Limbaugh "Worst Person" for claiming VA Tech shooter was a "liberal"
On the April 20 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for claiming that the perpetrator of the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech was a "liberal," as Media Matters for America documented. Olbermann quoted Limbaugh saying: "This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich, and all this other -- this guy is a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act."
Additionally, Olbermann awarded Fox News host Bill O'Reilly the "bronze" for defending Republican presidential candidate Tommy Thompson's statement in an April 16 speech to the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism that "earning money" is "sort of part of the Jewish tradition." Olbermann said: "Bill-O has now explained there was no insult, nor stereotyping there by Mr. Thompson. He was basically giving the crowd a compliment and saying, 'You're good businesspeople.' "
Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly are frequent recipients of Olbermann's "Worst Person" honors. Limbaugh was named "Worst Person" during the March 29 edition of Countdown for attributing criticism of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to "racis[m]." Likewise, Olbermann named O'Reilly "Worst Person" on March 23 because, as Media Matters documented and Olbermann explained, O'Reilly "had his radio engineer turn off the mike of his own co-host, Lis Wiehl, because she said Gonzales-gate mattered and because she reminded him, under the president's offer to Congress, [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove and company would not have to testify under oath."
From the April 20 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: The bronze to Bill-O. You'll recall that Republican presidential hopeful Tommy Thompson told the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, quote, "I am in the private sector, and for the first time in my life, I'm earning money. You know, that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition, and I do not find anything wrong with that." He added, "What I was referring to, ladies and gentlemen, is the accomplishments of the Jewish religion. You've been outstanding businesspeople, and I compliment you for that."
Bill-O has now explained there was no insult, nor stereotyping there by Mr. Thompson. "He was basically giving the crowd a compliment, and saying, 'You're good businesspeople.' " So, Bill, if somebody said, "You Irish are the best sexual harassers," you'd take that as a compliment?
[...]
OLBERMANN: But the winner, comedian Rush Limbaugh, explaining to his radio audience that Cho Seung-Hui was, well, let me quote it: "This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich, and all this other -- this guy is a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act."
He was a delusional paranoid, Rush. He was disconnected from reality, Rush. You can't be a delusional paranoid, disconnected from reality, Rush, and have a political ideology. I mean, Rush, you couldn't have that political ideology of yours and be a delusional paranoid disconnected from reali -- never mind.
Comedian Rush Limbaugh, today's "Worst Person in the World."
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
The "Why is this here" post coming in 5...4...3...2...
On the contrary, there is no question why this is here. MMFA and Olbermann feed off one another for material, this gets mentioned twice - first when it originally occurs, and then again to try and legitimize Olbermann's silly selective worst person awards.
No "why is this here" from me, it's way too obvious.
and your selective outrage over what MMFA does or does not post is silly, un-needed, rude, and only meant to be devisive.
Tommy,
Olbermann's list isn't silly, but the winners--such as Limboob--sure are.
See I think the problem that you have Tommy with his "silly little" segement is obvious, it doesn't have who YOU want on the list. Why don't you email Olbermann with your concerns? Maybe he and his staff might listen. Seriously? Speaking of Silly Segments, what Bill O Smelly's "Body Language" segement? What say you?
"MMFA and Olbermann feed off one another for material"
I'd like to see your attempt at substantiating this claim. Seriously.. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
I think he was being fictitious.
I think you just tried to use the ONE braincell you have. Ficticious? NO. SARCASTIC? yes. CONDESCENDING? yes.
Nice try dufus.
First, I know Tommy wasn't being fictitious. I was being sarcastic, not Tommy. I know just enough of his style to understand his role as the devil's advocate here in the comment section, and I respect that. He keeps me honest with my beliefs. He raises points that if I can't construct my arguement in same manner for Situation A as for Situation B, then I need to re-evaluate my arguement.
Second, that's "Mr. Dufus" to you.
A better example of sarcasm would be that Olberman wouldn't make a move unless George Soros told him to. (Okay, that was really subtle and a low blow, but I don't have a lot of material to work with).
