Olbermann named O'Reilly "Worst Person" for criticizing Edwards' claim about homeless veterans
SUMMARY: On Countdown, Keith Olbermann named Bill O'Reilly the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for saying that John Edwards "has no clue" regarding Edwards' statement that "tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates."
During the January 7 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 saying that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "has no clue," as Media Matters for America documented, regarding Edwards' statement that "tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates." Olbermann stated: "But our winner -- well, it's Bill-O night. He blasted John Edwards for noting in Iowa that 200,000 vets sleep each night under bridges and on grates. Quoting Bill-O: 'The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money.' " Olbermann continued: "Seriously. First off, Lou Dobbs is going to kick your backside for working his side of the street. Secondly, it's 200,000 tonight. Over the course of the year, the Veterans Administration says, 336,000 vets will be homeless on and off." Olbermann concluded: "Why don't you try changing positions with one of them, Bill? See how long you last, then run your mouth about Edwards. The over/under on that, by the way, would be three minutes. Bill Orally, tonight's 'Worst Person in the World.' "
On the January 4 edition of Countdown, Olbermann named O'Reilly "runner-up" in the "Worst Person" segment for not acknowledging that he falsely suggested in his book Kids Are Americans Too that the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is from the U.S. Constitution, as Media Matters also noted.
From the January 7 edition MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: But our winner -- well, it's Bill-O night. He blasted John Edwards for noting in Iowa that 200,000 vets sleep each night under bridges and on grates. Quoting Bill-O: "The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money."
Seriously. First off, Lou Dobbs is going to kick your backside for working his side of the street. Secondly, it's 200,000 tonight. Over the course of the year, the Veterans Administration says, 336,000 vets will be homeless on and off. Why don't you try changing positions with one of them, Bill? See how long you last, then run your mouth about Edwards. The over/under on that, by the way, would be three minutes. Bill Orally, tonight's "Worst Person in the World."
Olbermann and O'Reilly the two worst people on television.
Both partisans who will have no future if a non partisan gets elected. Especially the disgusting Olbermann, who will he complain about then? Get a life Olbermann. We can only hope Bloomberg runs.
Actually, they likely cancel each other out most of the time as they highlight and broadcast mirrored ideological opposites of one another. So their net effect is a wash.
Except for the nightly "Orally" whine by Olbermann.
The net effect of their political ranting probably is a wash, but the personal jabs are clearly lopsided.
Perhaps, but their personal jabs are only a direct result of their gargantuan egos, do they really think most of us give a damn what little fueds they find themselves embroiled in?
No, and we don’t give a damn about feuds between co-hosts on The View, Rosie and Donald, or about Britney Spears or Paris Hilton either - nor Big Brother, Survivor, or any such Reality TV shows. It’s all just my imagination. Feuds and failings make the ratings. Sometimes I think you’re from another planet, Tommy.
The reason it isn't a "wash" is because Olbermann traffics in the truth, while O'Reilly traffics in lies. O'Reilly's lies do not cancel out the truth. Particularly in a case like this, where O'Reilly is very clearly and demonstrably wrong.
So when Olbermann calls opponents of illegal immigration "racists", that is the truth?
Sorry, considering your endorsement of Olbermann and his past inflammatory rhetoric, he can keep his "truth". I have no respect for either of them.
What a complete non sequitur. How about addressing the actual topic sometime? When O'Reilly claims that Edwards is being dishonest about the amount of homeless vets, that's called a lie. When Olbermann points out that Edwards is correct, that's called the truth. Care to dispute that?
Because you said "Olbermann traffics in the truth", and I gave you an example of that being a lie. So dismiss it if you want, the other topic was already vetted in yesterday's thread, so read it there if you care to.
This is a topic about Olbermann as there is no need to rehash the homeless topic again.
And if you don't like my response, then ignore me.
You do love your logical fallacies, don't you? If I say "O'Reilly traffics in lies," it would be a logical fallacy to say that my claim is that everything that O'Reilly has ever said is a lie. By the same token, saying that "Olbermann traffics in the truth" does not mean that I am required to defend every single statement he's ever made.
And not so incidentally, it's a little difficult to address your Olbermann "lie" when you provide no quote or context. The only anti-illegal immigration advocate that I've heard called a racist by Olbermann is Lou Dobbs. And no, I would not call that a lie. If you can show me where Olbermann calls opponents of illegal immigration "racists" then please do.
And I also look forward to your explanation as to why O'Reilly's lie about Edwards cancels out Olbermann's truth.
Alright, here's the deal. Both men utilize hyperbole. Both men use ad hominem attacks. Both men ignore those facts that fail to bolster their respective paradigms. The big differences are that O'reilly claims to be unbiased, is slightly more delusional, and is not nearly as scholarly. Fair enough? Oh, as for this whole "truth" thing, I think I'd feel a little better about Olbermann if he at least occasionally let a person with contrary views on his show. It's frigging mimicry, for Christ! And just to let you know, since April, I've been doing a blog called "Contra O'Reilly" (paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com). Not exactly an O'Reilly supporter. I'm just not in favor of substituting one form of decadence for another. That's it!
No, it's not fair to say that they are simply two sides of the same coin. And it's not logical to say that since Olbermann doesn't give equal time to opposing voices, he isn't being truthful. The fact is that O'Reilly's dishonesty has been extensively documented, while Tommy, Sueld, et. al. have failed to come up with a single lie that Olbermann has ever told. It's not enough to say, "Olbermann is dishonest too." You have to show that he is, just as you and countless other people have shown that O'Reilly is.
Wow, I finally found a person who hates O'Reilly more than me. Interesting. First of all, I did not say that Olbermann is untruthful. I was only pointing to the increasingly flagrant/biased nature of his program (not a single worst person liberal, come on! I'm a liberal and that offends ME!). I mean, even from a viewers perspective, it's bad programming, a single solitary thread of drum-beating liberal speak. Again, as a liberal, it offends me. And the truth, that's not enough my friend. It's all about providing ALL the information. It's about reasoned debate (and, no, it doesn't have to be a Hannity and Colmes/Bill O'Reilly/ Morton Downey Jr. format, either). Think about it, buddy, I could tell you that it was warm today (the truth) and leave it at that OR I could give you the full forecast. What do you really want? Look, Bill O'Reilly IS despicable. No argument. All I'm asking is that you don't put ALL your stock in one liberal pundit, the latest flava, if you will. You seem like an intelligent fellow who likes to argue. Just take a breath from time to time, that's all. Check out my blog.
