (not his show), where the Krugman said that Bush's tax cuts would lead to a loss of jobs...and O'Reily, far from an economy major, proceeded to YELL at him on air about how he was a liar and he was spinning things from the book HE had written. It was hilarious, because O'Reilly is the definition of Ad Hominem in debate, he openly bashes his opposer's, and does not do much outside of stick to talking points when he responds. I've seen his show plenty of times...it's great entertainment, but terrible political debate.


Sure...his point was that the Congressman had about as much possible influence as Bush does to this monument through direct political action...and yet, baseball somehow magically has a much harsher steroid policy. Congress, in the public eye, also has a lot less clout compared to Bush...so if Bush had gone after steroids, Bond's would probably already be out of the sport...

He's not talking direct political action...you are correct, it is a state issue...but, what they have turned politics into is manipulation through speech.

Bush has the ability to tell the state he will support cutting their funding if they fail to build the monument....he can openly make public speeches about how they are failing in their duty to build the monument...he could be vocal AT ALL...on the anniversary of the occasion, and even take a few seconds to even mention it.

I mean, he convinced the nation that Iraq and 9/11 had ties, but he can't get a building built....I think you are selling him WAY short on this issue...he just doesn't care that much

i would've had no problem if Keith said Bush could have done a better job in pushing the city and using his influence to help them get the job done. but he didn't put any blame on the city and used the Special Comment as a way to bash the President o 9/11.

as for Bill O. haha yeah he does have a tendency to interrupt the opposing viewpoint, but at least he lets them come on and try. it is his show. if Keith let Republicans on his show I'd expect him to do the same. I think it would help Countdowns ratings if he had opposing viewpoints on.

[Jason Tate]

i would've had no problem if Keith said Bush could have done a better job in pushing the city and using his influence to help them get the job done. but he didn't put any blame on the city and used the Special Comment as a way to bash the President o 9/11.

as for Bill O. haha yeah he does have a tendency to interrupt the opposing viewpoint, but at least he lets them come on and try. it is his show. if Keith let Republicans on his show I'd expect him to do the same. I think it would help Countdowns ratings if he had opposing viewpoints on.
Bill either A) Denies them the right to come on (David Brock is an example), B) Brings them on and then cuts their mic, C) Flat out lies throughout the entire "debate," all the while yelling like a mad man.

[x togepi x]

i would've had no problem if Keith said Bush could have done a better job in pushing the city and using his influence to help them get the job done. but he didn't put any blame on the city and used the Special Comment as a way to bash the President o 9/11.

as for Bill O. haha yeah he does have a tendency to interrupt the opposing viewpoint, but at least he lets them come on and try. it is his show. if Keith let Republicans on his show I'd expect him to do the same. I think it would help Countdowns ratings if he had opposing viewpoints on.

he didn't blame the city for rhetorical reasons. it'd be less powerful.

[captainhampton]

Bill either A) Denies them the right to come on (David Brock is an example), B) Brings them on and then cuts their mic, C) Flat out lies throughout the entire "debate," all the while yelling like a mad man.

he's cut the mic how many times?

[captainhampton]

he didn't blame the city for rhetorical reasons. it'd be less powerful.

less powerful but more factual.

[preppyak]

he's cut the mic how many times?
On a legitimate political debate show...one time would be too many...I'm not sure of an exact number

[captainhampton]

On a legitimate political debate show...one time would be too many...I'm not sure of an exact number

i think it was only once and it was a case of exteme slander against Bill.

[x togepi x]

less powerful but more factual.

his special comments aren't news stories, so i have no problem with this. if it were a real news story, he wouldn't be citing episodes of the twilight zone and shakespeare as sources

[x togepi x]

i think it was only once and it was a case of exteme slander against Bill.

nope. it was the son of someone who died in 9/11 and the guy claimed that his father would be proud of him for having a stance against the war on terror. I think the guy's name was Jeremy Glick.