I jumped the gun, and I think I misjudged you. Ive read some of your subsequent posts. Please accept my apology.
Olberman is like a guest commenter. He comments on some of the same stuff MMfA writes articles about. Similar to Boehlert and Alter. If you choose not to read or comment on his comments, more power to you.
Applying your logic,
(A) (insert stupid Limbaugh tirade here)
(B) Olbermann segment
(C) MMFA article
Order of events.
(1) (C) documents (A)
(2) (B) includes (A)
(3) (C) documents (B)
So therefore, based on your logic, event (3) is evidence that the (B) and (C) "feed off each other"
I would assume that the event *(B) documents (C)* would have to be an event to support Tommy's assertion , but alas, no such event occurred and thus your logic falls flat. NICE TRY. When I say substantiate, I mean PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION that Olbermann gets his material from MMFA *AND* vice versa.
Wow, I'm impressed with all the work you did on your ABC's. However, after an intense graphing session to connect them, I became lost when it looked like a ball of yarn, sorry.
You don't need to put near as much effort into my claim however, just keep your eyes here and you'll see the "feeding frenzy".
Exactly, YOUR logic DOES NOT CONNECT.
The feeding frenzy is Rush's comments. Period.
Meant to say: "....ON Rush's comments. Period"
DTRAIN:
When you consider that the Rightwing are experts at "PROJECTION" ... that is, attributing to OTHERS that of which they are GUILTY ... then it explains a lot about the things they say.
For a long while now, the Rightwing Smear machine has been feeding material into the "mainstream media". The path is often "RUMOR POSTED ON DRUDGE" followed by intense discussion of this rumor as FACT by the Rightwing AM Radio bloviators, from there it becomes a "story" to the NYTimes and Washington Post ... "reporting" on the "controversy", and then it shows up on all the TV talking head shows for endless panel discussions populated by mainly rightwingers.
Step TWO is usually that DRUDGE'S "scoop" turns out to be all made up and BS. But by then, the "STORY" has gained the legitimacy of the entire MEDIA.
So, when the Rightwing talk about media sites "FEEDING OFF" of each other, they know exactly what they are trying to accuse ... it's THEIR TACTIC! (the difference is, DRUDGE will be found to have MADE UP his story, while MMFA reports only the provable FACTS. This is a difference that baffles and/or escapes the rightwing.)
The "Why is this here" post coming in 5...4...3...2...by tman418
MMFA highlights story. Olbermann uses story for award. MMFA highlights Olbermann using their story for his award.
Is that close?
Of course Olbermann showed what a corporate sell out he was when he didn't name Imus to an award. Awards that can only be presented to a selective group are rather worthless in their outrage.
In this case we have Beavis awarding a Worst Person In The World Award to Butt-head.
;-)
Olbermann segement is INHERENTLY selective, MAYBE cause there is ONLY 3 spots?!! I do agree that he should have included Imus, no doubt. But when was the last time Bill O Really or Brit Hume called out someone on their own "network" for making racist, bigoted, mis-leading comments, ALBEIT DAILY. What say you?
You see JETER, Tommy, etc... all Im saying is to substantiate this part:
"Olbermann uses story (read-MMFA article documenting story) for award"
The evidence is circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence convicts people every day in this country. It is admissable.
AND THE EVIDENCE IS???????????????????
Material shows up here. Keith does a "worst person" segment based on the material. MMFA highlights that Keith named XXX idiot "worst person in the world". Try to keep up.
I can't follow that without an alpabetical reference. A follows B, connects to C, mentions B.......oh, never mind.
Don't try to hard, its just YOUR logic. I know, its hard when I spell it out for you but its ok. its ok. Conserve your energy for the next MMFA article.
This is the proper language of rhetoric and debate. It is the way it has been stated since the days rhetoric and debate were taught in Ancient Greece.
"Keith does a "worst person" segment based on the material."
again, were is your evidence supporting this assertion. Provide me a link of some sort where olbermann *quotes* the MMFA article as the source for his segment. You guys are connecting dots where non exist. 2 seperate entities can document the SAME thing without documenting each other DOCUMENTING that thing. In this case, MMFA "double dipped" the story, BUT to say that "MMFA and KO feed off each other" would imply that KO quoted his story FROM MMFA and not from the lips of the pig (Limbaugh) himself.