Clams, you made a general statement about Olb and BillO, and then told Tommy he was off-topic because he didn't address a singular issue. Why?
Olbermann is far from truthful when it comes to the illegal immigration issue, calling people "racist" because they have an honest difference of opinion is disgusting. Olbermann also has lied about other things. This is from Olbermann watch a partisan site (yes) they do not like Olbermann but it gives an indication of the lies he spews and to say he is a saint compared to OLielly is just plain wrong. They are both the same in my eyes.
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/12/keith_olbermann_71.php#more
OK then, your turn. Let's see that quote where Olbermann calls people racists for having an honest differing opinion...
Both O'Reilly and Olbermann traffic in slandering those they disagree with, petty and childish feuding while pumping up their own egos by tearing down their opponents.......they are two peas in a pod, blowhards who want to make the story about them and offer nothing except ultra partisan spin and slanted political coverage, while scratching up some highhanded pedestal they put themselves on.
Many here celebrate Olbermann and despise O'Reilly........I say, glass houses.
Now show us where Olbermann "slandered" anyone.
Don't you realize yet that if you keep throwing out accusations, you're going to be asked to back them up?
Oohhhh, I am scared of you! Keep asking Sweetheart.
I guess I'll just take that as an admission that you're simply making stuff up and that you have no actual quotes to back up any of your false accusations.
I guess that saves us both a lot of time. You're free to move on to some new lies now.
Clams,
You said, "When O'Reilly claims that Edwards is being dishonest about the amount of homeless vets, that's called a lie. When Olbermann points out that Edwards is correct, that's called the truth. Care to dispute that?"
I dispute that.
Where did O'Reilly claim Edwards is being dishonest?
Did you actually read the article or watch the original O'Reilly clip?
"O'REILLY: That was Edwards' concession speech last night. I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money. Hard to believe."
And somehow you think that O'Reilly wasn't saying that Edwards was being dishonest?
Gosh! Sorry. I just read what was printed.
So you hadn't actually read this thread?
[link to mediamatters.org]
The one where you were the very first person to post a response? The one where you also questioned Edwards' statistics? Come on.
GOOD EYE clams casino! I just love GOTCHA's -:)
pj,
If that is a gotcha, you don't really know what a gotcha is.
I observed yesterday that Edwards used hyperbole in his 'homeless veterans" statement. Bill did not make that claim. Go back and look if you don't believe me.
As you are having trouble seeing, there is no gotcha.
But since you are a fan of Clams, maybe you gotcha free moment to show us all where Bill lied in his remarks as Clams claimed. ;-)
kinda like the hyperbole you used when you referred to Edwards as an ambulance chaser? I'd say Edwards was dead on. I've provided a google link farther down showing all sorts of news reports and videos of homeless iraq war veterans.
My opinions regarding Edwards have nothing to do with Clams claim that Bill lied.
In other words, "You caught me being a hypocrite, Snoopy. I use the same type of hyperbole that I find detestable when others use it. I must now perform a cowardly dodge and pretend you are off topic."
roundhouse,
Please look up the definition of hypocrite. I never said Edwards couldn't engage in hyperbole while I can, now did I.
Apparently some don't understand the difference between hyperbole and a simple derogatory comment.
From Wikopedia:
Ambulance chaser is a derogatory phrase sometimes used to describe a trial lawyer who specializes in representing accident victims. It typically refers to attorneys who unlawfully solicit business (sometimes called barratry) from accident victims or their families at the scene of an accident or disaster (or immediately thereafter). In the United States, such conduct violates Rule 7.3 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct.Now that is taken care of, care to comment on Clams claim?
sorry the cut and paste didn't work, (at least in my browser.) Simply go to Wikopedia and enter in "ambulance chaser".
For those to lazy, (I don't blame you if you are,) It defines ambulance chaser as a derogatory phrase.
So it's OK for you to embellish Edward's career using a term that implies Edwards "unlawfully solicits business," which, to my knowledge, is TOTALLY untrue, but it's not ok for Edwards to embellish the plight of the homeless by describing sleeping under bridges, which IS true in many cases?
Wow, you ARE a total hypocrite!
If you never said Edwards can't engage in hyperbole while you can, WHAT ON EARTH is your argument?
As near as I can tell you seem entitled to "find that statistic hard to believe" because you object to the description of bridges because not all homeless people will be sleeping under bridges. HOW is that different from saying Edwards can't engage in hyperbole?
Then, you DO engage in hyperbole, so clearly you think it's ok for you to do it.
Really, please try to defend yourself on this one. I'd love to see it.
You're very first post in that thread reads, "I find that statistic hard to believe." Which is exactly what O'Reilly was saying. I honestly don't even understand why this is all so baffling to you.
Clams,
You are claiming quotes now that are not there.
You seem to conflate your interpretation with what is actually said.
There was no lie. Look at your quote, first referring to me than Bill, writing, "I find that statistic hard to believe." Which is exactly what O'Reilly was saying."
First of all me saying I find it hard to believe is not saying Edwards lied. Can you not see the that?
Secondly your claim that my quote is "exactly what O'Reilly was saying is blatantly false. If it was "exactly", it would be exactly.
Thirdly, my quote from yesterday has nothing to do with your claim today that Bill lied. Lining the two up against each other proves nothing.
Instead you have constantly conflated your opinion of what is written with what actually was written. You then state your opinion as if it were what was written. When that is pointed out you simply have reworded the original quotes to reflect something that was not written - thinking it proves your point.
It does not.
Please stick to what is actually written.
Your claim of Bill lying in this thread is simply untrue even if you refuse to acknowledge it.
You said you found the statistics hard to believe. O'Reilly said he found Edwards' statement "Hard to believe." He also attempted to discredit Edwards' statistics by saying that "the only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain." That is a lie. Edwards' statistics were correct, and O'Reilly lied to his viewers when he claimed that they were not. It's pretty simple.
Clams,
I'll give it one more try.
Saying something is hard to believe is not saying someone is lying.
My opinion of Edwards have nothing to do with your original claim that Bill is lying.
To use the quote, " the only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain." as your proof that Bill is lying is simply laughable.
However we both know that quote is not what you were referring to originally. You are simply moving the goalposts again and again.
