Olbermann named O'Reilly "Worst Person" for his attack on gay pride event at baseball game
On the July 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host Bill O'Reilly the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for his comments during the July 11 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor about a gay pride event held at the San Diego Padres' Petco Park the same night as a hat giveaway for children. Olbermann observed, as Media Matters for America documented: "[H]e described the two promotions as, 'almost unbelievable. Thousands of gay adults showed up and commingled with straight families.' " Olbermann responded to O'Reilly's comments, stating: "Commingled? Bad news for you, Bill-O. It ain't a virus. It ain't catching. And, by the way, gays commingle with straight people every day, even at ballparks. Where -- and I hate to ruin your day -- even some of the players are gay."
Additionally, Olbermann named Culture Campaign president Sandy Rios "runner-up" in the segment for, as Media Matters also documented, "bashing the San Diego Padres for staging a kids hat giveaway at the same game they held gay pride night." Olbermann then quoted Rios, stating: "When you have people into the ballpark and take their kids, and their kids are watching the halftime activities and watching what's going on, the celebration of this choice, that's when I have a problem, because I don't think this is anything to celebrate." Olbermann added: "[Y]ou might sound a little less clownish if you got your basic facts right. ... It was a baseball game. No halftimes." Rios' comments also came during the July 10 edition of The O'Reilly Factor.
As Media Matters has documented (here, here, here, and here), Olbermann frequently names O'Reilly in his "Worst Person" segment. Two days earlier, Olbermann named O'Reilly "winner" of "Worst Person" honors for what Olbermann called "the stupid and very possibly libelous claim" that NBC and The New York Times "don't want Iraq to become successful as a nation or to somehow become a wall against terrorism."
From the July 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Our number one -- our runner-up, rather, Sandy Rios, president of something called the Culture Campaign, bashing the San Diego Padres for staging a kids hat giveaway at the same game they held gay pride night. "When you have people into the ballpark and take their kids, and their kids are watching the halftime activities and watching what's going on, the celebration of this choice, that's when I have a problem, because I don't think this is anything to celebrate."
You know, you might sound a little less clownish if you got your basic facts right. "[T]heir kids are watching the halftime activities ..." It was a baseball game, no halftimes. That's basketball or football or soccer.
But the winner, Bill O. Miss Rios was speaking on his show, of course, and he described the two promotions as, "almost unbelievable. Thousands of gay adults showed up and commingled with straight families."
Commingled? Bad news for you, Bill O. It ain't a virus. It ain't catching. And, by the way, gays commingle with straight people every day, even at ballparks. Where -- and I hate to ruin your day -- even some of the players are gay. Bill Orally: today's Worst Person in the World.
OMG, Why is this here? Why is this here? Why is this here? Why is this here? Why is this here? Why is this here?
Why is this here?
I don't recall anyone asking that question anymore. Everybody knows exactly why this is here.
I think it would be possible for Keith to make BO Worst Person every day. Every O'reilly show I have watched contained at least one item that was crap. And I rarely can stomach watching more than 6 or 8 minutes.
Actually, George Bush should be Keith's nightly recipient of the Worse Person In The World award.
But if Olberman did that, I guess MMFA wouldn't give him his very own thread ;-)
They seem to prefer he award whomever they've covered here....
Olbermann has made Bush "Worst Person" quite a few times. The most recent time I watched, it was over commuting the Libby sentence.
Well that good to know. I haven't watched Keith anytime recently. I've never seen him name Bush.
I don't recall any of Olbermann's threads here naming Bush to an award...
Has there been one?
No, because Bush is not a member of the media.
What? Olbermann often uses non members of the media as his worst person silliness.....since when was it media driven?
I understand the confusion however, considering this site is and Olbermann gets most of his info from here, and vice versa.
Tommy, I think the point was that MMFA notes KO's worst persons when they're media personalities.
You are probably right, my apologies if I misunderstood.
I said an OLBERMANN thread, not your run of the mill MMFA thread.
But I guess I know the answer. MMFA only rewards Keith with a thread if he mimics them.
Thanks Sag.
Ah, yes. It's terrible that that evil Bush is so intent on keeping us safe from terrorists. Shame on him!
If that is the intent, what has been the result?
RINO,
Give it up. Most Republican/Conservatives have finally come to the realization that Bush is an out of control nitwit, that has accomplished nada, and is almost solely responsible for destroying the party and Conservatism's image.
He's done more damage than any Democrat/Liberal could have done to the Republican Party.
The quicker he gets his ass back to Texas, the better for Republican/Conservatives & the country!
He's kept us safer how?
We are hated world-wide, Al-Qaeda is alive & well, our borders & ports remain porous and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff expects an attack any minute....
Yup Bush has done a wonderful job!
Yes, Rino's not a big fan of Bush, yet Bush's intent to protect America seems enough to deflect any criticism of him. As if the only way you can say something bad about Bush's performance is if he wants Americans to die.
Brabantio,
RINO is one of the last Bushies left.
While I normally find loyalty an admirable trait, in this case it's not loyalty, but blind faith that keeps RINO in the Bush camp. Faith in the President is one thing..but blind faith, when you won't face the facts, is quite another thing altogether..
Actually, you're the one who's blinded by your hatred of Bush. You fail to see some of the good things that he's done, because you're so angry with him over the mistakes that he's made. And no, I'm not a big Bush supporter. But I'm just not going to go around calling him "the worst person in the world" and other ridiculous things like that. I disagree with Bush on issues like spending, immigration, and the execution of the Iraq War. But I also realize that he's been great on issues ranging from tax cuts, judicial appointments, and national security. It's a mixed bag overall, but I'm not simply going to join the far left in calling him "the worst president of all time" and "the worst person in the world" and other ridiculous things.
Rino,
Love Bush or hate him, his legacy will be the Iraq War and what a horrible bungling mismanaged debacle that has been for him and for our country. The other things you mentioned will be just a footnote in the history books under GW Bush.
I pray and hope that we come out of this Iraq mess as unscathed and unharmed as anyone, our soldiers have done a valiant job and to see the mess we are in because of Bush's stubborness and arrogance is unnerving to say the least. I hope the worst is behind us, but I cannot be convinced of that yet.