[preppyak]

3BAFb97L3KU

The kid is giving his opinion on how his father was killed...as he states it "by radical extremists trained by this government"...and the he cuts his mic

In debating him, he literally states "I don't care what you think" when Jeremy is recounting the US training of forces to combat the USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980's

It goes "Shut up!...Shut up!..[attempts to patriotize father's death]...[son interrupts]...that's it, cut his mic, we're done"

[captainhampton]

http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/oreilly/glick.htm

yep it was the Glick interview. Preppyak there is a video on the bottom of this page, i'm not sure if this is the same as the one you posted, i'm on dialup right now so it would take forever for these videos to load. sometimes youtube doesn't post the whole thing.

[preppyak]

http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/oreilly/glick.htm

yep it was the Glick interview. Preppyak there is a video on the bottom of this page, i'm not sure if this is the same as the one you posted, i'm on dialup right now so it would take forever for these videos to load. sometimes youtube doesn't post the whole thing.
FURTHERMORE: O'Reilly apologized for the display RIGHT after the commercial break

He said, and I quote: "If I had known the guy was going to be like that, I would have never brought him in here...I feel bad for his family"...which in no way apologizes for ignoring completely his debating points

Franken doesn't say that Glick accused O'Reilly of using 911 to fit his own needs, that he was wrong on his claim of Bush senior training the moujahadeen or that he called 911 an "alleged" attack that America essentially brought upon ourselves. Nothing excuses that distortion.

He never cactually said the bolded part...so, that's a lie. The kid's entire point was that his father was killed, in his belief, by terrorists that the US trained an put in place, thus why he did not support concurrent US action. O'Reily TOLD HIM what he was saying was that the US government was a terrorist nation...which is not what he said. He stated that past wrongdoing had caused the death of his father, and he was in turn, not supporting future wrongdoing in his mind.

Glick successfully: referred to the Florida election as a "coup", called September 11 an "alleged" assassination and murder, falsely accused Bush the elder of training 100,000 moujahadeen while head of the CIA and then attacked the personal integrity of the host by accusing O'Reilly of evoking 911 to push his ideology. All unchallenged.

That too is a lie...O'Reily was yelling the entire time...but, he did give brief pauses so Glick could speak (Glick simply out-stubborned him). He did do the underlined parts...though whether the CIA supported training of troops for Afghanistan is still a debated topic, so, to call it "falsely" accused is as dishonest.

What I believe led to the mic being cut off was for once, someone didn't back down to O'Reily budging in and yelling...he responded in kind and interrupted O'Reily likewise, and it didn't make Bill happy. As O'Reily was trying to make his "Jeremy's father is a great american who served for the Port Authority, and his death...(this is my assumption of the next part)is tragic... and it is sad to see that his son does not have the same courage or patriotism for his nation" speech, he was cut off after death to which Jeremy replied "caused by American government supported troops, etc" O'Reily then, after that interruption, cut his mic

It was the perfect example of avoiding debate (like arguing the statistics or actions of our government), attacking guests (yelling, cutting off), and then caring little for credibility (cutting off his mic).

[captainhampton]

Glick successfully: referred to the Florida election as a "coup", called September 11 an "alleged" assassination and murder, falsely accused Bush the elder of training 100,000 moujahadeen while head of the CIA and then attacked the personal integrity of the host by accusing O'Reilly of evoking 911 to push his ideology

[IAmNietzche]

Had Glick been a better speaker that would have been an obvious case of O'Reilly pussying out. As it stands, O'Reilly had to resort to patronizing the death of his father and then of course cutting him off completely in order to not have to address the issues Glick put forth.

[x togepi x]

Glick successfully: referred to the Florida election as a "coup", called September 11 an "alleged" assassination and murder, falsely accused Bush the elder of training 100,000 moujahadeen while head of the CIA and then attacked the personal integrity of the host by accusing O'Reilly of evoking 911 to push his ideology

oh. so if you don't agree with it, it's totally cool to cut their mic?

