About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Olbermann notes "one huge flaw in this latest Fox-driven conspiracy": "Bush didn't prosecute" New Black Panthers

July 12, 2010 11:09 pm ET

From the July 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown:

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 soze169880 (July 12, 2010 11:11 pm ET)
      15 3
      BUT SOMETHING SOMETHING KEEF OLBERMUNN GOTS LOW RATINGS AND THIS SOMEHOW CHANGES THE FACTS AND ALSO HE GOTS LOW RATINGS TOO.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cindermaker (July 12, 2010 11:18 pm ET)
        8 4
        THEEZE LIEBERALS THANK THEY OWN DA MEDIA BUT KEITH LIEBERMANN IS JUST A LIAR AND NEVER TELL TROOF.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jgibson349687 (July 12, 2010 11:35 pm ET)
      8 2
      Cindermaker and Soze169880, Olbermann may get "Low Ratings" in comparison to The Loofah Hour With Bill O'Reilly, but he (Olbermann) has WAY higher ratings than sister station FBN's Money Rocks, CNBC, HLN, and CNN.

      He is a person who is more honest than Billo The Clown.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jms (July 12, 2010 11:36 pm ET)
      1 22
      One huge flaw in Olbermann's lame a*s position - Bush was a PC progressive too.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (July 12, 2010 11:37 pm ET)
        10 1
        ...what?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Dradeeus (July 12, 2010 11:59 pm ET)
          11 1
          Soze, I know you've seen this argument before. Glenn Beck uses it, so you know it's good.

          Conservatives = good.
          Progressives = bad.
          George W Bush = bad president.

          Therefore, Bush = progressive.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (July 13, 2010 12:05 am ET)
            8 1
            I'm also not sure where he's getting "PC" from; this is a man who ran for reelection on a platform of "fags are gross" and won.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (July 13, 2010 1:51 am ET)
              2 10
              Usually when people use quotation marks like you did with the fags are gross comment they can back up what they say with a link to what they are quoting. Can you do that, or are you just lying? My bet is the lying thing, you are fairly consistent in that regard.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by achrispage6992 (July 13, 2010 7:21 am ET)
                9 2
                Yeah, I think that quote comes from the "Paris Business Review." You know, that's the magazine that you found for all of us to prove O'Reilly wasn't a liar. Remember that?

                In any event, back to the topic. Over the past few weeks I have found the reaction from cons to be amazing when they learn that the Bush administration chose not to pursue CRIMINAL CHARGES. It's really amazing what you can learn outside of FOX News and talk radio. One of the best things for some of the knuckle draggers I talk with, is that they now have some type of understanding between the difference in criminal and civil charges as well as learning that George Bush was also a black theology sympathizer who secretly supports the New Black Panther party. Small world huh?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by soze169880 (July 13, 2010 9:21 am ET)
                3 1
                ...you don't remember that a huge part of George W. Bush's re-election campaign was promising an anti-gay constitutional amendment? Really? Are you four?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (July 13, 2010 10:27 am ET)
                  2 5
                  Are you forgetting that John Kerry also had the same position on gay marriage? I guess it was OK for him however , after all he is a dem, different rules. But of course with Kerry on different days he probably had different opinions on the topic, like eveything else.

                  It also seems like you dropped the quotes, I guess that is a tacit admission that you were in effect lying.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by soze169880 (July 13, 2010 10:35 am ET)
                    4 1
                    Are you forgetting that John Kerry also had the same position on gay marriage?

                    Since your co-troll never accused John Kerry of being "P.C.", Kerry's position isn't relevant. The Bush administration was rabidly anti-gay, therefore it's stupid to call George Bush P.C. It has nothing to do with with John Kerry or whatever other "NO U!" dodge you think you're clever for using. And the quotes were never meant to indicate I was directly quoting Dubya, they were meant to indicate that wasn't language I endorsed. Again, look into the whole reading-comprehension thing. You're slipping; I didn't hear any foaming rants about "gnats" and "fools".
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by soze169880 (July 13, 2010 10:45 am ET)
                      4 1
                      And by the way, no, faillib, John Kerry DIDN'T have the same position as George Bush. George Bush ran for reelection on amending the Constitution to ban it. John Kerry was against gay marriage, but he opposed amending the Constitution, which led noted segregationist/apartheid fan Jerry Falwell to compare his position to being okay with slavery.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by fairliberal (July 14, 2010 12:37 am ET)
                           
                        I didn't say he had the same position as Bush, I said he had the same position on gay marriage as Bush, and Clinton also when he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. And of course Obama's personal position is one opposing gay marriage also.