People's rancor and vitriol towards Bush is understandable given his record, to say to those people that are just blinded by hatred is due in large part to the situation Bush himself created.
You have a good point. Iraq certainly has turned out to be a mess. However, I still believe that Bush deserves credit for there not being a terrorist attack since 9-11. Now, I don't think that that's because of the Iraq War, but Bush has certainly put policies in place that have made us safer such as The Patriot Act, The NSA wiretapping program, and tough interrogations. I'm simply saying that Bush shouldn't be judged simply based on Iraq. The fact that he's kept us safe with increased domestic security should count for a lot as well.
If Bush's policies have thwarted and prevented attacks on our soil since 9/11, then I applaud him and give him the credit due. I suppose that is one hard chain of events to nail down and confirm either way, but I believe the #1 priority for the POTUS is to keep it's citizens safe.......and if the programs you mentioned are responsible for no attacks in nearly six years, then Bush is to be commended for that, I agree.
You know we won't get much agreement here on anything that puts Bush in any light other than the most negative possible........but so be it.
What makes America safe is a vibrant, healthy domestic economy and populace. Great nations fall only after they've decayed from within. Since Ronald Reagan we've had the AIDS and CRACK epidemics, a collapse of our manufacturing sector, an OBSCENE concentration of wealth out of the hands of the masses and into the hands of the elite. George W. Bush knew well in advance that there were active terror plots against the USA and yet 9-11 happened. A domestic terrorist attacked Democrat Tom Daschle with ANTHRAX and the Bush Administration's answer is to destroy the Letter Carriers union of the US Postal Service! (Yes, outsourcing is on its way, through binding arbitration which guarantees a less safe postal service) Violent crime has skyrocketed under Bush as the populace becomes impoverished! The Patriot Act and his court appointments have pushed this nation back to a reality more consistent with the American colonies than a republic.
There is NO WAY one can argue convincingly that Bush has made America stronger or safer.
so its Bushs job as president to stop terrorist attacks and protect citizens here?
Fine. I'll bite. But why did it just become his job on 9/12/01? Why not before? If only he'd have HAD that job on 9/11/01....or even before that, eh?
Bush didn't do his job well before 9-11, and neither did Clinton. But Bush woke up after 9-11 and put policies in place that protected Americans from future terrorist attacks. Better late than never.
Yes, we should all praise him because he woke up after the most devastating attack in American history.
Congratulations, Rino ... it took you three posts to get to the "blame Clinton" post that I sense you were just dying to toss out in your first post.
Bush has NOT made us safer. He has squandered the goodwill most of the world had toward us after 9/11. If he'd gone after Osama bin Forgotten with every ounce of our firepower in those early days, he'd have maintained the 90 percent support he had right after 9/11. Most of us wanted to go after the people who attacked us.
Instead, he veered off and used 9/11 as an excuse for a foreign adventure he and his neocon cronies had probably been planning from Day 1.
Jeter's a reasoned conservative, and I think you really have a problem when you start losing people like him. The 20-percent of the "support Bush no matter what" crowd isn't enough to win many elections, I'm afraid.
"The 20-percent of the "support Bush no matter what" crowd isn't enough to win many elections, I'm afraid"
Bush will never be up for re-election again, so we won't have to worry about that.
THANK GOD!!!
"but I believe the #1 priority for the POTUS is to keep it's citizens safe"-Tommy
Actually, that's not the job of the President, the President takes an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. He didn't take an oath to make us safe.
National defense is the duty charged to our Armed Forces, of which the President is commander, but he carries out the strategy set by Congress.
Rino,
I also wanted to say that our paths here don't often cross unless we are at odds over a particular issue, but I do appreciate your opinions and believe you are a valuable asset to these boards.
You take alot of guff sometimes and you always handle yourself respectfully and patiently, from what I have seen anyway. It's tough going for those of us on the "right" side of issues, and another voice of reason is more than welcomed.
I will be in big trouble now!! ;) Just wanted to say that, have a nice weekend.....
Thanks for the compliment. I would say the same about you. I do disagree with you on a few issues, mostly social issues, but I respect your opinion. You always respond with substantive and thoughtful posts and without using personal attacks, and I respect that.
Yeah, you two never use personal attacks. Hilarious.
Give me an example of a time when I've used a personal attack. I'll be waiting.
Well, that was easy. I google searched "Media Matters" and "Rino Hunter" and the very first thread that came up has you personally attacking someone for simply asking the question, "Have you ever made love to your wife and fantasized about someone else?" (The question was posed in an effort to explain to you and others how Ted Haggard could have fathered three children.)
Your response: "Talk about doing something incredibly warped and incredibly dumb. You really do need marriage counseling or perhaps psychological counceling if actually do what you claim you do."
[link to mediamatters.org]
Saying that someone DID something dumb is different from claiming that they are dumb.
Did you and Tommy make plans to attend a baseball game?
Just kidding :)
Rino,
And you have clear evidence right before your eyes why I steer clear of a certain poster here who deserves no respect, and we both know who I am referring to.
You and I exchanged in a civil discussion, and appreciated each other's tone, and we were immediately swooped down upon by this pathetic individual in his patented argumentative and childish inflammatory way. How pitiful.
Anymore I am indifferent to any of his posts, but it was no surprise that he would find our civility so unnerving.
I echo my compliments to you. Have a great Saturday, Tommy.
To avoid any confusion, Therick, I was not referring to you.
Thank you, because I was confused there for a moment. That baseball game thing was just a joke, and I was certain you both knew that.
I must admit, I enjoy dishing it out as much as anyone, but I think I do a good job taking it as well. So feel free to pile on. When I've had enough, my code words are; "I've had enough."
However, I'd hate to miss an excellent point by discounting what is written because one doesn't like the person writing it.
There's my 2 cents, now I'm broke. See ya later.
Yes, it's very obvious that one of the reasons you steer clear of responding directly to me these days is because, unlike Rino in this case, you can't handle it when I use your own words to reveal your worst traits...such as dishonesty and hypocrisy, for instance. Notice I did you the courtesy of not bothering to resurrect any of your personal attacks for review in this thread.