[preppyak]

Glick successfully: referred to the Florida election as a "coup", called September 11 an "alleged" assassination and murder, falsely accused Bush the elder of training 100,000 moujahadeen while head of the CIA and then attacked the personal integrity of the host by accusing O'Reilly of evoking 911 to push his ideology
You take their word 100%, which, like left wing sites did, spins the actual clip. I responded to this though above.
oh. so if you don't agree with it, it's totally cool to cut their mic?
Exactly...the debate itself was the two just going back and forth on that one major point...and when Bill couldn't make his triumphant "Your father was better than you" speech to go to commercial, he got pissed and cut him off

[captainhampton]

oh. so if you don't agree with it, it's totally cool to cut their mic?

no i don't think it is okay to cut the mic. but there is a common misperception about Bill that it is a common occurance that he cuts the mic. and there is more to the story about the incident than is reported by the media and billoreilly lies website and Al Franken.

[preppyak]

Had Glick been a better speaker that would have been an obvious case of O'Reilly pussying out. As it stands, O'Reilly had to resort to patronizing the death of his father and then of course cutting him off completely in order to not have to address the issues Glick put forth.
Bingo...it was unfortunate that Glick came off as a prick too..but, like I said, it was probably necessary to push Bill to that edge where he would cut a mic. Regardless, Bill never actually responded to his points outside of "that's a lie" or "shut up"

[Jason Tate]

no i don't think it is okay to cut the mic. but there is a common misperception about Bill that it is a common occurance that he cuts the mic. and there is more to the story about the incident than is reported by the media and billoreilly lies website and Al Franken.
It is a common enough "occurance" that he cuts the mic that it's documented - he does it frequently. You're just living in denial.

I can find proof of this all night long if you want.

GUQSY4C6CwE

[IAmNietzche]

Bingo...it was unfortunate that Glick came off as a prick too..but, like I said, it was probably necessary to push Bill to that edge where he would cut a mic. Regardless, Bill never actually responded to his points outside of "that's a lie" or "shut up"
Glick came off as a prick because he was forced to get at the meat of his points right away because O'Reilly wouldn't let him talk. By being forced into having to interject his points in between O'Reilly telling him he was lying or sullying his father's memory Glick's opinions came off sounding less rational then I'm sure they were.

[Jason Tate]

My favorite O'Rly moment: O'REILLY (audio clip): Orlando, Florida. Mike, go.

CALLER: Hey, Bill, I appreciate your taking my call.

O'REILLY: Sure.

CALLER: I like to listen to you during the day. I think Keith Olbermann's show -- [hangs up]

O'REILLY: There you go, Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way, so if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number. And we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit.

E.D. HILL (co-host): Maybe Mike is from the mothership.

O'REILLY: No, maybe Mike's going to get in big trouble, because we're not gonna play around. When you call us, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, we do have your phone number. And if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?

HILL: That's fair.

O'REILLY: So just -- all you guys who do this kind of a thing, you know, I know some shock jocks, whatever -- you will be held accountable. Believe it. We'll be right back.


:lolatpost:

[x togepi x]

"let's be unemotional and rational here..."

haha.

"he's a dead man walking"

haha.

[IAmNietzche]

no i don't think it is okay to cut the mic. but there is a common misperception about Bill that it is a common occurance that he cuts the mic. and there is more to the story about the incident than is reported by the media and billoreilly lies website and Al Franken.
The way he conducts himself brings out the worst in his guests and frankly gives a bad name to political debate.

[x togepi x]

no i don't think it is okay to cut the mic. but there is a common misperception about Bill that it is a common occurance that he cuts the mic. and there is more to the story about the incident than is reported by the media and billoreilly lies website and Al Franken.

why is it that you're willing to say "well there's more to the story" when it's bill, but when it's keith you're all about shooting him down? as i said before, maybe there's more to the story than his list of guests show us.

[Jason Tate]

More O'Rly goodness:

From the December 5 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: The United States will never be conquered by Muslims -- ever. But you don't want it to reach the point where, we have to, example, you know, level cities like Tehran, kill hundreds of thousands of people, which we may have to do -- which we have already done in Germany and Japan. OK? We have already killed hundreds of thousands of people on one day. Now, do we want to do that again? Of course not, but we may have to.

[Jason Tate]

The way he conducts himself brings out the worst in his guests and frankly gives a bad name to political debate.
Agreed.

[IAmNietzche]

It is a common enough "occurance" that he cuts the mic that it's documented - he does it frequently. You're just living in denial.

I can find proof of this all night long if you want.