I already said the evidence is circumstantial. I don't know how long you've been reading the site but the track record is clear to me that Keith takes info from this site. Many on the left would agree with that.
You know Bruce, all it would take for Olbermann to keep tabs on the likes of Bill-O and Rush-bo is a pretty common electronic appliance called a radio. Or maybe even a television in O'Reilly's case. It's not like there's a black market for the information those two spew out for free every day.
I agree, he could do that but since MMFA is already doing it for him I think he just comes here for a lot of his stuff. Why do the work twice? He has better things to do than listen to all these shows all day, like live his life.
Is that a slam on MMFA and the contributors who DO seek out conservative misinformation?
I was actually complimenting Olbermann on his time management skills.
Bruce,
I think yours is a reasonble conclusion. There does seem to be a bit of gratuitous self-promotion going on by MMFA and Olberman.
Personally, I regard MMFA's Olberman articles as a sort of MMFA sponsored food fight. Most of the substantial arguments have already played out on the previous article thread(s). All that is left to "argue" are largely existential debates about the article and/or ad hominem attacks aimed in all directions.
Banana cream pie on your six! Duck!
True about circumstantal evidence however your next assertion is the classic logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fact that A follows B is not evidence of ANY kind that A was CAUSED by B
True, I guess you look for a pattern and see if you can tie it logically. I think I can.
Too bad you didn't, you still have yet to show me any evidence that Olbermann quotes articles directly from MMFA not from the source itself like Rush. Keep drawin man straws, your logic SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sound.
DTRAIN-
The kiddie game is down the street.
Dtrain,
When I say only a selective group, I mean of course that all these names that are thrown into a hat do not INCLUDE everyone...in this case other MSNBC employees--like Imus. Or maybe even NBC employees [I'm not positive about that]
Since O'Reilly & Hume have not chosen to present a similar award, one can only speculate on whom would be included.
Were I asked to guess, I'd probably agree they too would only chose from a selective group.
Which of course would make their awards as worthless as Olbermanns.
So it is your position that Bill O Really or Brit Hume, do not have segements that "call out" people for outragous comments. Are you forgetting Bill O's segment "Ridiculous Items of the Day". Brit Hume just bashes Democrats no matter what they say. He doesn't need a segment for that.
Ok Dtrain, O'Reilly's Ridiculous Item of the Day isn't exactly the same thing...but close enough. Point taken.
Hume doesn't give out awards or include a similar segment so it's pointless to compare him to what Olbermann or O'Reilly are doing.
So I guess we can agree Olbermann & O'Reilly both provide worthless segments.
Fine with me.
Let's not forget Hannity's Enema of the Week, or whatever it is.
Nerzog, is he actually doing it? I remember hearing about that but I have yet to watch Hannity's America [don't think I could stomach a full hour of him without Colmes & guests. Actually I can't stomach that program either]
I'm bit surprised that if Hannity is doing an *award* of some sort that MMFA hasn't highlighted anything from it.
Hey MMFA is anybody monitoring that program???
He may have stopped. Here's MMFA's article about it:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701160010?offset=20&show=1
Thanks for the link Nerzog.
I took a look and guess what?... I posted on that thread [shows you how great my memory is]
Actually on that thread it said Hannity named Nifong as his Enemy of the Week...turned out to be a great pick!
Oh, he did.
In relation too each other, I would say Olbermann's is much more informative, honest, and entertaining. I guess we agree to disagree.
Why is this here?
The question is why are YOU here?
Will MMFA post something on O'Reilly's recent flow chart of money through George Soros, indirectly to Media Matters? Was Bill correct in his latest research? If he was it looks like all money roads lead here. Are there any openings at MMFA? I can write well and would have no problem monitoring every little thing some of these guys say.
Now, as I understand it, that whole Jew/Money thing came from old Europe. Where money was 'dirty' and 'loaning' it was not an reputable business. But since like the Jews were forced to live outside many cities and weren't allowed to work because they were, well, Jews....they loaned money.