Because unlike Rino, who actually behaved like an adult and owned up to the fact that he has used personal attacks, your usual method was to compose an endless string of baseless and always unsubstantiated personal attacks, calling me everything from a liar to a bigot. When a proven liar and bigot does that I believe it's called projection.
So now your cowardly move is to ignore me, which I would like to thank you very much for. It makes my job that much easier when I don't have to defend myself against a constant stream of baseless personal attacks. Your nonsense is shot down much more quickly this way.
HEY CLAMS AND TOMMY -- I think you should give each other another chance. We might all show up at the same baseball game someday, and I'd hate to have one of my grandson's ask; "Grandpa, why is that guy with the green peace symbol tee shirt, yelling at the guy who's waving a flag, and carrying a picture of Ronald Reagan?"
That would be so confusing to him, and I just hate answering questions when I'm wearing my fabulous baseball hat.
therick, you are getting some serious mileage out of that fabulous gay baseball hat. I really appreciate seeing somebody else who can beat the living sh*t out of a joke as badly as I can. Thanks! ;0)
I may not forget about it for a couple of years!
Some jokes need to have the living s**t beat out of them!
You're really going to try and argue that telling someone to seek counseling isn't a personal attack? He simply posed a question to you, without stating one way or the other what his own personal habits were, and you told him he should seek marriage counseling. In what way is that not a personal attack?
And might I reiterate that that was the very first thread that I looked at in order to find a personal attack of yours. Do you really want me to search further? Something tells I wouldn't have to look very far. In your very next post in that thread you tell someone, "A ten year old could figure that out." Does that qualify as calling someone dumb?
Look, this is a petty thing. We all get heated. Some more than others, and you're nowhere near being among the worst offenders. I just thought it was funny that you, and Tommy of all people, were patting each other on the back for not doing personal attacks.
I see your point. I guess we all slip up every now and then. But I honestly do try to stick to the issues and avoid personal attacks. I was just praising Tommy because whenever I criticize his stance on a particular issue he responds thoughtfully and doesn't use personal attacks.
No worries. And if you haven't been on the receiving end of Tommy's personal attacks, then I'll certainly take you at your word on that. Someone else here also recently praised him for not getting personal, but anyone with a memory or access to the search button knows that there are many other posters--myself included--who have a somewhat different perspective on that issue.
We're all only as good as our words here, and I feel it's worth remembering those accumulation of words, as they carry with them our credibility or lack thereof. So I'll own the fact that my original comment was snarky...but I think it was still a necessary reminder that civility lies in the eye of the beholder.
Thats better and to SOME extent I agree that you try to refrain from making personal attacks as YOU see it. However you are constantly making personal attacks on the left in general terms telling us we are anti democratic, anti family dumb things like that which is most DEFINITLY a personal attack. You KNOW that people like me consider myself to be a liberal so when you start telling my liberals are anti family and other frankly idiotic statements those ARE personal attacks. It doesnt really matter that you would prefer if we saw it differently
Yeah its pretty easy to say you dont make personal attacks if you just define personal attacks as things you dont say. You KNOW you have made personal attacks we had this argument before and I showed you one you made on me. You then made an excuse for making personal attacks. Get off your piety pedestal. You constantly attack liberals in general then say its not a personal attack because it isnt aimed at a specific person then when shown one that is you futher parse what a personal attack IS then when shown one there is no way out of you lie and say it was provoked. Get over it you arent fooling anyone you attack all the time and make up pretend reasons why they arent personal attacks.
Let's not forget Rino's "Low even for a liberal" comment or this gem;
"Genius" is a complimentary word. I don't use personal attacks.
Yes, if one ignores context and the basic rules of conversation, then the meaning is completely different. Brilliant...(see, that's sarcasm - it doesn't mean you're brilliant, Rino, just the opposite).
Tommy, you not in trouble except for the "right" issue business.
Both you, AA, Jeter and Rino offer your honest opinions and admit you mistakes. You can't ask more of anyone and I appreciate posting with you all of you. Having said that you are all wrong on social issues (Tommy and Jeter and excluded on homosexually) and 99% wrong on policy issues but have a great Friday and weekend!
Rino, it takes Al Qaeda at least 5 years to plan an attack. So don't give Junior credit yet. Also our own intelligence reports that Al Qaeda is better armed than they were on 9/11 so again before you start with crediting Junior.....
This is the time for you to hope and pray.
but Bush has certainly put policies in place that have made us safer such as The Patriot Act, The NSA wiretapping program, and tough interrogations.
Can't argue there. The more Bush rips chunks out of our Constitution and wipes his butt with 'em, the less the turrists will feel any need to "hate our freedoms."
Cuz we won't have any left.
"to say to those people that are just blinded by hatred is due in large part to the situation Bush himself created." -Tommy
Except that Bush did not act alone, he is not a dictator and our country is not a dictatorship. He had willing accomplices in the Republican controlled Congress. Bush's clustrf*** in Iraq is the failure of compliant Republicans and their PNAC vision of benevolent hegemony.
What about the Democrats in Congress who voted for the Iraq War? Should they be held responsible for that as well?
That handful of Dems is on my list, too. They permitted the bloodletting as did the unanimous bloc of Republicans who voted yea. That still doesn't exhonerate the GOP, as a whole, for their complicity and it further supports the fact that Bush did not create the Iraq mess alone.
The Iraq failure is a Republican failure to heed the warning that war on a noun is an exercise in futility. Colin Powell himself advised the administration to hunt and prosecute the terrorists like the criminals they are, but the Republicans insisted that war was the answer.
Make no mistake about it, that without the allegiance of the Republican Congress, Bush would have never been able to argue successfully for war. The Republicans had to stay on message and offer no meaningful dissent lest the counter-argument that terrorism is a criminal act, not an act of war, should sway the public.
The President does not act unilaterally in a democracy. Bush's mess is a Repiblican mess.
"I'm just not going to go around calling him 'the worst person in the world' and other ridiculous things like that."
Why is that so ridiculous? There have only been 43 presidents, and one of them has to be the worst. Who that is will always be up for debate, but it's certainly not ridiculous to say that Dubya is among a select few contenders. If someone said that James Buchanan was the worst president ever, would you call that ridiculous? And how about the flipside? Is it just as ridiculous to say that Lincoln was the best president ever?