GUQSY4C6CwE
God, Husseini whined throughout that entire segment. Regardless, it makes me laugh to here Bill tell anyone to keep things "unemotional and rational".

[x togepi x]

God, Husseini whined throughout that entire segment. Regardless, it makes me laugh to here Bill tell anyone to keep things "unemotional and rational".

sometimes i wonder if Bill goes out of his way to find people who can't speak eloquently just to make himself look better, but that's just me being a conspiracy theorist.

[Jason Tate]

God, Husseini whined throughout that entire segment. Regardless, it makes me laugh to here Bill tell anyone to keep things "unemotional and rational".
No, Husseni's annoying as shit, but Bill cuts his mic regardless -- that was my only point.

[Jason Tate]

sometimes i wonder if Bill goes out of his way to find people who can't speak eloquently just to make himself look better, but that's just me being a conspiracy theorist.
569580436045268670&q=outfoxed&hl=en

/If you have the time -- worth watching (of course it'll really bring out the "conspiracy theorist" in you).

[IAmNietzche]

sometimes i wonder if Bill goes out of his way to find people who can't speak eloquently just to make himself look better, but that's just me being a conspiracy theorist.
I dunno about that, but from the two interviews posted here liberals come off as either whiny or irrational conspiracy theorists.

[x togepi x]

I dunno about that, but from the two interviews posted here liberals come off as either whiny or irrational conspiracy theorists.

i obviously don't think that, i just thought that it's funny that every time i've watched it, which isn't much, that the liberal is someone who's either annoying or whiney or makes no sense.

[captainhampton]

Tate, I loved that Husseni video you posted, it was like deja vu. O'Reilly arguing that civilian deaths are a part of war and the Husseni guy saying it was wrong and no civilians should get killed. it was like our exact argument from earlier.

[Jason Tate]

Tate, I loved that Husseni video you posted, it was like deja vu. O'Reilly arguing that civilian deaths are a part of war and the Husseni guy saying it was wrong and no civilians should get killed. it was like our exact argument from earlier.
No wonder you got your ass handed to you earlier -- you weren't even reading what I was writing.

[captainhampton]

i obviously don't think that, i just thought that it's funny that every time i've watched it, which isn't much, that the liberal is someone who's either annoying or whiney or makes no sense.
i think he does have some "nutty" liberals on because it is more entertaining and yes i'll admit it makes it easier for him to win the argument and look good. but he does have smart liberals on as well.

[captainhampton]

No wonder you got your ass handed to you earlier -- you weren't even reading what I was writing.

what are you talking about, we argued back and forth about the civilian thing for awhile. my position was just like Bill's and yours was similar (but not the same) as Husseni's.

[Jason Tate]

what are you talking about, we argued back and forth about the civilian thing for awhile. my position was just like Bill's and yours was similar (but not the same) as Husseni's.
:shake:

[captainhampton]

:shake:

ok it's late and i don't feel like going through that whole thread again. what is your position considering military strikes like the ones in Afghanistan and the recent ones in Somalia? i thought you were against them because of the risk of killing innocent civilians and your belief that violence justs fuels more violence.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

ok it's late and i don't feel like going through that whole thread again. what is your position considering military strikes like the ones in Afghanistan and the recent ones in Somalia? i thought you were against them because of the risk of killing innocent civilians and your belief that violence justs fuels more violence.


Give it up man, I've already seen this episode.

[asmolitor]

epic bump, but i think the forum needs more olbermann appreciation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24798130#24798368

sure, his tirades are long-winded, but i've yet to hear more articulate throwdowns on such a frequent basis.

[WarpSpeedChewy]

I like Keith Olberman. I wathc his show when I can. Very well spoken guy. I love it though when he takes people like Glenn Beck to task. I'd respect some of the conservative talk show hosts a lot more if they were as articulate as he is.

[saysmydoctor]

Wow captanhampton is fucking retarded.

[Spewk]

he is the best journalist on television. end of story. he leans left, yes, but he's very upfront about that. he doesnt try to lie about his own bias, which is what a well known journalist should do since its impossible to be 100% objective.

_s7eQD5-iI8

if that video doesnt ring true in your brain and in your heart, i dont know what to tell you.
That is amazing.