Here is your original quote: "When O'Reilly claims that Edwards is being dishonest about the amount of homeless vets, that's called a lie."
You cannot back that up. Bill never claimed Edwards of being dishonest. To say otherwise is to not be able to see what is written.
Your original statement that Bill lied is untrue.
Obviously O'Reilly is claiming that Edwards is being dishonest about the number of homeless vets. If that's not what he was saying, then what was his point? He says that Edwards has "no clue" and is "hard to believe" and "the only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain." In what way is that NOT accusing Edwards of being dishonest?
I haven't moved the goalposts one bit. O'Reilly is lying.
O'Reilly was being dishonest when he claimed that: "I mean, come on. The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain." It is clearly not the case that Edwards' "brain" is "the only thing sleeping under a bridge." O'Reilly was using hyperbole here and he was, as you have repeatedly done, being dishonest. In point of fact, you have repeatedly been dishonest. You are not actually discussing anything in "good faith." It is best to merely point out your dishonest remarks and move on.
Now, Edwards was correct when he pointed out that nearly 200,000 vets are homeless on any given night. The fact that O'Reilly dismissed that fact with a vacuous insult concerning Edwards and the fact that you have attempted to obfuscate the fact that nearly 200,000 vets are homeless in this country on any given night with a rather naive view of language and reference is an attempt to change the subject from the fact that nearly 200,000 vets are homeless in this country on any given night.
I have not tried to obfuscate anything.
Look, I don't like Bill O'Reilly myself. His bloviating and his use of hyperbole doesn't even make any sense to me. It seems nobody is paying attention. I'm not arguing that.
I never argued the contention that there are 20,000 homeless veterans. My only observation was Edwards stating that these homeless vets were sleeping under bridges and on grates. I opined originally that I found that part of Edwards quote hard to believe.
Getting back to O'Reilly, Nowhere did he accuse Edwards of lying. You and everyone else who somehow want to challenge me on this, simply are interpreting BO through your filter and passing off your interpretation as to what Bill meant as if it were Bill's actual words.
It is apparent to me that many of you refuse to deal with what Bill actually said.
I'm done. Time to move on.
It's not supposed to be taken literally, that every single homeless vet sleeps in those two places. There's no reason to find it "hard to believe" because you're not supposed to believe it. It wasn't even implied, to a thinking person at least.
And if there are no homeless vets sleeping under bridges, then what Edwards said is false. It would be a lie. Obviously O'Reilly was saying it was not true. Therefore he accused Edwards of lying.
There's really no way around that. You are done, as you said.
The number is 200,000. Should we take that as a typo?
O'Reilly was dishonest when he claimed that Edwards' "brain" was "the only thing sleeping under a bridge." That statement is clearly false. It is hyperbole, but more than that it is a dishonest attempt to distract from the larger issue that there are nearly 200,000 vets, on any given night, who are homeless. You are being dishonest when you claim you are not trying to obfuscate. Again, the number is 200,000.
The way it looked to me, Clams gotcha was his response to your “Gosh! Sorry. I just read what was printed” admission earlier in this thread (that you seemed to later recant).
I am no “fan” of anyone or anything here, other than the truth.
I read your “thoughts” and comments in yesterdays thread and commented on them myself. If you want to continue insisting that BillO did not lie just because Edwards used hyperbole, that is your prerogative. We all know what Edwards was saying - and so did Bill O. For him to deny documented facts to make Edwards out to be a liar and insult Edwards mental capabilities – and then somehow bring “illegal aliens” into the mix, is deceitful and disgusting – period. BillO is scum and anyone who supports his tactics is in the same boat as far as I’m concerned, sorry.
pj,
Nowhere did Bill claim Edwards lied just as nowhere I claimed Edwards lied. Nowhere did Bill deny the documented facts as you have falsely claimed.
You two seem unable to discern the difference.
I am of the opinion Edwards engages in hyperbole - which is an obvious and intentional exaggeration.
Who knows what BO was trying to say. Feel free to say he engaged in hyperbole too if you like. But please don't accuse people of lying when they are not.
Thanks.
AA, you're being absolutely ridiculous and willfully ignorant.
Do you have to say the word "lie" to make it an accusation of lying? Of course not!
To any reasonable observer saying someone's statement is "hard to believe" and "oh, c0me on" is very directly implying that the person is lying.
I could say the following:
"Bill O'Reilly's statement shows he likes facts that look like falafel."
Nowhere there did I say the word "lie" or did I point out what was wrong with the facts (which, unlike Bill O'Reilly, is how intelligent people refute arguments). But could ANYONE miss my intent to discredit his truthfulness?!
As for your absurd contention that the description of the living conditions of some homeless people invalidates the statement, it's called IMAGERY. It exists to communicate the emotion/impact of a situation so that human beings (being emotional animals) can relate to it. It is sometimes abused, but as long as it is backed up by valid statistics it's fine. Look it up sometime.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
No reas0nable person would imagine that Edwards' invocation of a bridge and a grate meant to be a literal statement that exactly 200,000 veterans experienced the condition of homelessness in exactly the same way (under a bridge or a grate, to the exclusion of a crowded shelter, bus terminal, cardboard box, doorway, etc.). Edwards was illustrating what (in general) homelessness can be like, and what its risks are.
So it's cool for you to engage in hyperbole, but no other soul dare use it?
I could care less if anyone uses hyperbole. But I'll criticize Presidential candidates when they are over the top like Edwards was on this one.
Feel free to do the same.
You could care less if someone uses hyperbole?
To you it invalidates a perfectly valid & accurate statistic and allows you to ignore a major social issue, because someone took reasonable poetic license to describe it?
But then, you could care less if someone uses hyperbole.
If you don't have a problem with the hyperbole, then WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?
You are clearly not "sorry", please do not continue with such dishonesty.
Clams,
Please excuse my snarkiness above. However asking me your question does not prove at all your contention that Bill lied.
Care to try again?
Are you out of your mind? Why are you still trying to argue this point?
Here's a quick recap for you: Edwards gave a valid statistic. O'Reilly claimed that Edwards was full of sh*t. MMFA and Olbermann proved that O'Reilly was full of sh*t. End of story.
Honey, I'd suggest sticking to one vehicle at a time when trying to spin those stale wheels, you're going downhill fast..........