People are simply judging one president's performance against the performance of 42 other people. There's nothing ridiculous about that.
Your quote doesn't match up with your response. You didn't respond to the quote that you actually put up. But also, I just can't understand how someone who claims to be a conservative Republican can claim that Bush is the worst President of all time. I'd expect that from you, but not from someone who claims to be on our side.
Rino, I am a LIBERAL, and believe it or not, I AM ON YOUR SIDE. And I believe that you are on my side as well, even though you may not know it. That's one of the many things that makes this country the greatest in the world.
The United States is great, but it could be better. It WAS better for eight glorious years from 1992-2000. Those times were the best we ever had. A time when we had a Democratic President, and a Republican Congress. Opposing viewpoints, keeping a watchful eye on each other, shaking hands and getting things done for the good of everyone.
I believe in a two party system. Although you guys drive me crazy at times, without you, we wouldn't be nearly as strong, and vice-versa. I don't believe that either party should be in total control all the time. We are now living in the remnants of that nightmare. Thanks to our smart forefathers, when we're not happy with our government, we throw them out and vote in a new one. That has begun.
As a Democrat, I wasn't fond of some of Reagans plans, but I can say he wasn't a bad leader. Bush Sr. wasn't as good as Reagan, but he kept the country together, and did most of the right things during the Gulf War.
George W. Bush is most certainly the worst President we have ever had. This man has failed at every endeavor attempted. He is a destroyer, not a builder. He, in some way, has destroyed or hurt every company he owned or ran. He did the same with the U.S., and has now virtually destroyed the Republican party, and parts of the world.
I don't dislike him because he's a Republican. I dislike him because of what he's done to this country, our citizens, and our standing in the world.
Good post. That was balanced and well thought out. I'll just point out that by "our side" I was talking about conservatives vs. liberals. I realize that we're all Americans and that we should come together on some issues. But there are also some issues that we'll never agree on as well. I agree with you that we need checks and balances. The Republicans became corrupt and drunk on power when they were in the majority. I think that being in the minority has done them good.
You're right. I clipped the wrong quote. In the same post you also said that calling Bush the "worst president ever" was ridiculous. But you still didn't address any of my questions. Instead you say, "I'd expect that from you, but not from someone who claims to be on our side."
First of all, I never said that Bush was the worst president ever, so I don't know what the snide remark about expecting that from me is supposed mean. Was that a personal attack?
Secondly, if you're surprised that someone on "[y]our side" would say that, then you're basically saying that you expect Republicans to put party before principle. Which means that you're looking at Bush with about as much objectivity as those that you accuse of being "blinded by their hatred" of him.
"First of all, I never said that Bush was the worst president ever, so I don't know what the snide remark about expecting that from me is supposed mean. Was that a personal attack"
No. My point was that I'd expect a liberal to claim that Bush is the worst President ever but not a conservative. I assume that you would consider yourself to be a liberal. You have a completely different ideology than Bush has, and I wouldn't be surprised if you claimed that he is the worst President of all time.
To answer your question, I believe that Bush has done some good things and some bad things. In my opinion, the good things that he's done include cutting taxes, appointing good judges, and being strong on domestic national security issues such as The Patriot Act and the NSA wiretapping program. The bad things that he's done is attempting to give amnesty to illegal immigrants, failing to close the borders, spending way too much, and messing up the execution of the Iraq War. I would say that it's a mixed bag overall, but in my opinion he's nowhere near the worst president ever.
In the Republican mind, Iraq is a national security issue: Al Qaeda in Iraq...9/11 and Al Qaeda.
"I disagree with Bush on...the execution of the Iraq War."
"But I also realize that he's been great on...national security."
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Actually, you're the one who's blinded by your hatred of Bush.
RINO,
I don't "Hate" Bush. I just have come to the conclusion he's a lousy President. And some of those mistakes he's made have proven fatal to others.
Sorry if you feel that makes me some sort of turncoat.
I am wary of both Democrats & Republicans that are afraid to veer away from their parties talking points when they figure out those talking points don't jive with their own conscience or opinions.
Har! Jeter, you've been hanging around here too long,I think one of our visiting Bushie PhDs just diagnosed you with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Prognosis- better all the time. ;0)
Beach,
Is BDS sort of like having political PMS? ;-)
"As if the only way you can say something bad about Bush's performance is if he wants Americans to die"
You can criticize him all you want. I've criticized him on several issues. I just don't like it when people take it to an extreme. It can probably be called Bush Derangement Syndrome. Rather than criticize him respectfully on the issues, liberals have to resort to calling him stuff like "the worst person in the world," a fascist, a war monger, a terrorist, etc. I disagreed with most of Clinton's policies, but I didn't hate the man. I pointed out why he was wrong on the various issues, but I didn't go around personally insulting him and claiming that he was evil and other such extreme nonsense.
"It can probably be called Bush Derangement Syndrome."
I would say Bush supporters suffer from that.
“I disagreed with most of Clinton's policies, but I didn't hate the man.”
You can't compare the two. Bush is one of the worse, if not the worst, president in American History. And he's the worse person to have in the White House at such a crucial time. I think most people posting on this board can do a way better job of running the country than he can.
"Bush is one of the worse, if not the worst, president in American History"
That's simply your opinion. There isn't a consensus on that. That doesn't excuse the left's hatred for Bush, even if it was true. You can criticize him on the issues without personally attacking him.
He's a war criminal and I can't be nice to a war criminal.
Which court was it that convicted him of war crimes again?
That's like saying "Which court was it that convicted Bin Laden of war crimes?"
We can't find Osama. Bush could be arrested if he was actually guilty of war crimes.
You said a person has to be convicted of a war crime in order to be a war criminal. So, under your premise, neither Bush nor Bin Laden are war criminals.
"There isn't a consensus on that."
The consensus has not yet reached 100 percent but Bush is trying with all his might to make that happen.
I think there IS a consence:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
con·sen·sus /kənˈsɛnsəs/ –noun, plural 1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.If you don't like extreme responses, then don't take extremist actions. It's like if someone shot your dog for no reason, and you started screaming at them, they look at you and go "why are you so unhinged?".
