Olbermann in rare form

[hokie4redskins]

Since when is Olbermann acting like a douche considered "rare form"?

:whoknows:

[Dan T.]

Olbermann probably won't be silent about it, but the talking heads who really want Obama to win are going to have some explaining to do if he screws the pooch. Gotta wonder how long and how much of a free pass he'll get from the liberal media that has campaigned for him, ya know?

What liberal media outlet is campaigning for Obama? Enlighten us, please.

[chomerics]

Olbermann probably won't be silent about it, but the talking heads who really want Obama to win are going to have some explaining to do if he screws the pooch. Gotta wonder how long and how much of a free pass he'll get from the liberal media that has campaigned for him, ya know?

Please show me all of the liberal media that is campaigning for him, in fact, if you have been paying attention, the opposite is true.

[Zguy28]

I don't think any "media outlets" in general have endorsed anybody. SOme of the individual reporters though are clearly in support. David Schuster (MSNBC) comes to mind for Obama.

[chomerics]

Chom, here you go:

Bolded portion is his ranting opinion, with nothing to back it up. What cooked books? I have heard a ton of accusations against the Bush admin, but not cooking books.

Are you serious??? What they did was in fact the definition of "cooking the books" Here is how it works, and we have been through this time and time before. . .

Bush/Cheney/Rummy et all ask the intel community "What do you have tying Iraq to 9-11?" I want you to leave no stone unturned, and give me every possible thing that you have linking the two. . .the intel community comes back and tells them "nothing". A supposed meeting between Atta which we can't confirm, and Tarrik Aziz may have met sometime in the 90's from what we can tell, but that is it. . . the response? "Go back and dig some more and see what you can find"

Then, they work to put together the NIE, which was nothing more than a propaganda piece to justify the war. They knew almost all of the intel there was false, they knew it was not credible. They leaked this to the media (remember the scooter libby fiasco), and used the NY Times as a mouthpiece from the white house.

Did you read Richard Clarkes book? Do you know about PNAC? Do you know why we went into Iraq???? It had nothing to do with 9-11, or WMDs, it had to do with their global philosophy to reform the middle east. They wrote about doing it in 98, and the people who wanted Clinton to do it were in a position to do so.

They used 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, which is what they wanted to do all along. and that is EXACTLY what he is talking about!!!! Saddam was not a threat to the US, we knew that, our government knew that, yet they tried to fear us into believing he was so they could start their war.

That is what happened, that is the absolutely definition of "cooking the books". You can chose not to believe it, you may THINK Bush was looking out for America. You may THINK he thought Saddam Hussen was going to attack us. You are allowed to think what ever you want, but you can also be wrong in your thinking.

AGAIN, for the third time, please show me where he says he sacrificed golf to show solidarity with families of the fallen?

Why are you arguing semantics? How can you not understand how people would think what Olbermann said? Are you that obtuse??? Can you not fathom that when a standing president says "I dont think I should be golfing because it sends the wrong message" it implies that he is giving up golf because we are at war??? Do you not see the reason people think this?

Seriously, can you not fathom that people would think this??? Don't you want your leader to be a bit better equipped to handle a question such as that?

Opinions, Chom. Olberman is ranting his opinions. To get ratings. To compete with O'Reilly. Not because he really cares, but to get ratings.

Maybe true, that is not the point of the discussion, it is about what he said and if his rant is true or not. I believe he was spot on in his assessment, in his "cooking the books" statement. You may not believe it, but I think history will prove me right, as I have been on the right side of the argument since this war started.

[Popeman38]

Are you serious??? What they did was in fact the definition of "cooking the books" Here is how it works, and we have been through this time and time before. . .

Cooking the books is an accounting reference:

A buzzword describing fraudulent activities performed by corporations in order to falsify their financial statements.

Why are you arguing semantics? How can you not understand how people would think what Olbermann said? Are you that obtuse??? Can you not fathom that when a standing president says "I dont think I should be golfing because it sends the wrong message" it implies that he is giving up golf because we are at war??? Do you not see the reason people think this?

Seriously, can you not fathom that people would think this??? Don't you want your leader to be a bit better equipped to handle a question such as that?

Why is my side semantics, and your side is facts? It doesn't matter what some people can think. Some people thinking does not make it a fact.

Maybe true, that is not the point of the discussion, it is about what he said and if his rant is true or not. I believe he was spot on in his assessment, in his "cooking the books" statement. You may not believe it, but I think history will prove me right, as I have been on the right side of the argument since this war started.

Finally, you admit that in your opinion he is spot on.