Clams,
You stated categorically that Bill O lied in the thread about Edwards. I challenged you three times, including this one, to show me the lie.
Just repeating your claim is not proving it.
AA When it comes to Olbermann many on here ignore the truth and repeat his lies. He gets a free pass yet last week he was so upset when Hillary lost he kept trying to diminish Obamas win, yet no outrage from anyone here at MMFA. Now if Matthews kept saying "Minus independents Obama would have won by one point" The MMFA threads would be bursting.
That will be ignored here because Olbermann can do no wrong even though he was clearly in Hillarys camp
I'm curious - you use past tense... "was in Hillary's camp". So who's camp is he in now, Mentalist Rex? Because it seems that as of last night's show he's kicked her under the bus with his scorn for her "crying" episode.
Was meaning last week, lets see how he is tonight in NH.
Never was. He's given her the fair shake just as he's given everyone.
"AA When it comes to Olbermann many on here ignore the truth and repeat his lies..."
- SueEld / Tuesday January 8, 2008 03:48:37 PM EST
Sue, NO ONE is repeating his lies. Not even Tommy, and we're pleading, nay BEGGING, him!! He can't seem to come up with one and cite a source for it!
Please, please! Repeat a lie! SHOW us it's a lie! We'd love to discuss it an assess it, rather than just taking someone's word that such a lie exists.
So, please, Sue, elevate the level of discourse of this discussion and repeat a lie, and tell us WHY it is a lie, and then we can have a detailed discussion like mature adults.
You're beating a dead horse, dude! What part of the quote don't you understand?
its called word parsing, and these suckers do it all the time. the fact that they're clammering to defend O'Reilly tells us all we really need to know, me thinks.
rofl, I'm sorry didn't you just accuse KO of being childish? and then make some reference to glass houses? You're wasting every body's time Tommy. Get over it.
Oohhhh, I am scared of you! Keep asking Sweetheart.
- tommy / Tuesday January 8, 2008 02:39:36 PM EST
Tommy, do you have any idea how STUPID you sound when you say this? I mean bumbling, babbling, dunce cap, village idiot STUPID.
I'm not saying this to be abusive, I really hope that some strong language will help you see how others perceive you and how much you make a fool of yourself. Every time you ignore (and especially deride) a charge to CITE EXAMPLES you may think you're being cool, but it shows itself to be an admission of ignorance and ineptitude. If you actually had a valid point, it would not be hard to join the reality-based community.
Bobthep I went to the site you posted and it was just opinion, they have no facts to back up what they called mistatements. MMFA provides you with transcripts and then points out the truth that site didn't, it was just bashing KO because it didn't like his politics.
Bobthep, that "Olbermanwatch" site has been linked to here pretty often. You might want to turn on your critical thinking switch, and notice something about it.
I can't say I've checked out everything at the site, but of the headlines and links I have gone to, it's pretty glaring that not one of them had anything to do with what the pretended to expose.
Seriously, check it out.It's some pretty clumsy smoke & mirrors.
See my response to Tommy above. And while you're at it, why don't you ask Tommy why he didn't respond to my question about this specific topic?
Tommy point out and place in context when and who Olberman called "racist" in the illegal immigration movement. You know that some in that movement are "racist". So where iis your proof? I want to see it.
He has said so on his program, I have seen it. You don't have to believe me if you don't want too, that's up to you. And he wasn't implying it in the context of "some people". I stand by what I said.
So we're just supposed to take your word for it that you saw Olbermann say that ALL anti-illegal immigration advocates are racists?! That is absolutely ridiculous. You really need to come up with an actual quote.
haha... forget about it clams. I've always seen MMfA's highlighting of the 'worst person' plug as basically an example of main-stream validation of the work done by media matters. They are perfectly entitled to show these clips of Olberman. If some people don't like it, who gives a $%#, right? I mean, any attempt to compare Bill O'Reilly with KO just shows a basic level of stupidity which I think you should have come to expect from certain people. And to ask for evidence from Tommy? Whats wrong with you lol.
All
In the link below Olbermann says Lou Dobbs has to drop his "Racism" but then I guess Olbermann never called anyone a racist.
But our winner, Lou Dobbs of CNN, who has been teetering on the edge of madness for a couple of years now. And last night stopped the teetering part. A critic from the “LA Times,” CNN‘s partner in an upcoming debate, accused CNN of improperly tailoring the first half hour of its YouTube debate last week to reflect Dobbs‘ personal obsession with undocumented immigrants. The latest “Wall Street Journal”/NBC News polls suggests the topic is only the fifth highest priority among American voters at 11 percent. The latest Pew Poll says it‘s only the sixth priority of Republicans. Dobbs thinks it‘s the only one. The critic called CNN corrupt, strong language. But, of course, on this topic, Dobbs is corrupt and hypocritical too, as we‘ll examine in a moment. First though, let‘s play the tape of some of Dobbs‘ detonating, largely because, at this point, I‘m sad to say, my impression of him consists of only three words - I‘m Lou Dobbs.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Imagine that. We offended the little liberal lily. Not only was Rutten apoplectic that presidential candidates would actually have to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. But Rutten‘s tortured mind crushed his own sense of reason and managed to conclude that CNN focused on illegal immigration to create a larger audience for me. Did Rutten notice I was not involved in that debate? The candidates get a little nervous if I‘m in the same building.Rutten, you either don‘t know how to read a survey, a poll, or you have no interest in the facts, or you‘re just another elitist partisan, and that explains why the “L.A. Times” continues to lose readers. You‘re a lousy media critic. We all knew that. But now you‘ve stepped into advocacy and you‘re even worse at that. And you don‘t even have the guts to come on this broadcast and discuss your corrupt reasoning and partisan activism disguised as media criticism. Too bad, we would have loved to have discussed the issues with you. But you‘re not interested in reality or truth. You‘re a media critic, of sorts. (END VIDEO CLIP)OLBERMANN: He sounds passionate about immigration, the way, say, Senator Joe McCarthy was passionate. But actually it‘s hypocritical. As noted in the book “A Sunday Horse” by Vickie Moon, Dobbs has two daughters who have for years been passionately involved in show jumping, the upper class, super expensive, elitist world of horses and hurdles. Show jumping depends on—and Lou Dobbs spends his money indirectly employing—hundreds of the very people he rails against each night. After mentioning the Dobbs‘ family involvement, Vickie Moon writes of the sport, “this melting pot of international equine aficionados does not include the countless number of illegal Spanish speaking immigrants who shovel the forty tons of poop a day.”In other words, weeknights, Lou Dobbs threatens illegal immigrants, and on weekends, he pays them to clean up after his daughters‘ horses. So, Lou, get serious one way or the other. Drop your racism, thinly disguised as warnings and threats about illegal immigrant, or get your daughters and money out of a sport that could not exits without them. Better still, why don‘t you go clean up the 40 tons of poop a day yourself. On TV, you seem pretty good at shoveling it.Lou, do as I say, not as I spend, Dobbs, today‘s Worst Person in the World.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22114615/
Maybe it will come out clearer
But our winner, Lou Dobbs of CNN, who has been teetering on the edge of madness for a couple of years now. And last night stopped the teetering part. A critic from the “LA Times,” CNN‘s partner in an upcoming debate, accused CNN of improperly tailoring the first half hour of its YouTube debate last week to reflect Dobbs‘ personal obsession with undocumented immigrants. The latest “Wall Street Journal”/NBC News polls suggests the topic is only the fifth highest priority among American voters at 11 percent. The latest Pew Poll says it‘s only the sixth priority of Republicans.