                        And you know what?, they are all wrong, when i read about some gay couple who have been together for years, one gets sick and the family who never approved screws the partner in some way shape or form, it is clear that if allowing them to marry will cure that type of situation, let em get married, who cares. They deserve to be as miserable as straight people. Marriage is a man made institution, not some sacrosanct law of the universe. And while I do think of marriage in the traditional sense, peoples rights are more important. Very simple.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by srichardson (July 14, 2010 12:53 pm ET)
                             
                          fairliberal...Oh, you didn't say Kerry had the same position as Bush??? I know your type is notorious for denying the lies you spew but in this case all you had to do was look up at your previous post. You are an idiot.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by srichardson (July 14, 2010 12:54 pm ET)
                             
                          fairliberal...Oh, you didn't say Kerry had the same position as Bush??? I know your type is notorious for denying the lies you spew but in this case all you had to do was look up at your previous post. You are an idiot.
                          Report Abuse
          • Author by jms (July 13, 2010 12:11 am ET)
            1 17
            It's an intellectual honesty thing, you wouldn't understand.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by soze169880 (July 13, 2010 12:12 am ET)
              14 1
              Translation: Glenn Beck told me to think it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jms (July 13, 2010 12:30 am ET)
                1 16
                Nice straw man. There is MUCH that I disagree with Beck on. Stay useful, idiot.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by soze169880 (July 13, 2010 12:38 am ET)
                  9 1
                  That's weird, considering the bizarre reference to Bush being a progressive and random references to "intellectual honesty" are both things Beck loves to go on about.
                  And by the way, that's not what a straw man is.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jms (July 13, 2010 12:49 am ET)
                    1 11
                    It clearly was a straw man, even by unreliable wikipedia standards. You were trying to set it up. That is how people without the facts on their side debate.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by soze169880 (July 13, 2010 12:53 am ET)
                      9 1
                      people without the facts on their side

                      As opposed to people who call a far-right, gay-hating, military-industrial-complex-humping corporate tool a "PC progressive" simply because it's embarrassing to admit they supported him.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jms (July 13, 2010 1:04 am ET)
                        3 18
                        You are just too drunk on (R) is bad (D) is good to realize that a progressive comes in many forms with the constant being big unconstitutional government. You morons will never get that your system of trashing the constitution to achieve your utopia gives your opponents the sense of entitlement to pursue your hell when they are in power.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by soze169880 (July 13, 2010 1:09 am ET)
                          7 1
                          the constant being big unconstitutional government.

                          That would explain why he deregulated the sh!t out of everything at President Cheney's behest, leading to the BP spill, among other things.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by achrispage6992 (July 13, 2010 7:41 am ET)
                          9 2
                          Or perhaps, "progressive" comes from the Constitutional directive to "promote the general welfare" but hey, this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles right? We simply don't engage in avoiding judgment of others, charity, and equality. That's "social justice" and we all know that those commies are infiltrating this country again via our churches under the mantra of "social justice." Also, Jesus was just kidding when he said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven. That's why you morons on the right love to give people like Paris Hilton huge tax breaks and then complain about lazy people living off the system. That's why you have no problem with the Vice-President of the United States formulating energy policy with oil executives behind closed doors only to have a mysterious and obviously coincidental exponential increase in the price of a gallon of gas a short time later. That's why you morons on the right, put on funny hats and protest spending and debt but the last three Republican Presidents doubled the defict and two of the three raised taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes for.....again....people like Paris Hilton; and where was the tea parties then? How come there was no consternation when Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II doubled the deficit? Where were you when Dick Cheney specifically stated that "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter?" You must have been on vacation at that new beach resort call HYPOCRITVILLE.

                          And to beat it all, you all are now screaming that the only way to turn the economy around is to do the same D@mn exact things that were proven to be disasterous for our nation only 4 years ago. If tax cuts and de-regulation work so well, how in the h#ll do you explain 2000 thru 2008? If 39% marginal rates for top earners are disasterous for the economy, how in the h#ll do you explain 1992 thru 2000? Unbelievable!
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by fairliberal (July 13, 2010 10:30 am ET)
                            1 5
                            What is unbelievable is that you still imply that Bush was responsible for deregulation when it was all passed before he ever took office, much of it by Clinton. How about naming citing some examples of Bush's deregulation of the financial markets, can you do it?
                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by achrispage6992 (July 13, 2010 7:25 am ET)
                      2 2
                      What was he trying to "set up?"
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by MidnightWriter (July 13, 2010 12:39 am ET)
                  6 1
                  Riddle me this--is Cheney a progressive, too?
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by MidnightWriter (July 13, 2010 12:31 am ET)
              10 1
              Spend the Clinton budget surplus--a progressive idea?