[mattybobviously]

Keith's the man.

[apoemtothedead]

He straight up owned Hillary last night.

[Syz]

Finally, an real man on tv media willing to denounce Hillary and her specious verbal abuse throughout her campaign and life. What a fantastic list he presented to all of us of all the things we have been forced to forgive her for. There's a special ring to the truth if you're not a 2 dimential liberal mind. It comes with living and making right decisions. We are 75 million strong in support of Michael Savage because this truth has that special ring.

Hillary has made her legacy of being the most reviled, denounced and corrupt woman in history and should be deported for her acts of sedition against this Nation, so Kudos to Olberman on this score, even though I did have to email him about his feelings about the G.I. Bill which I'll post below.

[asmolitor]

Finally, an real man on tv media willing to denounce Hillary and her specious verbal abuse throughout her campaign and life. What a fantastic list he presented to all of us of all the things we have been forced to forgive her for. There's a special ring to the truth if you're not a 2 dimential liberal mind. It comes with living and making right decisions. We are 75 million strong in support of Michael Savage because this truth has that special ring.

Hillary has made her legacy of being the most reviled, denounced and corrupt woman in history and should be deported for her acts of sedition against this Nation, so Kudos to Olberman on this score, even though I did have to email him about his feelings about the G.I. Bill which I'll post below.

you had me until that point. didn't michael savage just cause an uproar from playing a dead kennedy's song on directed at ted after he was diagnosed with a brain tumor? i mean, at that point he's really no better than hillary. and didn't he also say, at some point, that people with AIDS belong in concentration camps?

[Syz]

Hillary, Obama and 75 Congressman approved a G.I. Bill of rights for our young Patriots in our military so they could have all schooling paid for by the citizens tax dollars.

What they didn't understand is the monumental difference between our volunteer military today and the drafted military years ago.

The volunteer military gave up their rights to an education by personal judgment and choice. The draftee was forced to give up his young years of educational rights and therefore should have been afforded the G.I. Bill. The volunteer is further compensated by a lifetime career which affords them a pensioned early retirement with all the perks of government retirement allowing them a new career with more pensions down the road at a very young age. I have known many whose courageous effort and gamble has turned out very well. Those who lost their lives in their gamble are forever in our debt.

It is by showing my determination for them never to have to make this decision again that I will no longer vote for either party. This is not to send a message, they won't get it, but to begin a great Revolution for history to record that we Patriots at home honored our duty as citizens according to The Constitution and we were given the backing of the 2nd amendment for this purpose if necessary.

[Syz]

AS:-----yes, he played the song and spent a great deal of time discussing the purpose. I'm sorry you don't listen to him. 75 million is a staggering amount of people to ignore so casually as if that many people are without heart and would dismiss a brain tumor by insulting the man. Liberals drop reality whenever it suits them and it was a reminder of that reality we should not ignore just because life has given him a blow we will all receive in time.

Because one has a medical problem does not exempt them from the vile deeds they have done throughout their life against this nation and its citizens. I'm old enough to recall the day this man of indifference left Mary Jo Kopeckney dying in a car for 2 days while he made his way all the way home on foot to hide in the comfort of his name before telling anyone about her.

Suddenly, mankind decided to put Ted on a pedestal where he doesn't belong. This takes nothing away from his illness or a hoped for recovery, but playing the hypocrite is a bad game. The song was written some time ago and depicts the evils of the man. He is no saint by any standards is all this was about.

[mattybobviously]

29 posts and everybody has already learned to just tune you out.

[saysmydoctor]

It may be a staggering amount--but it only is so because it shows how many idiots are in the US.

Are you really upset about soldiers getting a free education? That really makes you stay up at night? I meaning, kids are dying in Darfur, but you are offended by free education for the soldiers of this nation?

Read my first sentence.

[x togepi x]

even Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys said playing that song was out of line. I'm pretty sure the guy who wrote most of their lyrics would know a lot more about the intent of the songs than some right wing douchebag.