Dobbs thinks it‘s the only one. The critic called CNN corrupt, strong language. But, of course, on this topic, Dobbs is corrupt and hypocritical too, as we‘ll examine in a moment. First though, let‘s play the tape of some of Dobbs‘ detonating, largely because, at this point, I‘m sad to say, my impression of him consists of only three words - I‘m Lou Dobbs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Imagine that. We offended the little liberal lily. Not only was Rutten apoplectic that presidential candidates would actually have to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. But Rutten‘s tortured mind crushed his own sense of reason and managed to conclude that CNN focused on illegal immigration to create a larger audience for me. Did Rutten notice I was not involved in that debate? The candidates get a little nervous if I‘m in the same building.
Rutten, you either don‘t know how to read a survey, a poll, or you have no interest in the facts, or you‘re just another elitist partisan, and that explains why the “L.A. Times” continues to lose readers. You‘re a lousy media critic. We all knew that. But now you‘ve stepped into advocacy and you‘re even worse at that.
And you don‘t even have the guts to come on this broadcast and discuss your corrupt reasoning and partisan activism disguised as media criticism. Too bad, we would have loved to have discussed the issues with you. But you‘re not interested in reality or truth. You‘re a media critic, of sorts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: He sounds passionate about immigration, the way, say, Senator Joe McCarthy was passionate. But actually it‘s hypocritical. As noted in the book “A Sunday Horse” by Vickie Moon, Dobbs has two daughters who have for years been passionately involved in show jumping, the upper class, super expensive, elitist world of horses and hurdles. Show jumping depends on—and Lou Dobbs spends his money indirectly employing—hundreds of the very people he rails against each night. After mentioning the Dobbs‘ family involvement, Vickie Moon writes of the sport, “this melting pot of international equine aficionados does not include the countless number of illegal Spanish speaking immigrants who shovel the forty tons of poop a day.”
In other words, weeknights, Lou Dobbs threatens illegal immigrants, and on weekends, he pays them to clean up after his daughters‘ horses. So, Lou, get serious one way or the other. Drop your racism, thinly disguised as warnings and threats about illegal immigrant, or get your daughters and money out of a sport that could not exits without them. Better still, why don‘t you go clean up the 40 tons of poop a day yourself. On TV, you seem pretty good at shoveling it.
Lou, do as I say, not as I spend, Dobbs, today‘s Worst Person in the World.
Congratulations. You just found the quote that I mentioned in my third post in this thread over an hour ago. What's your point?
Tommy claimed that he saw Olbermann call all anti-immigration opponents racists on his show. We're still waiting on proof of that.
Clams, Bob the P sent a quote stating the Olbermann called Lou Dobbs a racist. Is that not good enough for you?
Sue, keep up!
And not so incidentally, it's a little difficult to address your Olbermann "lie" when you provide no quote or context. The only anti-illegal immigration advocate that I've heard called a racist by Olbermann is Lou Dobbs. And no, I would not call that a lie. If you can show me where Olbermann calls opponents of illegal immigration "racists" then please do.
And I also look forward to your explanation as to why O'Reilly's lie about Edwards cancels out Olbermann's truth.
Can't you people read? Tommy claimed that Olbermann called anti-illegal immigration opponents racists. In my third post in this thread I wrote, "The only anti-illegal immigration advocate that I've heard called a racist by Olbermann is Lou Dobbs."
And now Bob hauls out the quote as if it's some sort of gotcha? This is like arguing with 5-year-olds.
So, now you change what I claimed? A five year old would have more integrity.
Tommy, your exact words.
So when Olbermann calls opponents of illegal immigration "racists", that is the truth?
Sorry, considering your endorsement of Olbermann and his past inflammatory rhetoric, he can keep his "truth". I have no respect for either of them.
- - tommy / Tuesday January 8, 2008 02:06:26 PM EST
- - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
And what exactly did Clams change about what you claimed?DB, Clams change is from his original lie when he said that I said "all anti-immigration opponents".....now he changes it back. This is hard to follow, I know, especially keeping up with his duplicitousness.
What did I change?! That exactly what you wrote!
I am talking about changing it now from your earlier post when you lied saying I said "all anti-immigration opponents"......and then saying you slipped up and got it wrong. No, you lied and got caught.
I accidentally dropped "illegal" from one post, while there are a dozen other posts where I clearly wrote "illegal immigration." If you want to pounce all over that in order to distract from your blatant lies and your refusal to even attempt to back them up, then have it.
As for writing, "all illegal immigration opponents," that wasn't a slip up at all. That is exactly how I understood your claim. You've had ample opportunity to explain your previous quotes, and you've repeatedly failed to do so, so that's how I'll continue to understand your claim.
Your accidental slip ups aren't fooling me, you lied and got caught and to try and shore up what little credibility you have left, you lie again......you can't even own up to it. How pathetically small.
Everybody slips up from time to time, but owning it is the test of the true character of a man.
No wonder you can't do it.
So you did mean "all illegal immigration opponents" then? Because I've given you every opportunity to clarify that statement and you've refused every time.