              Opposition to gay marriage--a progressive idea?

              Generous tax cuts for the wealthy--a progressive idea?

              Invade a country with no justification--a progressive idea?

              Continue with the tax cuts while piling up costs from the war--a progressive idea?

              "Enhanced interrogation"--a progressive idea?

              There's certainly somebody here certainly doesn't understand intellectual honesty.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jms (July 13, 2010 12:55 am ET)
                1 14
                Spend the Clinton budget surplus--a progressive idea? CLEARLY, PROGRESSIVES LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING

                Opposition to gay marriage--a progressive idea? A NON ISSUE

                Generous tax cuts for the wealthy--a progressive idea? THE TAX CUTS WERE ACROSS THE BOARD

                Invade a country with no justification--a progressive idea? CLEARLY. BIG GOVERNMENT FASCISTS (AKA PROGRESSIVES) HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO DRUM UP WARS

                Continue with the tax cuts while piling up costs from the war--a progressive idea? NO, JUST A PROGRESSIVE IN CONSERVATIVE's CLOTHING

                "Enhanced interrogation"--a progressive idea? DO YOU THINK THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL -- THAT WOULD BE A PROGRESSIVE TRADEMARK.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by soze169880 (July 13, 2010 12:58 am ET)
                  10 1
                  Ah, I see. When confronted with all Bush's neocon policies, pretend they're in fact "progressive" policies. ALSO USE CAPS A LOT ALSO AND PRETEND YOU WON'T COMPLETELY THROW YOURSELF BEHIND THE NEXT REPUBLICAN WHO PROPOSES THE SAME THINGS.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jms (July 13, 2010 1:05 am ET)
                    1 13
                    The caps were to MAKE THE RESPONSE EASIER TO READ but I wouldn't expect a knee-jerk lemming to get that.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MidnightWriter (July 13, 2010 1:09 am ET)
                      5 1
                      I can read just fine without the caps, thank you.

                      Even better; I can read you words and see you're most certainly the kind of lemming you accuse me of being. Except you're all too clearly following Beck off the cliff.

                      Enjoy the fall. Mind the landing.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by jms (July 13, 2010 1:18 am ET)
                        1 10
                        mind whether you want to be moron A (midnightwriter) or B (soze) when you respond
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by MidnightWriter (July 13, 2010 1:26 am ET)
                          9 1
                          Ah, such a witty response. I'm cut to the quick! To the quick, I tells ya!

                          Yes, moron "A" I may be, but I'm not attempting to push the idea that George W. Bush was a progressive. Those that make that absurd claim would occupy a level significantly lower than moron, would they not?

                          Oh, and I'll ask again; was Cheney a progressive, too? If so, it must have come as a big shock to those oil and gas industry executives he was holding closed door meetings with early on during the Bush years.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Johaely (July 13, 2010 12:21 pm ET)
                            4 1
                            He is just playing the old cannard of "everything bad is becasue of (my delusional view of) progressives and everything good is thanks to Conservatives". he won't get off his
                            self-rightgeous horse.
                            Report Abuse
                • Author by MidnightWriter (July 13, 2010 1:07 am ET)
                  8 1
                  Wow. A rather fine and warped job of rationalization.

                  Of course I left out Bush's Global Warming denying. The deregulation of the oil and finance industries. The call for school vouchers. His anti-union policies. His anti-abortion policies, and, my goodness, I could just go on and on.

                  The bottom line is that Bush, and all of those NeoCons that he had surrounded himself with, pursued conservative issues, causes, and ideas with fierce determination. The idea that he was anything close to a progressive is absolutely laughable.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by fairliberal (July 13, 2010 2:27 am ET)
                    1 10
                    How about naming just one financial deregulation bill that was signed into law by Bush. It is comical how so many people, including Nancy Pelosi claim that Bush deregulated the financial industry. It is flat out false. The deregulation was passed by the Clinton administration. Bush tried at reregulate Fannie and Freddie and was blocked by the dems, repeatedly.