Bush has started an unnecessary and illegal war against a sovereign nation, killing tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and 3600 U.S. soldiers. He broke the FISA law to spy on unknown people without any oversight. He made no efforts to prevent 9/11, let Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora and then told the world he didn't think about him all that much. He played the guitar and ate cake as New Orleans faced a major catastrophe. He's overseen an administration that condones torture and rendition while using fearmongering tactics to stifle dissent. He's used the justice system to further his own political ends, and pardoned someone who released classified information about someone investigating WMDs during a time of war!
Of course, professional apologists like yourself will try to brush off such things, but the people know better. Bush's approval is down to Nixonian levels, at the very bedrock of his base supporters. The support of people like you has absolutely no bearing on how history will judge him.
I'm not going to take the time to respond to every point you tried to make, because it's just the usual far left propaganda line. But just remember that this President who is so "horrible" was actually re-elected by a majority of the American people. That just shows you how unpopular the Democrats are with the American people.
There's a strong case to be made for everything I said, and your lame brush-off was predicted. Considering you think evolution is "propaganda" as well, I think it's safe to say that when you use that word it simply means something you disagree with, nothing more.
Kerry was a weak candidate, and what happened in 2004 has no bearing on the trend his presidency has taken. The public has woken up, excepting some rabid ideologues such as yourself.
BRAVO!!!!
Jeter, thank you. I have been waiting for any Republican/Conservative to admit exactly what you posted. I'm liberal and saying what you've said (which I totally agree) would have been taken by some as just partisan ranting. The truth is this man has ruined this country for all, conservatives and liberals. He has taken partisan politics and incompetence to a new level. How can anyone say he’s making us safer when after 6 years of him screaming about terror and safety we find that Al Qaeda is as strong if not stronger than they were on 9/11. How can anyone appreciate his foreign policy when we are hated in most countries in the world. How can anyone say his tax cuts have benefited everyone in this country when the separation between the middle-class and lower income are closer and the gap wider to the upper income levels. Please don’t point to the employment rate cause most people have to work two jobs to make the income that there former manufacturer’s job paid. Those new jobs have less income, less stability and health care cost more. There is not enough room to continue my rant on Junior but he didn’t just do harm to liberals he’s harmed us as a nation and ALL of us need to admit it!
Happy Hour!! Happy Friday!!
Happy Friday to you too Pearlene!
I don't know where Val has disappeared to so I'll have to make the packie run myself...I'll get that box of wine to ya ASAP ;-)
I suppose RINO would say Republican/Conservatives have "cut & run" from supporting Bush...but while I gave up on the guy awhile ago, it's good to see that many of my fellow R/C's have wised up...finally.
I agree with you about the economy. Two jobs is not a luxury, it's a necessity for most families.
You can *rant* to me anytime you'd like :-)
Jeter, I haven't seen Val or Worrierking lately, two of my favorite and funniest posters here. Hope it's just vacation.
And don't think i didn't notice your effort at coining "R/C"s, a la BilldO and his S-Ps.I'll do all I can to help get it off the ground.
Actually my R/C's abbreviation was due to laziness on my part, but you'd be doing me a huge favor to get it off the ground [any thing to save on typing time is appreciated]
Val has been MIA for at least 3 weeks now :-/ I think he had a blog. Maybe I'll go back & find an old post of his and see if I can contact him that way, just to find out what's up.
I thought King was around last week, so maybe he's just on vacation.
They are both 2 favorites of mine too. Hope they return soon.
Worrierking is on vacation. But not in France.
He's been going to the beach and chasing after his grand kids and his wife, when the grand kids are not around.
Sometimes they chase me.
He's been reading some of the posts but has a very slow dial up connection . (And yes, he does blame Al Gore for inventing this system of tubes.)
He has threatened to return on Tuesday.
King,
Is Val there with you?
If he his...Tell him to get his ass back here ASAP.
Glad to hear you'll rejoin us on Tuesday.
Next time you take off, kindly notify us first.
You know how we worry!
Enjoy the rest of your time off with the wife & grandkids :-)
I think WK is in Jersey and Val is in San Diego, so if there's a gay cap day in either of thos eplaces, we've caught them "clustering".
Never mind King's gratuitous mention of his "wife". ;0)
"How can anyone say his tax cuts have benefited everyone in this country when the separation between the middle-class and lower income are closer and the gap wider to the upper income levels"
Bush's tax cuts helped to save the economy. We would've went through a major recession without them. Letting people spend more of their money is always a good thing. They spend more and the economy grows. Bush's tax cuts actually benefited the lower and middle classes more than they did the rich. The lower and middle classes got a bigger cut in their MARGINAL TAX RATES than did the rich. Bush's tax cuts actually made the tax code more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a larger percentage of the overall taxes than they did before Bush's tax cuts. We are now seeing record revenues come in as a result of Bush's tax cuts. The economy is booming, people are making more money and spending more money, and Bush's pro growth economic policies have given our country great prosperity.
"Bush's tax cuts helped to save the economy."
It was a tax deferment. All he did was add to the deficit and that money will eventually have to be paid back.
"The economy is booming, people are making more money and spending more money, and Bush's pro growth economic policies have given our country great prosperity."
If that were true, his numbers on the economy would be much higher. They've been stuck in the mid 30 percent range for his entire president. The rich and the super rich are doing Fantabulous under Bush’s economy but for most of the rest of us, the economy sucks.
rino, its not the ppls money anymore if they leave behind massive deficits. Bush is the welfare king extraordinairre. he cant pay for what he proposes, and we call that WELFARE in TN.
Who deserves a tax cut when the president proposes 500 BILLION in deficits along with that tax cut?
oh, and his GOP congress abide him this systemic decree.
I agree. Bush should have cut spending to offset the tax cuts. That's where he went wrong.
Are you aware that every Republican Presidential administration since Reagan has touted cutting spending, yet increased programs and spending?
The only administration that actually cut spending and reduced government was [DRUMROLL] CLINTON'S !!!
I don't think that's accurate. The size of the federal government didn't grow as fast under Clinton as it did under Bush, but it didn't actually shrink in size. The fact is that divided government often leads to a stalemate and less spending and a smaller government overall. Clinton wanted to spend more, but the Republican controlled Congress kept him in check. But when Republicans gained complete controll of the government they got drunk on power and started spending money like Democrats. They forgot who they were and what they were elected for.