EDIT: Is there anything this adminhas doen that you agree with? You will never give them the benefit of the doubt, so why bother going on and on in posting? Why not just say what you think, Bush sucks, and leave it at that?

[chomerics]

Cooking the books is an accounting reference:Why is my side semantics, and your side is facts? It doesn't matter what some people can think. Some people thinking does not make it a fact.

What happened makes it fact. History makes it fact. In essence you are claiming ignorance.

So then what is your opinion on what happened, how did it differ? Why did we go to war in Iraq? In other words, how is he wrong in what he stated?

[Popeman38]

What happened makes it fact. History makes it fact. In essence you are claiming ignorance.

So then what is your opinion on what happened, how did it differ? Why did we go to war in Iraq? In other words, how is he wrong in what he stated?

I claim ignorance nowhere.

Chom, simmer down and answer this: does Bill O'Reilly sprinkle facts into his rants so he can spin them and say he was truthful? Of course he does. That is how he is successful. That is how all the political talking heads/advisors are successful. It is the very gameplan they adhere to.

But Keith Olberman, he is above that? Even though he was hire to directly compete with Bill O'Reilly? Come on.

You asked me what he was wrong about. I told you. You refuse to admit that Keith Olberman is Bill O'Reilly. And you call me obtuse?

[chomerics]

You asked me what he was wrong about. I told you. You refuse to admit that Keith Olberman is Bill O'Reilly. And you call me obtuse?

You didn't tell me where he was wrong at all, you argued semantics, and never got back to me on what YOU think happened.

You see, you can go around and around with out ever placing your foot on the ground because you are not telling us what YOU think. In regards to the "cooking the book" quote, how you YOU think we got into Iraq???

Do you HONESTLY, in your heart of hearts, think that the Bush Cabal attacked Iraq because they thought Saddam was associated with 9-11??? Can you honestly tell me that we went into Iraq to fight terrorism??? Is that what you think? That Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism, and we went there to fight them?

I am asking you your opinion, because you have not given it, you have only said I am wrong without telling me WHY I am wrong. That is not even a conversation, so tell me what did they do, how did we get into Iraq and why are we there? How was Olberman wrong in his assessment, because you have yet to show how he was.

[IHOPSkins]

Olbermann fired, suspended or just the rear end of a horse?

Mark Levin Calls for MSNBC to Suspend Keith Olbermann

....As my colleague Brad Wilmouth reported, Olbermann on Wednesday's "Countdown" "accused the President of 'panoramic and murderous deceit,' and of 'creating' an America that 'includes cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/17/mark-levin-calls-msnbc-suspend-keith-olbermann

...This is the highest rated guy on MSNBC because he's taken up a radical position which one of his girlfriends wrote me and said he doesn't even believe, but does it, and he does it for ratings, because he knows there are nutjobs out there who will tune him in. But this is over the line.....

Obamermann...hating the Military and loving it

[Dan T.]

Olbermann fired, suspended or just the rear end of a horse?

Mark Levin Calls for MSNBC to Suspend Keith Olbermann

....As my colleague Brad Wilmouth reported, Olbermann on Wednesday's "Countdown" "accused the President of 'panoramic and murderous deceit,' and of 'creating' an America that 'includes cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.....

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/17/mark-levin-calls-msnbc-suspend-keith-olbermann

...This is the highest rated guy on MSNBC because he's taken up a radical position which one of his girlfriends wrote me and said he doesn't even believe, but does it, and he does it for ratings, because he knows there are nutjobs out there who will tune him in. But this is over the line.....

Obamermann...hating the Military and loving it

Mark Levine? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[IHOPSkins]

Mark Levine? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Olbermann hating the military

[rincewind]

...This is the highest rated guy on MSNBC because he's taken up a radical position which one of his girlfriends wrote me and said he doesn't even believe, but does it, and he does it for ratings, because he knows there are nutjobs out there who will tune him in. But this is over the line.....

Obamermann...hating the Military and loving it

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That's some rock solid sourcing right there. :laugh:

[Spaceman Spiff]

Does it for the ratings...hmm...imagine that.

[chomerics]

Does it for the ratings...hmm...imagine that.

Only you spiff, would take something from a right wing hack site which quotes a fictitious statement from someones girlfriend and use it as fact :doh:

but no, your not biased your 100% objective

[Spaceman Spiff]

Only you spiff, would take something from a right wing hack site which quotes a fictitious statement from someones girlfriend and use it as fact :doh:

but no, your not biased your 100% objective

Pot, meet kettle.

I never said it was fact...I said "imagine that". Glad to see you wouldn't spin that into me believing it as 100% fact though.