So then what exactly is this "lie" that you keep accusing me of? I write a dozen posts where I clearly write "illegal immigration" and then I accidentally leave the word "illegal" out once? That's the "lie"? Even though I owned up to the error immediately, you're going to continue to call that a lie? If it's a lie, then what exactly is the point of that lie? Why would I repeatedly write "illegal" and then drop it for one post?
Meanwhile, you're actual lies are still festering here without any attempts to back them up at all. Maybe you want to come clean now and admit that you just made up the part about seeing Olbermann call illegal immigration opponents racists (and remember you said that he wasn't just talking about "some people")? And maybe you want to retract that bit about Olbermann "slandering" people? Slander involves lies, and you can't seem to come up with a single example. You should also probably correct that statement you made about Olbermann disseminating suspect information, since you can't actually come up with any specific examples.
Tommy, was the lack of the word "illegal" at all materially important to his post? Did that change his argument at all? Or are you just being petty and distracting?
The only 5 year old is you. You tell us correctly that Olbermann called Dobbs a racist so somehow that means that he somehow never did. Olbermann smears people and you excuse him because he is a progressive. Outright disgusting.
"You tell us correctly that Olbermann called Dobbs a racist so somehow that means that he somehow never did."
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Makes sense to me.
Since you told us beforehand that means we should not have referenced it, it does not count in your mind.
Got it.
Reference it all you want. It still doesn't back up Tommy's claim.
Sue, Clams said that Olbermann's mention of Lou Dobbs as racist wasn't a lie or a smear on all opponents of illegal immigration, because Lou Dobbs is in fact racist, so it wasn't a lie.
Are you honestly going to try to tell me that Lou Dobbs isn't racist? This is Mr. Leprosy we're talking about here!
I, for one, would never claim that Lou Dobbs is not a racist. Certainly his rhetoric is racist and xenophobic, if not also dishonest and at times utterly stupid.
Makes no sense to you because you seem to be blind to smears.
How am I blind to it when I'm the one who brought it up first? Again, in my third post here I acknowledged that Olbermann called Dobbs racist. You can't repeat that back to me and then claim that you've scored a point.
I did not read that you claimed it was a "smear".
Again, what's your point? You call it a smear, and I don't. So what?
So are you saying that Keith calling Dobbs a racist isn't a smear? And a lie?
Dobbs is married to a Mexican-American.
Yeah he's a racist ::eye roll::
I just do not know why it is ok for Keith Olbermann to smear Lou Dobbs and call someone with a diffferent view than he has a racist. What power does Keith have ? Is smearing ok as long as you are a progressive? Have we gotten this low in America?
It's only a "smear" if it's not true. Lou Dobbs has told lies under the guise of journalism, and advocated positions on policies that are inherently racist.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Therefore, it's not smearing if it's true.
To whom he's married is irrelevant. It's just the same as people who claim, "I'm not racist! I have black/asian/hispanic/etc. friends, so how could I be racist?" and yet regularly judge people by the color of their skin and background.
Jeter being married to a Mexican-American doesn't exclude him from taking racist positions are advocating policies that in action are racist. I point to you Strom Thurmond who ran for President as a segregationist and as Senator advocated and pushed for racist policies yet hid from the public all those years his Afro-American daughter. I coulld give you many more examples but you get my point. Go Yankees!
you put in so many words what I was thinking of saying...::applause::
I don't know if Lou Dobbs is racist or not. I do know that his position on illegal immigration, specifically focusing on the southern border while ignoring the northern border, can be seen as a racist position. However, this could also just be a perceived racist position, since 52% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico alone, therefore more attention is naturally paid to the border between Mexico and the U.S. Point being, Lou Dobbs could very well have a racist position, even if he is married to a Mexican-American. Does KO calling him a racist make KO a liar? can anyone prove he's not? I think, therefore, that this whole conversation about who said what is a moot point. Neither side can prove or disprove anything, only make claims.
I think we need to start discussing actual immigration policy, instead of the back and forth of who said what.
I'll start. I believe the huge influx of illegal immigrants is a strain on health-care system, as well as our road ways, social services, and school systems. However, no matter what other people say, those illegal immigrants are taking jobs that no one else will do anymore in America. Therefore, I propose that President Bush's illegal immigration policy is, for the most part, a sensible one. Forcing all the illegal immigrants to leave is logistically impossible, and since we didn't pre-emptively counteract the influx of illegal immigrants, we are forced to bite the bullet and provide those that are already here a chance to become U.S. citizens.
Anyone care to share their thoughts on illegal immigration and how best to stop the hemorrhaging?
Conger,
I think it's a tad of a stretch to compare Lou Dobbs & Strom Thurmond. Dobbs is openly married to a Mexican-American, Thurmond hid his tryst & child.
I would have to figure most folks that have a steady, loving relationship with someone of another race, ethnicity, or faith probably aren't prejudiced, racist or whatever. The exceptions to that are likely the hit & run relationships where one might overlook their own racism for a roll in the hay.
I just find it hard to fathom that Dobbs marriage would have held up had he been a racist. Dobbs's position is against ILLEGAL immigration, not Legal Immigration.
Glad to meet another Yankee fan here :-)
Jeter my grandson was named after him, see how die hard we are. No my point wasn't that LD was like ST but being married to a person of color doesn't mean that there may be some carryovers if you get my drift. Racism is an ideology and creeps up in different ways. LD supports groups and individuals who are racist and quite frankly what he is mouthing seems to me to be opportuniist at best and racist at worst, I'll try to find examples of his speech to support my claim, but he's made them. Hope we get Yohan! But on the surface this fence that is suppose to protect us, how come we aren't building a similiar one on thwe Canidian border? Get Back! Peace!
And Tommy has black friends. (eyeroll)
The fact that Lou Dobbs has a Mexican-American wife doesn't erase every bigoted, racist thing he's ever said. Olbermann told Dobbs to "drop the racism." No, I certainly don't call that a lie, and I don't call it a smear. Dobbs has a long history of making racially suspect statements and associating himself with racially motivated groups and individuals. Telling him to "drop the racism" is in my opinion is not some baseless out-of-left-field smear.
Right Jeter- next you're gonna tell me about a guy who's sexist and married to a woman .
** Bigger eye roll **
Oh Clams Baby, you just lied, twice Sweety. You said I said "all", and I did not say "all" - and I also said specifically illegal, not anti-immigration. That's two lies in one post, tsk tsk.......