[asmolitor]

AS:-----yes, he played the song and spent a great deal of time discussing the purpose. I'm sorry you don't listen to him. 75 million is a staggering amount of people to ignore so casually as if that many people are without heart and would dismiss a brain tumor by insulting the man. Liberals drop reality whenever it suits them and it was a reminder of that reality we should not ignore just because life has given him a blow we will all receive in time.


(wikipedia) His radio show reaches more than 10 million listeners on 410 stations throughout the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), ranking third in number of stations syndicated nationwide and third in nationwide audience behind Rush Limbaugh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh) and Sean Hannity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Hannity).

how you get 75 million out of 10 million i'll never know. unless there's 65 million people downloading his podcasts, which i severely doubt. and yes, i know about the chappaquiddick incident. so does america.

and i'd hate to think we could ignore the incredible political career because of one highly-publicized incident.


Because one has a medical problem does not exempt them from the vile deeds they have done throughout their life against this nation and its citizens. I'm old enough to recall the day this man of indifference left Mary Jo Kopeckney dying in a car for 2 days while he made his way all the way home on foot to hide in the comfort of his name before telling anyone about her.

Suddenly, mankind decided to put Ted on a pedestal where he doesn't belong. This takes nothing away from his illness or a hoped for recovery, but playing the hypocrite is a bad game. The song was written some time ago and depicts the evils of the man. He is no saint by any standards is all this was about.

so you agree that hillary's statement was out of line (referencing a past kennedy assassination), but agree with savage's comments/songplaying (referencing a potential kennedy death)? and it's common knowledge that the kennedy's have quite the collection of skeletons in their closets, but by no means should a man be vilified because of an accident almost 40 years ago, that he's most likely spent an entire lifetime trying to live down.

lastly, i can't understand why you're even in this thread, forum, or on this site. if you were alive and coherant enough to recall chappaquiddick, that would make you at least in your mid-40's. what exactly do you add to the discourse of a site where the demographic is at most half your age, and where your arguments are nothing more than contradictions and hypocrises?

also, I agree with Captain, Newt is brilliant

[saysmydoctor]

Gingrich? Ahahahahahahahahahaha

[atticusfinch]

love this man. the main reason I watch MSNBC at all.

[saysmydoctor]

Seriously. He is one of the most thorough journalists on the air.

When you can compare an Agatha Christie novel and her character, Hercule Poirot, to the democratic primary season...

[LastPlaceRocks]

Enjoy Olberman's editorials but I can't stand that type of show regardless of which side of the political spectrum it's on.

Hillary, Obama and 75 Congressman approved a G.I. Bill of rights for our young Patriots in our military so they could have all schooling paid for by the citizens tax dollars.

What they didn't understand is the monumental difference between our volunteer military today and the drafted military years ago.

The volunteer military gave up their rights to an education by personal judgment and choice. The draftee was forced to give up his young years of educational rights and therefore should have been afforded the G.I. Bill. The volunteer is further compensated by a lifetime career which affords them a pensioned early retirement with all the perks of government retirement allowing them a new career with more pensions down the road at a very young age. I have known many whose courageous effort and gamble has turned out very well. Those who lost their lives in their gamble are forever in our debt.

It is by showing my determination for them never to have to make this decision again that I will no longer vote for either party. This is not to send a message, they won't get it, but to begin a great Revolution for history to record that we Patriots at home honored our duty as citizens according to The Constitution and we were given the backing of the 2nd amendment for this purpose if necessary.
There's so many things that blow my mind that I don't know where to begin.

[x togepi x]

what's wrong with "his type of show"?

[saysmydoctor]

Bias?

[x togepi x]

which every journalist ever is going to have. and one only needs to point to the old days of Murrow to show how much better news was when the journalist's bias was out there in the open instead of being hidden.

[LastPlaceRocks]

what's wrong with "his type of show"?
I'm fine with journalists having biases and wanting to express their opinions on talking head shows - after all, that's what those shows are for. It's not the news after all; if you are going to watch an episode of Countdown or The O'Reily Factor, you already know you are looking for a certain commentary/slanted viewpoint on that day's events. That's fine, but it's not something I want to watch. Just a personal preference.