                    Just google Bush deregulation myth, you'll get plenty to read.

                    Here is one..

                    http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/da_kings_men/2009/01/14/bush-deregulation-caused-it-all/

                    and another

                    http://txpropertyrights.blogspot.com/2010/02/myth-of-deregulation.html

                    But I will wait for any examples of Bush deregualtion you can come up with.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by blk-in-alabam (July 13, 2010 4:10 am ET)
                      3 1
                      I think you have the volume turned down.Nobody can hear you.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pilotx (July 13, 2010 11:26 pm ET)
                           
                        Are you on The FN's blog site? I see the same screen name. just wondering if that's you.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by MidnightWriter (July 13, 2010 12:05 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      You raise a fair point, fairlib. You won't find a Bush signed bill on this matter.

                      But what you will find are plenty of examples of the Bush administration failing to provide oversight, and encouraging the financial sector to take more than a few risks with derivatives, short selling, and creative accounting practices that encouraged even riskier behavior based on bubble based profits.

                      If you wish to make the argument that there are a host of politicians on the left and the right who failed us with their deeds, hey, I'll support you on that without hesitation or question. Greed got the best of too many and we're all suffering for it now. And I'll agree that legislation passed during the Clinton, Bush Senior, and Reagan years played a part in that to be sure.

                      Nevertheless, these were conservative policies.

                      So, going back to what we started on, this in no way supports jms' absurd claim that W. was a progressive. I understand that rebranding him as such is very popular in the circles who are trying to distance themselves from him (some of who will curiously follow the "Miss me yet?" line of thought). But this attempt at rationalization and rewriting won't wash.

                      For the record, I don't believe he was a true conservative either. Bush's fatal flaw was that he allied himself with the NeoCons. It's them and not conservatism, and not the Republican party that I blame for the troubles we've seen and the messes that have been made.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by rikntx (July 13, 2010 1:26 am ET)
                  5 1
                  You said:
                  "Enhanced interrogation"--a progressive idea? DO YOU THINK THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL -- THAT WOULD BE A PROGRESSIVE TRADEMARK.

                  But four posts up from that you said:
                  You are just too drunk on (R) is bad (D) is good to realize that a progressive comes in many forms with the constant being big unconstitutional government. You morons will never get that your system of trashing the constitution to achieve your utopia gives your opponents the sense of entitlement to pursue your hell when they are in power.

                  So you're a progressive?
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by jjamele2880 (July 13, 2010 8:52 am ET)
              5 1
              There's nothing intellectually honest about George Bush being embraced by Conservatives for 7 years, being celebrated by them as a strong conservative for 7 years, pointing at elections which the Republicans supported by George Bush and Bush himself won (2002 midterms, 2004 general) as proof of this being a "conservative nation," and then announcing "well, Bush wasn't a conservative" the moment the economy tanks.

              Sorry, You Fail. Bush was a Conservative through and through- hide behind the cross and the flag while funneling money away from the middle class you are killing off, and toward the top 1%. That's what Conservatives do. That's what Bush did.

              It's a facts thing. I don't expect you to understand.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by cugagcmu805031 (July 13, 2010 7:36 pm ET)
                   
                His rating as #39 by the Presidential Scholars says its all. While the "failure" is rated as #15. LOL It's funny dealing with people who deny facts.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (July 13, 2010 6:36 pm ET)
            1  
            Conservatives = good.
            Progressives = bad.
            George W Bush = bad president.

            Therefore, Bush = progressive.
            I think that is a variation on the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (July 12, 2010 11:42 pm ET)
        6 1
        And by the way, that's not a "flaw" in Olbermann's position (which isn't actually a "position", it's a fact)- his point is that it makes no sense to go after the Obama DOJ for the New Black Panther case, because it was the Bush Justice Department that made the decision not to prosecute. It doesn't matter whether you've retroactively decided the right's golden boy was a "PC progressive", because Olbermann wasn't arguing politics, he was arguing fact.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jms (July 13, 2010 1:14 am ET)
          2 8
          So the Bush Administration dropped the charges last week? Amazing!!!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by tman418 (July 13, 2010 1:39 am ET)
            3 1
            The Obama administration followed by default what the Bush administration did.