Rino ask anyone who once considered themselves middle class. Ask them if they have a feel good feeling about Juniors tax cuts. Ask them how much Juniors tax cuts have benefited them. The taxes save by Junior have simply off set all state and local taxes that have been raised. You can talk up and down but people in the middle class have a hell of a lot to do (two minimum wage jobs and health care) to keep up.
Most of that is delusional. First only 15% of the tax cut went to the bottom 60% of the taxpayers try all you want to pretend the tax cuts helped those on the bottom more its ludicrous the income gap between the richest and poorest has increased dramatically under Bush there is no argument with that. As for helping the economy your wishes do not define reality. The economy is GREAT if you own an oil company but the median income is barely above what it was when Bush became president after increases during the Clinton presidency. There isnt any question about the growth of those living in poverty nor without health insurance. The tax cuts increased our debt tremendously, and that debt will have to be repaid in fact soon we wil be paying a huge amount of our revenue to simply service the debt. Bush has been a horrible president for the economy for working people and the poor.
“Bush's tax cuts helped to save the economy. We would've went through a major recession without them. Letting people spend more of their money is always a good thing. They spend more and the economy grows. Bush's tax cuts actually benefited the lower and middle classes more than they did the rich.”
Instead of asking people after 9/11 to pitch-in and sacrifice on behalf of each other like Americans, Bush told us to go shopping. Is that the meaning of letting people spend more of their money?
My measly tax cut won’t fund a soldier’s salary for a year or keep the busses running for a day. My tax cut won’t even feed and house my family for a month.
Republicans have sold us a bill of goods that the market will make it all better. We now have stagnated wages and a shrinking middle class.
They bought us off with a measly tax cut, told us working folks to bend over and grab our bootstraps while they redistributed the commons to the wealthy through corporate welfare.
Republicans privatized and profitized their responsibility to the general welfare of our country.
Jeter, Texans don't want Bush back here. Send his eejit butt to Gitmo for being an unlawful enemy combatant. He qualifies.
Aw Julia, Texas is a big state, surely you won't begrudge Bush a small piece of acreage there.
Ok, please I'm begging you, take him back cause we don't want him up here anywhere in New England!
It's bad enough when he goes up to Maine for short visits with Ma & Pa.
We're afraid he might stay forever :-O
Don't send him here to California. We've already got Aaaahnolt. We can't take much more.
Marv,
I don't think you have to worry. I don't think Arnold would allow Bush to come out there.
I say we send Bush to Iraq! ;-)
I'll pay for a one-way trip only :)
"Most Republican/Conservatives have finally come to the realization that Bush is an out of control nitwit"
You might want to get your facts straight. Polls show that Bush still has about a 75% approval rating with Republicans.
Only because so many have abandoned the Party. They now call themselves Democrats, Independants, or Libertarians.
The Democrats aren't doing a whole lot better in that area. They peaked in numbers in 2006 but have been going down hill every month since then.
I thought we were talking about Bush!?!
Also, Bush's approval ratings have been going up over the past week or two. It's actually up to 39%. There may not be any other Bush supporters on this site, but there certainly are still a lot out there in the general public.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval
Rino, you might want to visit www.gallup.com for the July 10, 2007 29% approval rating for Junior. According to Gallup, it's his lowest approval rating ever.
I prefer to go with the polling outfit that was the most accurate during the last election. Rasmussen Reports nailed the results in each of the last two elections. No other polling outfit was as accurate as they were.
They were lucky, not good. Any fair assessment of their results gives that interpretation.
Secondly, you were 100% wrong about his numbers going up, and I proved you wrong in another post.
His results have not been "going up" over the last few days/weeks.
Earlier this week, his approval ratings tied his all time low.
From the very source you link to, here's reality smacking you in the face. (PS to Tommy. Here's another example for you.) His numbers are not going up. 65% disapproved on July 11th's results. I've never seen him have lower numbers, and that was 3 days ago.
Recent results of the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Job Approval Rating provide an interesting display concerning the margin of error and statistical noise. Over the past four days, the three-day rolling average results show the President’s Approval bouncing from a low of 33% to a high of 39%. The margin of sampling error for this survey is +/- three percentage points and the range has been from three points above the 36% level to three points below.
During the same time frame, the seven-day rolling average results have remained steady—generally at 36% with a blip to 37%. Those figures are just barely above the average for the full month of May—35%. That was the lowest monthly total ever measured for the President. During May, the seven-day Job Approval rating ranged from a low of 34% to a high of 37%.
This suggests that President Bush's numbers have stopped falling, but it’s too early to declare a turnaround. Other data suggests that the national mood is growing more pessimistic.
Part of the problem I see is this fixation on party rather than country and Constitution.To me it's not so important whether or not Mr. Bush has hurt his party, rather that his actions have weakened the Constitution of the U. S., which he swore (twice) to uphold.
It is here because Olbermann correctly noted there is no " halftime show" in a baseball game, as O'Rielly's guest noted and blew right by BO.
Olbermann adds a couple good points here. The hat giveaway thing was a red herring, because of course there are kids at the ball park every day. Just as there are gay people at the ball park every day. Even without the hat giveaway, O'Reilly would still have a problem with gay pride night. He would have just had a little more trouble fitting it into his "lookin' out for the kids"/culture war shtick.
If you are a gay kid, do you get 2 hats?
If they do Bill O will be back on the air talking about how "the gays" are getting special rights and that straight kids need to demand two hats as well. Baseball has abandoned stright children and now has a homosexual agenda! What's next? S and M night! First they came for Christmas and no one spoke up, now its baseball, tomorrow, APPLE PIE!
They came for Christmas?!? (I've got to watch BO more--I feel so uninformed)
Your posts reflect just that. WATCH THE SHOW then you will know what was REALLY said and what the POINT really was. This piece is no representation of what the show was about at all.
As I wrote above--I can only stomach crap for 6 to 8 minutes at a time. Bill dishes crap for 60 minutes. It's hard for me to change channels from Keith Olberman where I watch actual facts.