[asmolitor]

I'm fine with journalists having biases and wanting to express their opinions on talking head shows - after all, that's what those shows are for. It's not the news after all; if you are going to watch an episode of Countdown or The O'Reily Factor, you already know you are looking for a certain commentary/slanted viewpoint on that day's events. That's fine, but it's not something I want to watch. Just a personal preference.
which every journalist ever is going to have. and one only needs to point to the old days of Murrow to show how much better news was when the journalist's bias was out there in the open instead of being hidden.

i agree with all of this, it's just that in the current environment, keith olbermann seems like a man of rational reason. of course he has an inherent bias, but alas, it's quite a good bias these days. he throws it all out there.

[Steve Henderson]

For anyone that has yet to see it, here is the video of Keith tearing Clinton apart:

DLNFsl130_Y

[saysmydoctor]

I saw that--amazing.

[Steve Henderson]

Countdown is the only news show I watch every single day. I love everything about it. Yes, it is biased, but not unfairly so.

[saysmydoctor]

Watching that again just goes to show how much I love that man.

[MaxMarginal]

I love Olbermann but I'm still stuck in the "save the vitriol" for the Republicans mode, i.e. I'd rather have a pro-choice anti-war turnip be President than McCain, so I generally cringe a little at the anti-Hillaryism no matter how justified.

I think it's interesting that he's from the sports background and Matthews is from the politics background, but KO approaches it from the standpoint of a pure politics opinion writer, concerned with right and wrong, while CM is all about the gamesmanship in politics, like a sportscaster with no investment in who wins.

Despite the fact that he's obsessed with the sound of his own voice and is more narcissistic than... ANYONE, i do still think that CM offers the best analysis.

[saysmydoctor]

Obama is a prochoice antiwar turnip.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I bet Hillary cried when she saw that

wow

[saysmydoctor]

And notice how can he do it with yelling? He is raising his voice, but he isn't screaming irrational remarks and vulgarities at the camera. It is well-versed anger and this is why he is one of the most respected journalists in the country.

[Justin_stacy]

I'm a moderate Olberman fan, though his schtick does ware thin sometime. Here though I think he like most of the liberal press has gone over board with their overzealous zeal to get Hillary out of the race and for the golden boy to be crowned.

Her reference to RFK was about the time of the act, rather then act itself. When assassinated in June of '68 the DNC nomination was still not locked up with three potential nominees in the running. Poor wording it might have been, but hardly a comment on the future of golden boy.

[mattybobviously]

It was a shit comparison though, because that race had only been going on for 3 months, and Bill had wrapped his race up a long time ago. The use of assassination was pretty deliberate.

[apoemtothedead]

I'm a moderate Olberman fan, though his schtick does ware thin sometime. Here though I think he like most of the liberal press has gone over board with their overzealous zeal to get Hillary out of the race and for the golden boy to be crowned.

Her reference to RFK was about the time of the act, rather then act itself. When assassinated in June of '68 the DNC nomination was still not locked up with three potential nominees in the running. Poor wording it might have been, but hardly a comment on the future of golden boy.
June in 1968 and June in 1992=/=June is 2008.

[Steve Henderson]

I'm a moderate Olberman fan, though his schtick does ware thin sometime. Here though I think he like most of the liberal press has gone over board with their overzealous zeal to get Hillary out of the race and for the golden boy to be crowned.

Her reference to RFK was about the time of the act, rather then act itself. When assassinated in June of '68 the DNC nomination was still not locked up with three potential nominees in the running. Poor wording it might have been, but hardly a comment on the future of golden boy.
It is no different than Hillary's campaign latching onto his misguided use of the word "bitter." Even though they knew what he meant, both their camp and the media raked Obama over the coals for that one.

This comment is far more offensive, although I still like to think she didn't intend any off-color meaning behind it. Nevertheless, if something awful like that did happen, I hardly doubt she would shed a tear, and she would be trumpeting her merits to be the nominee.

[Justin_stacy]

It was a shit comparison though, because that race had only been going on for 3 months, and Bill had wrapped his race up a long time ago. The use of assassination was pretty deliberate.

No it wasn't, it was perfectly appropriate for the political intent. The goal was to show that a primary lasting until june or the convention with no clear or absolute leader is neither unusal or historic.