And while we're at it, can you point me in the direction of a right wing site that ISN'T a hack site in the world according to Chom? This should be rich.

[Popeman38]

First off, I took the weekend and unplugged myself from technology. It is good every now and again!

You didn't tell me where he was wrong at all, you argued semantics, and never got back to me on what YOU think happened.

Well, we will agree to disagree then. I quoted specifics from his rant where he interjects his opinion for fact. When O'Reilly does it and someone quotes him you shred that post. I guess that only applies to one side of the aisle.

You see, you can go around and around with out ever placing your foot on the ground because you are not telling us what YOU think. In regards to the "cooking the book" quote, how you YOU think we got into Iraq???

My foot is firmly planted on the ground. I think we went to war. Was the war justified? Yes and no. Could one make the case that certain people manipulated the intel? Yes. Does that change the fact we are their now and can't afford to leave? No. My opinion on the war has been stated enough on this board, even in debates with you, for you to know where I stand.

Do you HONESTLY, in your heart of hearts, think that the Bush Cabal attacked Iraq because they thought Saddam was associated with 9-11??? Can you honestly tell me that we went into Iraq to fight terrorism??? Is that what you think? That Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism, and we went there to fight them?

No. I don't. But once again one point that the anti-war crowd fails to recognize is that us being in Iraq keeps the focus there. Are the terrorist recruiting weel? Yes, but they are recruiting to Iraq.

I am asking you your opinion, because you have not given it, you have only said I am wrong without telling me WHY I am wrong. That is not even a conversation, so tell me what did they do, how did we get into Iraq and why are we there? How was Olberman wrong in his assessment, because you have yet to show how he was.

This thread was never about how we went to Iraq. It was about a 12 minute rant from Olberman about the Bush Admin that you posted and said was spot on (one in which he basically called his admin war criminals, I might add). An opinion piece that was written solely to draw ratings. So don't try to deflect this into a war debate. You posted Talking Points segment from Keith Olbermans show, something you have repeatedly ripped on posters who quote O'Reilly Talking Points for doing.

I don't have a horse in this race. I have stated multiple times that O'Reilly and Olberman are both windbags who profit from the polarization of America. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate who votes for who I interpret can do the best job. I am not, nor have I ever been, associated with either party. I have voted for Inds, Reps and Dems in local BOS elections. I have voted for both Reps and Dems in state elections. I have voted for Inds and Reps in national elections (could NOT vote for Dole, Gore or Kerry, sorry). That is where I stand.

[zoony]

O'Reilly and Olberman are both windbags who profit from the polarization of America.

[Sarge]

Hit the nail on the head with this one. . .I would love to hear how the right tried to spin this one :laugh:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/24635229#24635229

Did he hit the nail on the head with this as well?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/09/osama-bin-laden-keith-olberman-same.html

Why do libs sound like terrorists? Why do they hate America?

[Henry]

Why do libs sound like terrorists? Why do they hate America?

I can't tell if you're joking or not. Do some people still use that?

[chomerics]

I quoted specifics from his rant where he interjects his opinion for fact. When O'Reilly does it and someone quotes him you shred that post. I guess that only applies to one side of the aisle.My foot is firmly planted on the ground. I think we went to war. Was the war justified? Yes and no. Could one make the case that certain people manipulated the intel? Yes.

So in other words, you are in agreement that we were misled in the buildup and pre war intel on Iraq. See, it really isn't that hard to admit that he is making a point that you and I, as well as Olbermann agree on. You may disagree on the amount of manipulation the administration did, but you at least admit that there is truth to what he says, and that was the point I was trying to get across.

That is why I wanted you to point out what part of his diatribe you disagreed with, because I believe we have similar outlooks on what happened, and can come to an understanding, even though we have different political views. We don't have to argue about things, especially when we both know what happened.

Does that change the fact we are their now and can't afford to leave? No. My opinion on the war has been stated enough on this board, even in debates with you, for you to know where I stand. No. I don't.

We have different opinions on what leaving Iraq will do, I am fine with that. I think we are doing more harm being there, and I have ALWAYS stated either fix the damn thing or get the hell out. It can be fixed, but it is not something we are capable of right now, we need MORE troops, as well as UN support and support from others around the world. Yes, there are solutions, and they will cost money, but they are solutions. I have always stated if you want to keep the status quo then we should get the hell out because it obviously is not working. If you want to stay there, fine, we can do that two, just get the fricking thing done and do what needs to be done, have a draft if we have to, get the people there needed to stabilize the country and keep the peace.

But once again one point that the anti-war crowd fails to recognize is that us being in Iraq keeps the focus there. Are the terrorist recruiting weel? Yes, but they are recruiting to Iraq.