I think that is correct but please educate me if I am incorrect.
Like, if Bill wanted he could have gotten a Loofa Loan...no money down, EZ payments...
um, i'm not really sure about the facts you lay out, but i think the problem with o'reilly's defence is the ol' "it's not racism if it's a compliment." routine i.e. black people are good dancers/musicians, jews are good with money, the irish are good fighters.
now, while these in themselves are not necessarily or wholly negative stereotypes, they are stereotypes nonetheless, and so can be used to justify negative prejudices against said races. it's only a small step to "black people are savages with no real culture; jews are money-grubbing hook-nosed vermin; the irish are inherently violent and blood-thirsty." it's the thin end of the wedge, and needs stamping down on.
i could, however, be wrong.
make no mistake. i think this guy is a swine. the whole thing made me thing 'where did that come from'. i thought i remembered correctly. i think it certainly is just some inflamatory crapola...no offence meant here-
none taken. i think we agree.
Keith just gets better and better...
This is one his funniest.
I enjoy Keith also. He is funny. He has the talent for mixing the serious with the metaphorical silliness of the "worst person" awards with gossip news, etc.. Although I skip over the gossip and stupid stunts segments. Not my cup of tea. But he can say more in 20 minutes than Limbaugh can say in a week. No, make that a year. Limbaugh really has nothing profound to say. It takes the windbag a year to perpetuate lies. The truth only takes a few minutes.
Absolutely. I usually watch the first half hour, then go do something else until 8:48. If I miss it, I can often find it on their website. While I agree with his politics and I think he usually picks great targets, I can't take his ego for a full hour. I bail out for the top three soundbites etc.
will someone on tv please call out limbaugh on his views and tell him to come from behind his mic and debate. he is the ultimate coward.
his views affect his cult memebers thinking. he is also the ultimate bigot and bushes best friend .
someone please challenge him to a debate .
he will turn it down then we will know what he is a coward
He might debate if and only if it was on the Fox Noise Channel and the moderators were Billo and Ann Coulter.
Rush is a big phony. Why do you think he avoids guests? Oh, I know, he occasionally has Darth Cheney or Newt Gingrich on, but no one who would dare disagree with him. 98% of his callers are sycophantic Koolaid drinkers; the few "liberals" who get through are carefully screened. They're either ill-informed or looney so that he can easily knock them down after he hangs up on them.
I operate with the notion that all of Limbaugh's callers are merely people on his staff or work for the radio network. Much like "plants" for movie studios who see a sneak peak or a special screening of a new movie before its release and post their reviews on somebody's website.
It seems that each every caller puts forth an idea or line of thought that feeds directly into some sort of tirade by Limbaugh. This is based on a small sample of me listening to Limbaugh's show. I can only listen a few mintues at a time, before I feel my brain cells crying in agony and committing hara-kiri
Well, you could be right. It's really hard to believe that there are women out there who would call Rush and thank him for being such a chauvinist pig.
oh that right thanks juliajayne how stupid of me. ha ha
i saw hannity last night and in his debate he only showed how he was questioning sharpton not sharpton questioning him. u can edit what u want ur cult to hear. sharpton should not let that stand he should call fox on this one. and i am not a big fan of sharpton but he makes a lot of sence sometimes
"will someone on tv please call out limbaugh on his views"
Now, that's a very good question. The truth is, the only people on television who will do that are, essentially, Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher. Of course, these two are not considered "Mainstream". Whenever Limbaugh appears on one of the mainstream shows, it is to offer his "expert" views. In other words, they kiss his butt and accept his B.S. at face value.
Liberal Media.....
Thank you for posting this information. I wonder if perhaps it is true. Liberals do fault everything wrong in the world on the United States and it is apparent they do hate their own country.By-The-Way! Are Hillary's comments made in a black dialect not just a little demeaning and condescending?
Thanks for spewing this garbage. You ARE a moron and you ARE a liar, and clearly you are a fool.
Yet another alphabet troll.