Why do you have to lie to make your points? So all your accusations about my lying, well, there it is again - glass houses.
Now just go away, I feel sorry for you.
Tommy this Clams guy is as a deplorable person as OReilly and Olbermann combined.
And I bet Clams buys bargain muffins. For shame!
Bob, Yep.
And if one looks back at the beginning of this entire 200+ thread, all I did was respond to you saying Bill and Keith are two peas in a pod, essentially - just the polar opposites.
Then Clams jumps in as the "truth" defender - yet ironically, proceeds to lie about my initial post regarding Olbermann and his racist charges against illegal immigration opponents, saying I said "all", which I didn't, and saying I said "anti-immigration", leaving out "illegal". Then he gets caught, does not apologize, calls it a slip up, scolds me for not catching his lie earlier and slithers around trying to shore up support, I guess. Now that is not only deliciously rich, but about as hypocritical as he has ever gotten here........and that is saying a lot.
Have a good evening.
If this thread is good for anything, it clearly and definitively reveals you to be an unapologetic liar. And then when caught and cornered, you simply make weak and desperate attempts to turn the tables by baselessly screaming "liar" over and over again, hoping against hope that it will stick.
I very clearly did not lie. And I most definitely did not "scold [you] for not catching [my] lie earlier" (that doesn't even make any sense). And any support the truth has garnered in this thread has not arisen from me "slither[ing] around trying to shore up support." The only hypocrisy committed is your own, and the lies you've told have been called out because they are so blatant, no because of any "slithering" I've supposedly done.
Tommy, now you did say opponents which means more than one. Do you know of anybody else Olbermann called a racist?
Oh come on Snoop, did I say all? No.
I'm just pointing out that you are stretching it a bit too, Tommy. We have one recorded instance of Olbermann calling Dobbs a racist, you said there were more. Now if you care to want to admit you may have embellished when you said opponents then no harm done. If you think there are more than one instance though, you are beholden to show that, right?
Snoopy one is not enough? Imus called the Rutgers girls "hos" one time, I guess in the mind of the Olby fans that is ok since it was one time. Even though we all know Imus used racial overtones numerous times.
hahah well the whole point of Tommy's post was an attempt to compare O'Reilly with Olberman. If the best he has is KO telling Dobbs to 'drop his racism' then thats pretty pathetic. But hey, everyone, congratulations on subverting the discourse yet again - bring on November and then O'reilly will really have something to complain about.
Dobbs is married to a Mexican, so I find it hard to believe he's a racist.
That is the sad thing, the scum like Olbermann never mention that and go ahead and smear him because he has a different political view. This is what is so wrong with America. You disagree with someone so it gives you a free pass to call them a racist, without even knowing how the person is in his personal life.
And you get a free pass to call someone who you disagree with scum?
If you're going to criticize someone for being so judgmental, don't do it yourself.
Not that I'm judging .
Lovely cover. I bet he makes her dress up in a black apron when she does the laundry and dusting.
Sorry, I guess all this conservative "humor" I've been exposed to at MM is rubbing off on me. -:)
Sue, calling someone out for their racism and using racist slurs are NOT the same thing. Stop pretending they are.
Calling someone a racist because Olbermann disagrees with them is wrong and no one here seems to care because Olbermann is the poster child of left wing hate. Sad time for American cable news.
Sue,
That's not true. If Olbermann were throwing out the racist canard like it was candy I'd be happy to stand right beside you throwing stones. But the point is there does not appear to be a pattern of him doing so, unlike Imus where we have multiple taped instances of him engaging in that rhetoric. If you read the wikipedia entry on Dobbs you will find some of the groups he supports (like the minuteman project) and some of the statements he's made (They asked me "if I'd ever eaten a taco before, for God's sake" - response to his meeting with the congressional hispanic caucus) makes one question his sincerity on the issue of illegal immigration. So even if he is married to a hispanic wife doesn't automatically mean he can't be racist. That's like saying Larry Craig can't be gay because he's married to a woman.
I thought diversity of opinion is what made us great. Unless you disagree with it, I guess...
Sueld WTF are you talking about Imus is not even in this discussion , Imus has been documented on numerous occasions to spew filth about women and people of color, theres enough proof on this website alone. Stop trying to obscure the point.
Nice language there skippy.
I would love to see you offer more then accusations and non-answers, but alas one can only dream.
I would love the same from you sweet pea. But I will not hold my breath, instead I get rambling stupidity from you , with an occasional attempt at being smart.
Have a nice day and thanks for joining.
Let just be blunt then, I don't care what you think. You've demonstrated yet again that can barley follow the argument. In your world hysterics and unfound accusations = discussion. I hope you don’t mind if I borrow one of your favorite phrases, but this is America and were all allowed to voice our opinion so deal with it. By the way Sweet pea is so very Tommy.
Snoop,
If you believe Dobbs is the only one who has been on the receiving end of Olbermann's racist charge when it comes to illegal immigration, then fine - I have seen him on his program affix that label to others with the same opinions as Dobbs, I can't name them here and if you want that as proof, then that is certainly up to you. Whether you think I am lying or not is again, up to you.
You and others will have to judge that for themselves. I stand by what I said however.
I am sure BobtheP can email Olbermann Watch and we can get more examples of Olbermanns smearing people with a diffrent view on Immigration than him. We will not get those quotes ever on here.
Sueld I've watched you waffle on other post when called on your views your so wishy washy but gravitate to anyone who seems to make a point showing MMFA hyprocrisy. This is not one of them. KO "smearing" someone because he disagrees with him is not what KO was doing. He pointed out LD's hyprocrisy with the stable reference and the fact that LD's has had on his show(without informing his viewers ) who are "white supremacist" or have ties to them in order to support LD's positions on "illegal immigration." Being married to a Mexican -American women as I have posted earlier does not exclude LD from advocating said policies>what it shows is that he is an opportunist and hyp[rocrite. Dang Clarence Thomas is married to a "white" women but you can't tell me there ain't some self-hatred there!
Tommy, I haven't seen him use that canard against others. I like reading his articles but honestly, I don't get much chance to watch his show because of work. So If he has a pattern of using racist as you believe, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to back it up. It's just like court - the burden of proof is on the accuser. So sorry, I don't expect anyone to take me at my word, and while I like reading your posts I really can't take you at your word either.