Yes, we made the terrorists go to Iraq, that is another point Olbermann was making. The were not there waiting for us, they went there after we invaded, We never controlled the borders, we didn't care to, it was horrible planning, and to say that the terrorists are there now, and because of that we can't get out, is a false argument. They are there because we are there. We are the ones who created the terrorists, and the people who are willing to kill themselves in order to cause harm to us. You stated what he was ranting about, again, we are not that far off base.

This thread was never about how we went to Iraq. It was about a 12 minute rant from Olberman about the Bush Admin that you posted and said was spot on (one in which he basically called his admin war criminals, I might add).

Pretty much so, and when everything is said and done, there would be one hell of a strong case against them. We don't have the stomach as a nation to prosecute them, and we never will, but that does not mean that what they did was outside of international law, and they could be tried for war crimes. There is plenty of evidence that they rewrote laws, and outright ignored others to do what they wanted. They tortured people, held them without habeas corpus, then tried to pass a law which admonishes them of any crimes they commited while running the country. Could they be charged? Sure, if it was a democrat who did this, I bet he would be, I would imagine the right wing would call for his head. Heck they impeached Clinton for lying about a BJ, what the hell would they do if he lied to us about going to war????

An opinion piece that was written solely to draw ratings. So don't try to deflect this into a war debate. You posted Talking Points segment from Keith Olbermans show, something you have repeatedly ripped on posters who quote O'Reilly Talking Points for doing.

The piece was about the war, and by asking you to dissect his argument (something you did not do, but actually half heartedly agreed with) I was trying to elicit a response as to what he said that was wrong. I wanted to see how what he said was a lie, or a farce, or something that was not. . .as I put it, spot on. I think in this thread, you do conclude that he was right about a lot of stuff, but admitting it is akin to swallowing the puke in your mouth from a verp (a vomit burp). It sucks and nobody likes to do it, but sometimes it just has to be done. It is ok to agree with someone on the other side, especially when your side has done nothing except lie to your very eyes for 6 years. It doesn't make you a bad person in fact, it makes you a good one.

I don't have a horse in this race. I have stated multiple times that O'Reilly and Olberman are both windbags who profit from the polarization of America. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate who votes for who I interpret can do the best job. I am not, nor have I ever been, associated with either party. I have voted for Inds, Reps and Dems in local BOS elections. I have voted for both Reps and Dems in state elections. I have voted for Inds and Reps in national elections (could NOT vote for Dole, Gore or Kerry, sorry). That is where I stand.

You are close to where I am then, I'm socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. . .but not really, I am fiscally liberal because I like what the liberals do with tax money, I don't like what conservatives do with it. I used to buy into the whole less government mantra before I saw what their true colors were, and who was for a balanced budget. Paygo works, the liberals embraced the idea, unfortunately the people in power did not. We are going to see the transformation of the republican party over the next two election cycles, and I will be surprised if it is still arouns as currently constituted in another decade. I think it will fracture into 2 parties, the religious right, and the paloecons, at least that is how they should split IMO. . .

In any case, it is not bad that you agree partially with what Olbermann says, heck I agree with O'Reilly every blue moon. Just stay consistent in your views, and don't be fooled by party blow hards. . .

[chomerics]

Did he hit the nail on the head with this as well?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/09/osama-bin-laden-keith-olberman-same.html

Why do libs sound like terrorists? Why do they hate America?

LMAO, that was very very weak Sarge, even for you.

Quoting John Gibson

"Does Osama Bin Laden sound like a deomcrat, or do democrats sound like Bin Laden, I can't tell the difference" :doh:

You have got to come up with better material sarge, that is sooo 2003

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Sarge is the GOP's dream person. Roll over on command, and spend countless hours on the internet lobbying to people for free.

[Sarge]

LMAO, that was very very weak Sarge, even for you.

Quoting John Gibson

"Does Osama Bin Laden sound like a deomcrat, or do democrats sound like Bin Laden, I can't tell the difference" :doh:

You have got to come up with better material sarge, that is sooo 2003

Osama and Olberman came up with the material. If you read from the transcipts, you couldn't tell the two apart.

You especially should be able to tell the two apart, having had Olbermans love child and all

[chomerics]

Osama and Olberman came up with the material. If you read from the transcipts, you couldn't tell the two apart.

Only a moron couldn't tell the two apart. . . oh wait, I shouldn't go there huh

You especially should be able to tell the two apart, having had Olbermans love child and all

Just because I live outside of Boston doesn't mean I swing that way. . .not that there is anything wrong with that though.