How about Mitt Romney's pander to hispanic votes schtick in spanish?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803190/posts
How about Newt Gingrich comments about the spanish language being the "ghetto" language? What say you?
Liberals believe that there is some good in everybody. Conservatives believe that everyone is inherently evil and that government and religion needs to regulate behavior.
I have yet to meet an honest-to-god liberal that has uttered the words: "I hate America and what it stands for." The whole moniker of calling liberals as those who hate America, is nothing but a joke. There is no basis for the arguement, other than liberals tend to stand up for those that cannot speak for themselves, and somehow that is misconstrued as "hatred toward everything America."
I beg you this: Being an American means standing up for what you believe in, and to question authority. Heck, our country was founded because of that notion. So, what does that make someone who doesn't question authority?
I think I may have misjudged you.
It makes them a loyalist to King George W. Ya know sort of like those loyalists back in King George of England's day. The real patriots were dissenting all over the place. They still are.
The "liberals" you describe function very well in a psychiatrist's office or a playground - "there's good in everybody". However, in the real world where there is evil, real and present, it is unwise to make decisions and act out of emotion, rather than good sense.
As for conservatives, where did you get your warped definition they think that everyone is inherently evil? That is absurd. As for regulating behavior, it would be far more accurate to say that true conservatism emphasizes personal responsiblity and small, efficient government.
If your contextual definition is correct Tommy, then explain the notion of government interference on the issue of abortion? If the governement is to be less, then why the restrictions? A true conservative would be one that opposes the issue on moral grounds and disregard the rights of the individual. A true liberal would be the one that recognizes the rights of the individual. I wish that there were no abortions, but I'm not going to put the health of my sister, wife, daughters or nieces in the hands of a buereaucrat. That decision belongs to the individual and the doctors not the government.
Abortion is a very difficult issue, and most likely breaks all sorts of ideological rules - so I cannot explain those inherent inconsistencies.
However, I agree with you - the fewer abortions and more adoptions, the better. I feel it should up to the states to decide, however I am not in favor of throwing women and their doctors in jail, it should not be made illegal, in my opinion.
I think the notion that Conservatives think everyone is evil comes from the association of Conservatism with Christianity. One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that everyone is born in need of salvation from original sin. At least, many Christians believe that. Whether it's a logical assumption to apply to all Conservatives is up for debate.
One could argue that every person has at least some spark of good in him, however miniscule. Even Hitler was kind to his dogs.
That's right, Tommy, there is evil in the real world and that is why liberals are acting with good sense in securing our nation in the long term. Through energy independence and recognition that our long-term security is threatened by climate destabilization and pollution, by the growing gap between rich and poor, by our faltering public education system, and by the deterioration of our international reputation. How is that behaving irrationally?
Consider the conservative notion that a conventional war can be fought against an ideology then explain to us how conservatives are the rational ones.
I mean this in the most sincere and honest way; you have a nice fairy tale version of true conservatism but I have never witnessed or seen evidence that it really exists. We have seen however, true progressive government of mutual responsibility and effective government work. FDR showed us that government can work for the people with the fair deal.
You could say the same thing about the "conservatism" you describe as well. These days it seems like playgrounds and in psychiatrists offices are the only place you might find it as well....
The point being there IS good and there IS evil. Also that few people are just one thing.
Exactly. The Manichean view of the world is a prescription for slaughter.
They also constantly conflate WHO we are and what we sometimes do so if you criticise an administration and what they are DOING simple minded people try to turn that into criticising WHO we are. The agenda is to stop ANY criticism of adminstrations they like. However somehow it doesnt stop them from criticising administrations they DONT like. They turn blame the Bush administation into hate America while blaming the Clinton administration for EVERYTHING and that somehow ISNT blaming America
Don't you get it, Solly? Libruls hate Amurka. Clinton was a librul. Ergo, Clinton hates Amurka. Hating Clinton is loving Amurka. It's actually logical, if you accept the primary statement.
Rush Linbaugh is a party line hack that God love him is very succesful. This blog seems to think that the man can't make any political jokes. People deal with grief in different ways. I know for and millions of Americans it is humor. This comment is no different than the thousands of comments and jokes he has made theat this blog has ignored or let slide.