            The Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008;

            The Obama administration successfully obtained default judgment against Samir Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party carrying a nightstick outside the Philadelphia polling center on Election Day 2008

            More on the manufactured scandal here

            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (July 13, 2010 8:56 am ET)
            2 2
            No, the Bush DOJ determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal case; therefore, they filed civil cases against the three defendants. The defendants failed to make an appearance/answer, so a default judgment was taken BY THE OBAMA DOJ against the guy with the stick. The other two cases were dismissed most likely because default judgments against judgment proof defendants aren't worth the paper they are written on.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by hoosier (July 14, 2010 8:47 am ET)
                1
              bintx, YOU are a dishonest broker. You know that not one fact brought up by Keith Olbermann in this video was ever a contention by anyone critical of the DOJ's handling and dismissal of this case. Never mind that no one else does, they're just following like lemmings anything that's reported here. Olbermann followed Adam Serwer's blog post practically word for word. Serwer was called out by several blogs for his inaccuracies and backpedalled shortly after. No one here, not one person, nor anyone from Media Matters mentions that. You know that, yet you stay silent, and that is pathetic. So yours, Olbermann's and Media Matters defense of a case you think is overhyped and manufactured is to fight it with manufactured hype and misinformation of your own.

              Congratulations.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by cugagcmu805031 (July 13, 2010 7:51 pm ET)
            1  
            Being willfully obtuse. What a great f(k*d-up quality to embrace.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (July 12, 2010 11:57 pm ET)
        10 1
        If you're applying for the "Idiot to rewrite history," position, it's been filled. A guy named Beck got it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by soze169880 (July 12, 2010 11:58 pm ET)
          11 1
          Where do you think he got the opinion? I mean, the alternative is admitting that Bush did pretty much everything the right wanted him to and it f--ked up the country.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (July 13, 2010 12:13 am ET)
        8 1
        There's no flaw in what Olbermann said. Wingnuts have been blaming this administration for something done by the prior administration. Kind of like el Rushbo claiming the the President didn't inherit the economy.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (July 13, 2010 8:30 am ET)
        2 1
        Actually, Bush was not a PC progressive. Bush was an "I don't give a rip one way or the other, I'm just doing this so my Daddy will think I'm worthy. I'd rather be Baseball Commissioner." It was the other members of his administration who were neo-conservatives . . . neither conservative NOR progressive.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 13, 2010 9:05 am ET)
        8 1
        Several huge flaws in your lame a*s post:

        1) Olbermann's not STATIGN a "position" he's stating FACTS which dispel Fox's BS Conspircacy theories.

        2) Bush was a Conservative. Don't be an idiot. A Progressive doesn't replace Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito, moron. Nor does he ignore Global Warming, declare uneccessary Wars, kill green energy initiatives, cut taxes for the rich, de-regulate every business under the sun, etc, etc...

        The fact that Bush was incompetent doesn't magically make him "progressive" just becuase of your lot's desperation to disown him. His eight year parade of failure is an inditement of the very conservtaive values he held, and the idea that your lot's pathetic adherence to failed dogma can somehow cure all the world's ills.

        The FACT is that Obama is far more Conservtaive than Bush ever was Progressive. And that has been to OBAMA'S detriment.

        ----------------------------------------------------
        But don't trouble youself with FACTS. They have such a liberal bias.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (July 13, 2010 7:31 pm ET)
           
        I won't condemn you for your post. At this point, I'd disavow the loser, too, if I had voted for him twice (but I didn't. I'm just empathizing with you.)

        LOL
        Report Abuse
    • Author by swayjay (July 13, 2010 10:19 am ET)
         
      I hope Hannity doesn't see this...he'd have nothing else to talk about for 4 hours a day.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by politicalpinball (July 14, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
         
      Ratings?
      Here are the most emailed stories on Yahoo:
      1. 'Invisible Gorilla' Test Shows How Little We Notice
      2. Akron woman finds out LeBron pendant worth thousands
      3. 4-time Texas lotto winner rich with money, mystery

      Using ratings as a basis for quality of a news organization is quite possibly the dumbest argument in modern history.
      Here are a couple more:

      Huffington Post, CNN, and MSNBC websites get more traffic than Fox News. What does that mean? Maybe a stalinist plot? Is it a way that the media is indoctrinating our youth who are more likely to visit the web for news?

      Lets go one more:
      Most Read Stories cnn.com for 2009
      1. 6-year-old Colorado boy found alive in attic after balloon lands
      2. Michael Jackson dead at 50 after cardiac arrest
      3. Air France: Missing plane probably crashed into Atlantic

      I think we could all use a little bit more substance to our debates, so quit the ratings BS.
      Report Abuse