Thats why I get my recap here....
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/07/countdown_with_307.php#more
I checked out Olbermanwatch. I think it's great that differently-abled children have started their own blog.
Seriously, that site is more disjointed and incoherent than some of the Capslock-exclamation point filled dittohead posts that show up here.
I know....its written in code....liberals and progressives are unable to read and understand with out long hrs of study and tutor. A few are able to make the "break through" to understanding but not many.
Does that "break through" involve a lobotomy? Really, it looks like it was written by a drunk.
I never frequent sites that target one person. I can't stand Bill O'Reilly, but I never visit sites that dedicate themselves solely to bashing him exclusively. This is indicative of obsession, and thus, lack of credibility and professionalism.
Robert Cox's "Olbermannwatch" is probably one of the worst. The first and only time I ever visited was his post regarding Olbermann's report on the foiled "terror plot" to attack Fort Dix. Cox's analysis was so pathetically full of holes I almost felt sorry for him.
And his usage of parody pictures is another indication of Cox's credibility.
And how about his pathetic farewell message? Back in March, Cox decided to close Olbermanwatch after becoming distraught that Keith signed a new contract with NBC. Boo freakin' hoo. Somehow, Cox found the emotional strength to open his P.O.S. blog back up.
Not to say that it has any bearing on credibility, but just look at that site traffic. Are you the only one visiting Olbermannwatch?
Sorry, if I watch his show my ears bleed.
Pearlene, forgive me for going the slightest bit off-topic here, but assuming you are still waiting for your box of wine, here's a bit of fairly fun reading material:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070703/COMMENTARY/70703001
There was no obvious thread for it, but it needed to go someplace. And since I'm fond of your presence and your posts...well, a little Friday gift.
(Though others are certainly welcome to do some reading.)
Darkmass, All that AND a box of wine. What more could a girl ask for! That was too funny! Thanks and I will share my wine with you! :-)
Pearline, thank you. I appreciate the sharing. Hey! That wine's not bad!!
I started to feel that I put that Ebert link in a real crazy place. Not at all crazy because I passed it on to you, rather that this is one of those threads growing madly with posts. How could you see my tiny contribution? So I passed a copy of the link to Jeter in a much shorter thread. Though his religion is not my own, while yours is, I have found him worthy of significant respect...and I've learned he likes to read. Somehow I don't think you will mind that he has the chance to read it as well.
But I'm impressed, you found it!
I don't frequently post here, but I read a *lot* of what goes on. Is it too strong to say you've become on of my heroes? Not from my point of view.
Forgive me, maybe it's the wine making me talk like that. :^)
No, just one fabulous hat.
Talking Points Memo: It now is funny to say Scooter "FIBBY".
Yeah, I don't know about you people but I just loved taking my young children to a baseball game and had to answer questions from them like: "Daddy why are those 2 men rubbing on each other?" Oh yeah and my favorite: "Daddy why are those 2 women sucking on each others tongue"? I don't know...... maybe its just me. (These 2 acts were filmed at the game.)
Your piece missed the POINT of the "talking points memo" which was. Fans who bought tickets to the game should have been informed, prior to the game what the theme of the game was....gay day and hat giveaway nite........also missing is "Billo" said "every one is of course free to make up there own mind."
WELL THANK YOU BILL O'F-ingREILLY FOR ALLOWING ME TO MAKE UP MY OWN MIND. I wondered when he would finally relinquish control.
You missed that to......your just going to have to watch. But it seems you are a puker with that weak stomach and all. Be careful now.
I am a puker--but only after watching BO's load of crap.
Here's a suggestion. When your kids ask those kind of questions...tell them the truth. It worked for my kid...and she didn't turn gay...or melt! Imagine that!
Ok big guy....step up to the plate and share with us just exactly how you explained these 2 incidents to your 4 year old......go.
And Nerzog, you may have to use fewer big words with TTT.
Considering you are unable to grasp the concepts so far, maybe you should go get a 4 year old to explain them to you.
"They really like each other."
Tweak,
It's fairly easy, just as it would be if your child asks you any questions under any circumstances about the behavior of others. If the behavior is appropriate, you tell them it is. If the behavior is inappropriate, you explain to them that certain people act that way and should be embarassed, and that you expect your child act appropriately at all times regardless of what others do. It's called being a responsible parent and teaching your child right from wrong.
Sexual orientation is irrelevant to good or bad behavior.
Tommy! I tip my fabulous baseball cap to you!
I was hopping you could be much more specific my kids were smart enough that your explination would just have caused them to ask many more questions..........see where this is leading. I simply agree with Billo, I would prefer to have been informed prior so I could decide for myself if I wanted to attend or not.
So, you're against answering more questions?
Your kids must be really smart, since you're not into that 'answering questions' thing and all.
Personally, I would prefer that they weren't trying to figure things out for themselves. But, that's just me.
I don't know where Tweak got the smart kids from, but I guess this is the village that's supposed to raise them.
Then they'll certainly turn out much smarter the he/she.
Thank you, my oldest is an attorney in the Phoenix area, my youngest just finished his MBA at the University of Phoenix while working as a student counselor there.
AND YOU STILL HAVEN"T EXPLAINED THIS TO THEM???
You see I dont have to.......their both gay.
I warned you not to take them to that baseball game !!
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I should be charging you people for all this entertainment.
I'm surprised! A con with a sense of humor. I tip my fabulous cap to you as well!
You should pay me compensation for making me dumber by reading the drivel you call posts.
Be careful, he might take you to a baseball game!
Your YOUNG children (that is what you called them) are an attorney and just finished an MBA? I dont think the word YOUNG means what you think it does.
I think that explaining to them the inappropriateness of certain behaviors in public would be fairly obvious and any further questions from them wouldn't be that difficult to engage "smart" children in.
O'Reilly's objection to this had little to do with mixing kid's hat night with gay night, even though he cleverly framed it that way. Watch his program more often and you will see how he puts gay people in a predatory light and how their primary objective is to shove their orientation down the throat of the "folks".
I would imagine most gay people's agenda is much the same as straight people, but O'Reilly exploits it for his own self serving homophobic motives.