So much bullsh*t, so little bandwidth.
Isn't that the truth. We'd be here all friggin' day if MMFA documented all the bilious garbage spewing from Rush's lying mouth.
Limbaugh is a cheap political hack with all the wit and wisdom of a marginally bright jr high bully. Do you remember all the jokes about Columbine? I dont. Limbaugh is just using a tradgedy to take cheap political shots that dont even make sense. He has no sense of shame and you shouldnt encourage him. There is also a whole lot of difference between what is said on a message board and what is spewed to a national audience. Even still I didnt see a lot of 'jokes' in here about this tradgedy so you STILL make no valid point.
Only from the mind of InsaneLoki
Rush Linbaugh (sic) is a party line hack
By his own admission, yes. Personally, I think (hope!) he's well to the right of most Republicans.
that God love him
Maybe. But He can't approve of what Rush is doing with all that talent on loan from Him.
is very succesful (sic).
Well, he's rich and famous, if that's what you mean.
This blog seems to think that the man can't make any political jokes.
On the contrary--he certainly has the right to try. He just doesn't seem to have the ability to make funny ones.
People deal with grief in different ways.
True, but what makes you think Limbaugh was grieving? Much more likely he was salivating, thinking how he could make a cheap political point out of a tragedy.
I know for and millions (sic) of Americans it is humor.
Do you remember when Clinton was at the funeral of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and was seen sharing a moment of humor with some close friends? Limbaugh seized on that to claim that Clinton wasn't really grieving at all.
This comment is no different than the thousands of comments and jokes he has made theat (sic) this blog has ignored or let slide.
Hey, no one could chronicle them all. And frankly, admitting that Limbaugh has been as nasty, callous, and unfunny thousands of times before is hardly a legitimate way to defend him now.
Please remember, InsaneLoki, to wear a helmet next time. Even a leather one is better than nothing.
"So it's a liberal that committed this act."
In a sense, MMFA does "double-dip" by reporting offensive right wing speech and then reporting again when that same right wing episode is denounced by Keith Olbermann. However, some examples of right wing speech are so egregious that they deserve the secondary attention. IMO, this is one of those episodes.
That Rush Limbaugh would attempt to place Cho's insane act of slaughter into a bogus political context is too offensive for words. Cho's convoluted stated reasons for his actions were personal, not in the furtherance of political ideology. Even if someone attempted to analogize parts of Cho's ramblings to elements of a particular political ideology, regardless how tasteless and insensitive doing that would be so soon after the tragedy, that is essentially an irrelevant and bogus exercise. Cho's pathological grievances were personal to him. By placing Cho's insane acts in the context of current political ideologies suggests that Cho was motivated primarily by political ideology. There is no evidence to support the validity of such a suggestion. American liberals do not espouse the killing of innocent people. Crashing airplanes into American iconic structures, and killing thousands of people in the process, were ideologically motivated acts in furtherance of an extremist religious cause; equally insane, perhaps, as Cho's actions, but a collective act specifically in furtherance of a particular political/religious ideology that has declared the USA its enemy.
It would would be difficult to find another American who has done more than Rush Limbaugh to breed divisiveness in this country. We know what Rush Limbaugh was suggesting, that liberals are evil. He says or suggests this every day on his show in one form or another. But to use the insanity of one deranged societal misfit to further that claim that liberals are evil is unforgiveable. At the moment, Rush Limbaugh is the worst person in the world.
I agree completely IRONY 101. One minor gripe... "double-dipping" and "MMFA and KO feed off each other for material" is not the same.
I tend to agree. I think the damage Rush has done to this country is incalculable. That's why I can't take it seriously when the usual suspects come on here defending him as "just an entertainer".
He was using this episode to try" and make a cheap political point. Too bad Geraldo wasn't on his show when he did it. Of course only braindead people think liberals/dissenters hate America. It is in fact the Bush and neocon loyalists who hate America and are trying to dismantle it piece by piece.
Making cheap political points is what Rush does...it made him a gazillionaire. It's also what got him kicked off of his NFL gig.
