About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Olbermann names Limbaugh WPITW for comments about "Nobel prize winners"

June 03, 2009 9:35 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by TheThief672 (June 03, 2009 9:56 pm ET)
      2  
      He's the worst person period. The biggest hypocrite alive with Dennis Miller, Sean Hannity, "Kill Bill" O'Reilly and the rest of the Fix News organization.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by budrykzp9226 (June 03, 2009 10:01 pm ET)
      6  
      Maybe he meant the Nobel Prize is awarded by stereotypically self-hating Jews?
      I swear, trying to find a way Limbaugh makes sense makes me feel like I'm interpreting Milton in English class again.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by TheThief672 (June 03, 2009 10:06 pm ET)
        2  
        buddrykzp9226 - Your comment just made me bust out laughing...thanks.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fairliberal (June 03, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
        12
      Actually the Nobel organization lost their credibility when they awarded the peace prize to someone who said she could kill Bush and even told children she could do it. What a great example. ......http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-peace_12nat.ART.State.Edition1.43b8067.html
      Report Abuse
      • Author by budrykzp9226 (June 03, 2009 10:17 pm ET)
        7  
        But they also gave it to Kissinger, the mass-murdering American hero! Why do you hate our troops, America and Jesus, FairTroll?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by christopher howard (June 03, 2009 10:29 pm ET)
          9  
          fairliberal: Did you even read your own link? She won the Nobel Prize in 1976. So the Nobel Prize organization loses cred with you for not having a working time machine?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fawltylogic (June 03, 2009 10:50 pm ET)
            6  
            Don't confuse him with facts. They just get in the way of a good I-hate-Europeans rant.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (June 03, 2009 11:07 pm ET)
              6
            Sure I read it, but why should time matter, look at all the criticism Bush received from the left when Chalabi turned out to be a crook. He didn't have a working time machine either. Much criticism was leveled about the people we supported over the years and none of our leaders (Dems or Reps) had time machines or crystal balls. Shouldn't the same standard apply.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by fawltylogic (June 03, 2009 11:30 pm ET)
              8  
              Just admit you didn't read it (or at least didn't understand it) and move on.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by christopher howard (June 03, 2009 11:39 pm ET)
                7  
                A lot of people knew Chalabi was crooked before Bush tapped him for anything. He had to flee Jordan for bank fraud in the late 1980s and is still wanted there.

                And your exact words were: "Actually the Nobel organization lost their credibility when they awarded [past tense] the peace prize to someone who said [past tense] she could kill Bush..."

                She had not said anything of the sort when they gave her the prize in 1976 and your claim that they are somehow culpable for her saying something 31 years after she received the prize is bizarre.

                Moreover, the woman in question (Betty Williams), put herself physically in harm's way to try to help some children gunned down by an IRA killer, and she subsequently worked to help bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Ireland. She deserved the prize in my opinion, and her work more than balances out her stupid comment on Bush, for which she has apologized. So, yes, to use your words: She is a "great example."
                Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (June 04, 2009 12:02 am ET)
                    5
                  A lot of people know that Acorn is crooked too but they still have widespread support from the Dems.


                  But I must admit my comment was worded poorly, and while I love to point out the double standard that many Dems apply, this was perhaps not a great choice on my part, so let me have it, I deserve it.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by christopher howard (June 04, 2009 12:04 am ET)
                    1  
                    Fair enough.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by budrykzp9226 (June 04, 2009 12:47 am ET)
                    6  
                    Oh for... ACORN. Okay. Here we go.
                    Why don't you tell us how much time you spent thinking about ACORN before you found out the Scary Blackity-black Black Hussein A-Rab was associated with them? I'm willing to bet you'd never heard of them.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by vysotsky (June 04, 2009 4:31 am ET)
                      2  
                      You forgot "Foreigner". By the way, fairliberal, how's the hunt for Obama's real birth certificate going?
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by vysotsky (June 04, 2009 4:27 am ET)
                    5  
                    No, it wasn't just a poorly worded comment, it was a poorly thought-out argument. If you're trying to argue that your opponent is applying an unfair double standard, then it hardly makes sense to adopt a similar double standard for yourself. Most people learn this when they're in the first grade and discover that the "I know it's wrong but the other kid was doing it too" excuse doesn't fly.

                    But let's go back to your original ridiculous claim: so you're saying that the Nobel Committee and the Peace Prize itself lost all credibility in 1976 when the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Betty Williams, who 30 years later, would say this:

                    "Right now, I could kill George Bush.... No, I don't mean that." And then she apologized.

                    If only Limbaugh and company would apologize when they say something offensive, even something they don't mean to be offensive, as this woman did.

                    But fine, great, you think the Nobel Prize is irrelevant for one comment a winner made -- a comment which she explicitly described as one she herself did not mean and was opposed to her commitment to nonviolence, and for which she apologized -- thirty years later. Fine. How in any way does this make Mr. Limbaugh's statements about the number of Muslim and Jewish laureates any less dopey?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by harley (June 04, 2009 7:50 am ET)
                      2
                    No, the so-called "people" that "think" ACORN is crooked are radical reich-wing teabagging terrorists. They are not people, they are subhuman scum.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by John Paradox (June 04, 2009 11:24 am ET)
                    1  
                    From tiny acorns do mighty conspiracy theories grow
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 04, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
                 
              So, "fair"-liberal, you're a lunatic, right? I mean clearly you have finally lost whatever shred of sanity you were clinging to. Did you just defend the idea that you are OK criticizing people because they do not have a time machine? And did you just use Chalabi to do so? Wow. You are out there.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 04, 2009 1:29 pm ET)
                 
              Sure I read it, but why should time matter?

              With you, Fair, it never does. Because you'd also need to COMPREHEND, and then use some actual REASONING. This is expecting too much of you apparently.

              Why do you insist on making it so easy?

              Report Abuse
        • Author by phredicles (June 03, 2009 11:40 pm ET)
             
          Yeah, it must have been a god-awful year for peace-makers. Was Charles Manson not checking his mail that week? I mean, he was responsible for less carnage than Heinrich K.; he should be higher on the list.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (June 03, 2009 10:52 pm ET)
      1  
      Why are they talking about "the" Nobel prize? There are several of them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (June 04, 2009 4:49 am ET)
           
        Don't bedazzle the bloviators with logic, standards, consistency and thoughtful discourse or their heads will explode, or so one would hope.

        Randy
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (June 04, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
           
        Are you really asking "fair"-liberal and her ilk to take the time to understand facts and nuance? This is a person who is using time machines and Chalabi to support her arguments.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (June 04, 2009 8:09 pm ET)
             
          Actually if you read a little you would see that it was another poster who brought up the time machine, I was replying to him.

          And what is wrong with bringing up Chalabi, Obama has had associations with a terrorist and a racist reverend, it seems that his judgement of people is not infallible either.
          Report Abuse