Well said, Tommy. Maybe my daughter was unusual, but, at 4, she didn't notice stuff like that. At 10, she thought anyone kissing was "gross"...gay or straight. When she showed curiosity about gay people, I explained the situation to her, she made a face and moved on. As far as I can tell, she hasn't been scarred by it at all.
Nerzog,
You are probably a great big lovable Dad, and that is the important thing for any child.
This whole "how do we explain this to kids" thing is just a baseless fear mongering tactic used by people who just don't like gay people, that's all it is. Parents deal with difficulties in raising their children every day, I would imagine this rates pretty low on the scale.
If you don't like gay people, then just say so and move on. All this inventing of societal casualities all because of gays is ridiculous.
"Good" or "bad" behavior is subjective. The gay lifestyle is BAD if your frame of reference is reactionary, evangelical or orthodox Judeo Christianity.
Gay affection and sex is upsetting to many people on the face of it. How do you reconcile that?
Gay affection and sex is upsetting to many people on the face of it. How do you reconcile that?
Tell people to GET OVER IT! Tell them that imagining them having sex is upsetting to me but I've got to get over it and they can too. When does what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms need approval. You have no idea if I'm on top or bottom or with the couple next door and guess what YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW! We need police for many things but the bedroom..... I don't think so.
I want to move to your neighborhood!
Vegas Baby Vegas
Remember what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas :-)
Are we supposed to believe that it was "Secret Gay Night" and only the gay people were told in advance? If anyone was aware that it was hat night, then they were probably aware that it was also gay pride night.
Maybe gay people have set up a calling chain for special baseball nights, and other such events. Knowing there were going to be kids there, they probably came out in droves in order to try to convert them!
You also did not watch the show, your question was answered in the talking points memo.......jeeeeeze.
I watched the whole Talking Points Memo. You claim that "fans who bought tickets to the game should have been informed, prior to the game what the theme of the game was....gay day and hat giveaway nite."
What exactly did you expect them to do? It's clear that both gay pride night and hat giveaway night were promoted prior to the game. Beyond that, what exactly would you have had them do?
I KNOW, BAN GAYS!
"Gays!...Gays!... THERE'S NO GAYS IN BASEBALL!"--Tom Hanks from 'Gay League of Their Own.'
Clams, BilldO has made me a bit more alert, so I went to the site of my Angels to check out their promotions.
WARNING
Singles Night - high probability of heterosexual porn shows
Noisemaker Night- may be noisy and confusing
$1 Dog Night - Public displays of Gluttony threat level - HIGH
Big Bang Friday - colorful sacrilegious fireworks displays promoting scientific propaganda
You have been warned
The problem isn't those special promotions on their own, it's the co-promotions going on the same nights:
Singles Night - and Clergy Night
Noisemaker Night- and SoCal Librarians Union Night
$1 Dog Night - and Nat'l Assoc of Vegans night
Big Bang Friday - and Nymphomaniac Weightwatchers night AND Coalition for the Promotion of Intelligent Design night
Well played, Neon ! Bra-Vo!
Do you think gays only show up at baseball games? what about everyday life?
Do you think gays should wear a special patch so we know who they are?
They could be shopping at WalMart while you and your child is there. Oh the horror.
The cashier sticking her head out the window of the Burger King drive in could be a lesbian and there is your kid in the back seat of your SUV oh the horror.
Harley, if I went to Wal-mart and there were a bunch of people, gay or straight, acting out in a sexual manner, I think we both can agree we did not expect a porn show with our twinky purchase.
"... and there were a bunch of people, gay or straight, acting out in a sexual manner,...- tweakthetroll "
It would appear that you're finally getting it!
I totally agree, homosexuals AND heterosexuals should be banned from Wal-mart.
But then, where would Tweek get his/her Twinkies?
Maybe Bob Allen can tell you what would be appropriate at WalMart. Oh, maybe not.
Tweak
There was a time some years ago that a little white kid would say “Daddy why is that black man sitting here?” or my favorite “ Daddy I thought you said black people should stick with there own kind”.
Yep, as a nation we have started to get past that stupidity and hopefully we will learn to get past the homosexual stupidity as well!
His "witty" one-liner replies to people who accurately point out his hypocrisy is what gets my goat. He did that last night. A viewer pointed out his hypocrisy and he acted like she was the one who was out of line!
This was the Biggest peice of crap I've seen O'reilly do in awhile, probably cause" I don't watch him...saw this on blog. It was Anti-Gay Propaganda threw and threw. Like Gays and Lesbians don't have children? The occassional shots of the camera showing Gays/Lesbians sharing a "peck"...ewww scarey!! (insert sarcazm) This lady he interviewed is a Hateful Bigoted Shrew....40yrs ago - if thier was a Black Pride Day...Would she feel the same way? Would she feel she had to make SPECIAL explanations to children as to why Blacks were there too? ....and they'd probably show Black cpls kissing...and say, how they are flaunting thier "Blackness".......These people are sick bastards!
Sure is a good thing that heterosexuals hold baseball as so sacrosanct that nobody's imaginary children ever ask questions like "Daddy, why is that lady taking off her shirt and twirling it over her head?," or "Mommy, why is that lady sitting on the floor with her head in that guy's lap?," or "Daddy, why are all those guys pouring beer on that lady's shirt?". Imagine having to explain such atrocities to the poor little children.
If any of you would like some unvarnished truths from the front lines in Iraq, go to: www.michaelyon.com.
Michael is not on anyone's payroll and is embedded with the troops. He not only sends commentary, but he also provides aome very interesting pictures of what the troops are doing.
Just be very careful at the game in answering your child’s question of "who’s pitching and who’s catching".
O'Reilly didn't even criticize the event itself, he just said parents should have been told.
And for the umpteenth time, how EXACTLY were they to be told? It should be obvious that their promotional schedule is advertised in advance. Anyone who knew it was free cap night had just as much notice that it was also gay pride night. Do you think that only the gay people were told that there was a gay pride night?
That was pretty stupid having a kids night and gay pride at the same time
apptec, do you have the same opinion of walking and chewing gum at the same time?
Poor Bill. He's never had a young lesbian asking him love advice, or had cute bisexual women smile at him as they walked by with their girlfriends.