Two things
Limbaugh is the Worst Person in the world for even speaking that a "Liberal" could do this.
Although I agree with KO on this, the plugs for Olbermann on this site as I have stated before are not good. Olbermann is not a saint and should not be treated as such on this site. His network is disgusting and its track record of Imus, Savage is as bad as FOX. Its even worse because we expect more. Olbermann comes across as a company hack.
Well they gotta counter the fox noise, Limbaugh, Savage, etc hacks somehow... we can't just stand idly by. Sometimes you have to play the game to win. Fight fire with fire. And I believe its working. Olbermann's show just hit number 1.
Doris, you have to be in the game to play it. Keith is far less a company hack than others on his station. Come on. You don't like Keith, that's apparent. But give him his due. He is the ONLY commentator speaking truth to power even if he has limitations imposed on him. I give him great thanks for doing what he is doing. And he is doing it with an articulate and intelligent style.
i want to see orielly and oberman debate one day on pay per view with all proceeds going to charity or the poor. oh thats right orielly and rush hate the poor.
ALSO WILL SOMEONE REPEAT TO OUR CONSERVATIVE CULT MEMBERS. LIBERALS AND OTHER COUNTRIES DONT HATE AMERICA THEY HATE BUSH POLICIESSSSSSSS
"Both Limbaugh and O'Reilly are frequent recipients of Olbermann's "Worst Person" honors."
Doesn't this just merely illustrate liberal media bias? What's the point of Media Matters pointing out that Olbermann hates conservatives so much? They seem to be hurting their own cause by posting the far left rants of hatemongor Keith Olbermann.
Denouncing Rush Limbaugh's bogus assertions do not constitute "far left rants". Even conservatives should be embarrassed by Limbaugh's sleaziness.
Rino: "Doesn't this (Olbermann) just merely illustrate liberal media bias?"
It's an example of biased reporting in the media, yes. No one here would deny that. However, if you think that, then you implicitly agree that Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Boortz, Beck, Matthews, Smerconish, Tucker, etc., etc., etc., "merely illustrate" conservative media bias.
The fact that you would make such a statement shows the bankruptcy of your position. You can't claim the media is liberal and trot out Olbermann as Exhibit A, and at the same time dismiss our Exhibits B-Z.
The threads here are not exceptions to the rule, they are proofs--and more coming in every day--of the conservative bias of the media.
rino hunter please explain to me why in this age that when u disaggree with someone that u hate them. u conservatives invented that statement. olberman does not hate orilley limbaugh or hannity and coulter . he just points out there views and how rediculas they are.
of all the people on tv and radio the only haters are limbaugh,savage and coulter.
the conservatives if one person on tv says they truly hate bush the conservatives say see all liberals hate bush.
No, it demonstrates how insane and absurd Rush Limbaugh rantings are in this case. Your comment MERELY illustrates the hot-air you call a brain is still in ditto mode.
dtrain are u talking to me or rino
rino, you got him before I did.
Let's see.......
An angry, bitter, narcissistic, self-defined victim consumed by class envy claiming disenfranchisement from a perceived entitlement to an elite existence using select, biased mainstream media outlets to disseminate radical propaganda.
Sounds like a liberal.
I'm sorry, but aren't the neocondittoreichrepugnantconservnothing'S the one's gawking and hawking about the "elitists" hollywood and "rich" goerge soros etc, blah blah... And since when are "liberals" all of sudden for MORE GUNS? I thought that was the NRA?! At best he was a moderate.
Try this one on for size.
An angry, bitter, narcissistic, self-defined victim consumed by envy claiming disenfranchisement from a predominantly LIBERAL MEDIA using select, biased mainstream media outlets to disseminate radical propaganda.
Sounds like a conservative.Lets see, ignorant, moronic, spouting talking points like a deranged Myna bird, not facts, no logic, plenty of stupid generalizations and baseless smears. Yes Qwerty you sound like your basic rightwingnut.
Sounds like Rush.
thanks for clearing it up . we are buds in this war against the cult of limbaugh
Great clip, and I don't care what BillO says, I like this site, I don't care if the president is a queer.;-P