As for deliberate, that plainly obamania hysteria.

[Justin_stacy]

It is no different than Hillary's campaign latching onto his misguided use of the word "bitter." Even though they knew what he meant, both their camp and the media raked Obama over the coals for that one.

This comment is far more offensive, although I still like to think she didn't intend any off-color meaning behind it. Nevertheless, if something awful like that did happen, I hardly doubt she would shed a tear, and she would be trumpeting her merits to be the nominee.

Can't argue that there isn't political value in explioting the remark, much like Obama's arrogant remark about middle Americans. Clearly her word chioce was poorly arranged. But in all fairiness its not out of line to try to being some calmness to the conclusions being made about the intent of the remarks, particluarly when only the biggest stretches are getting press.

[MaxMarginal]

No it wasn't, it was perfectly appropriate for the political intent. The goal was to show that a primary lasting until june or the convention with no clear or absolute leader is neither unusal or historic.

As for deliberate, that plainly obamania hysteria.

But couldn't there just have been better examples?

either way, I'm not really in favor of any of this coal-raking among the democrats, and once they started they can't stop, lest people say "they raked __ over the coals and now they're not raking ___ over them!"

[Justin_stacy]

But couldn't there just have been better examples?

either way, I'm not really in favor of any of this coal-raking among the democrats, and once they started they can't stop, lest people say "they raked __ over the coals and now they're not raking ___ over them!"

Its one of the better examples because of RFK, her problem was injecting the word assassinate into the comment, when it wasn't necassary to make the point.

That said, it still doesn't justify the level of insanity that some (cough Olberaman) are taking.

[NonOperational]

i enjoy watching him sometimes. i also like to catch glen beck too.

[loveisdead]

No it wasn't, it was perfectly appropriate for the political intent. The goal was to show that a primary lasting until june or the convention with no clear or absolute leader is neither unusal or historic.

As for deliberate, that plainly obamania hysteria.

Look, I agree the her intent was just to point out that the primary season has lasted this long before. But perfectly appropriate is absolutely ridiculous. The idea of Obama getting assassinated has been floating around from the beginning. She should know better than to bring Obama and assassination up in the same idea.

[Justin_stacy]

Look, I agree the her intent was just to point out that the primary season has lasted this long before. But perfectly appropriate is absolutely ridiculous. The idea of Obama getting assassinated has been floating around from the beginning. She should know better than to bring Obama and assassination up in the same idea.

Look, he wasn't arguing the Assassination remark, but the time frame comparison.

It was a shit comparison though, because that race had only been going on for 3 months, and Bill had wrapped his race up a long time ago.

The June remark and the comparison she was attempting to make with it, was perfectly appropriate . As for the assassination remark it was in poor judgement regardless of whom one wants to associate it with, be it golden boy, or someone else. But it wasn't the key point of her remark, June was.

[loveisdead]

Look, he wasn't arguing the Assassination remark, but the time frame comparison.

It was a shit comparison though, because that race had only been going on for 3 months, and Bill had wrapped his race up a long time ago.

The June remark and the comparison she was attempting to make with it, was perfectly appropriate, with her intentions. As for the assassination remark it was in poor judgement regardless of whom one wants to associate it with, be it golden boy, or someone else. But it wasn't the key point of her remark, June was.

That I can agree with. I'm glad you found a new name for him. Goofball was getting really old.

[Justin_stacy]

You'd be amazed at the charge "goofball" gets out of some people.

[loveisdead]

I never got heated about it, I just thought it was kinda stupid. Arguments are taken more seriously if you say Obama, instead of Goofball. The same goes for some people calling McCain McBush and all the other names he has gathered up.

[Justin_stacy]

I learned long ago that you can't have a rational or informed conversation with many obaminites (present company excluded). There is almost a cult-like atmosphere surrounding his support, so I kindof just gave up and resorted to inciting a charge instead for my own personal amusement.

[Lueda Alia]

The June remark and the comparison she was attempting to make with it, was perfectly appropriate.
I don't know if that's entirely true. Many things were different then.

Here (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/the-fallacy-of.html)'s an interesting article about all of that.

[saysmydoctor]

Bad comparison, not appropriate.