I have seen him on his program affix that label to others with the same opinions as Dobbs, I can't name them here and if you want that as proof, then that is certainly up to you.
It doesn't work that way. You made the claim, you back it up. You have repeatedly said you are unable to do so and expect us to do your work for you to corroborate claims you can't defend.
Do your own homework. "I can't tell you where I've seen it" isn't even the beginning of a defense of a pathetic claim. If you had a history of honesty we might even give you the benefit of the doubt occasionally, but you lie and make false claims so often that history dictates we have no choice but to disbelieve you.
You said that when you saw this mysterious episode of Countdown where Olbermann called anti-illegal immigration opponents racists, that he "wasn't implying it in the context of 'some people.'"
Again, what exactly is that supposed to mean? If Olbermann wasn't talking about "some people," then was he talking about all of them?
Dear lord, can you stop lying please? Where did I say it was in one mysterious episode? I said no such thing. I am done with you, your propensity for intentionally lying is getting ridiculous.
Tommy
Clams seems to be in the Olbermann /Oreilly mode today. Repear a lie once and it will be the truth. These people are meant for eachother.
What lie are you even talking about?
Sueeld you are not allowed to ever compare Olbermann to O'Reilly. Have you not learned that allready? Olbermann an smear people all the time and that is ok because he has a fued with OReilly. OReilly is the coverboy of what is wrong with Conservative TV misinformation so as much as Olbermann smears, lies and distorts it is forgiven. Another wonderful example of two faced behavior at its best.
Sueeld you are not allowed to ever compare Olbermann to O'Reilly. Have you not learned that allready?
Sure you are. You're just not allowed to make up falsehoods while you do so. If the wingnuts on this site ever tried to compare KO and BO honestly, they wouldn't have much to post, because they'd have to cull the lies, smears, and ignorance out of their posts, and then they'd be almost non-existent.
Tommy: "He has said so on his program, I have seen it."
So now it's more than one episode. Great, that should make it easier for you to find those quotes.
Dear lord, can you stop lying please?
Stop projecting. Clams is quoting you. You sound like all the wingies screaming that their exact words were taken out of context.
Dear lord, can you stop lying please? Where did I say it was in one mysterious episode? I said no such thing. I am done with you, your propensity for intentionally lying is getting ridiculous.
- tommy / Tuesday January 8, 2008 04:05:56 PM EST
Tommy, you're not fooling anybody. If Olbermann said it, it would have had to have been in an episode. What else? An chapter? A symphony? A novela? He says things on his TV show, which is measured in episodes.
By the same token, you have failed to provide the source of this (or any other) episode where he says opponents (PLURAL--and that was in your original post) were racist, and you say you can't find the source. That makes it mysterious. How are those two words lies?
FURTHERMORE, Tommy, you're obfuscating the REAL POINT of Clams' argument (a classic Tommy technique!). The above is just a description (and a fair one at that) of your sourcing methods. His POINT was that you said that KO "wasn't implying it in the context of 'some people.'" So, if not some, what else could you mean but all? (or, at least a significant majority). ADDRESS HIS POINT. Do not obfuscate.
You're right, I slipped up on "illegal" that post, but I've been quoting you accurately all along. And if you didn't mean "all" anti-illegal immigration opponents, then what did you mean by this?
"He has said so on his program, I have seen it. You don't have to believe me if you don't want too, that's up to you. And he wasn't implying it in the context of "some people". I stand by what I said."
And p.s. we're all still waiting on those quotes that you're going to post that will back all of that up.
No, you didn't slip up at all, you lied and got caught.
address his point you tool!
So Tommy boy when you're slip up in the past it's an honest misake that get erased the second you admit to it, but if C.C. does the same thing he's a liar?
Nice Double Standard.
MHK,
It isn't the slip up at all, it's the fact that Clams lied again instead of taking responsibility for what he said and apologize. No, he said he "slipped up", when in fact he lied and got caught and didn't own it.
You call it a double standard, I call it lack of character.
Oh, this is absolutely ridiculous. What kind of a "lie" is that supposed to be anyway? I write "illegal" a dozen times and then I forget once, and then admit the mistake immediately. How in the world is that a lie, and what would be the point if it was? You are the king of distraction tactics.
So the fact that I didn't catch your lie earlier is your excuse? You have yet to apologize for lying about what I said, for completely misrepresenting it to advance your point....that is the bottom line.
Don't bother now, it's too late and it's not in you with any sincerity. Just keep dancing around it.....and you call your "pathetic victimhood" a catchphrase? HAHA!!, it's dead on.
I'll give you one last opportunity to show how I've misrepresented what you wrote. If you didn't mean "all illegal immigration opponents, then what did you mean when you wrote that Olbermann wasn't just talking about "some people"? If he wasn't just talking about "some people," then he must've been talking about "all" of them, correct?
Grow up. If I had meant all, I would have said all.
Don't act like a child.
So then who? Who did he mean, and if it was more than one program as you claim, then why is it that you still can't come up with a single instance of him calling anyone except Lou Dobbs racist? And why did you specifically point out that when Olbermann made these alleged statements he wasn't just referring to "some people." What people was he referring to then?
Spin this whatever way your want Tommy.
He acknowledge his mistake, stop trying to accuse him of being a liar. You wouldn't want people to apply the same standard to you over parsing words.
Tommy has said in the past that one has to know that what they are saying is untrue in order for it to be a lie. I have no idea how he thinks that standard can possibly apply here.
Great, I am glad you mentioned it I do not see what your point was. Because you mentioned it that means it was ok for Olbermann to label Lou Dobbs a racist? Lou Dobbs has a different view than Olbermann on this issue, that does not mean he is a racist. Calling people a racist is a smear. But I guess Olbermann does not smear people. Olbermann is a terrible human being.
Bob,
Clams lives and dies calling those he doesn't like racists, he's done it to me several times and then bam, his posts get deleted - it happens frequently.
So to him, calling those he disagrees with racists is a valid way to argue, he's got nothing else, so of course he would defend Olbermann to the death for that. Give him a break.
Hey Tommy,
Keith calling Dobbs a racist is silly, Dobbs is married to a Mexican.
So me thinks Keith did in fact lie.
You can tell Clams, I try to avoid all contact with "Pearl" ;-)
J,
And you are very smart to avoid contact with Clams, I can only learn from your sensible restraint, I hope. I need a shower now.
I need a shower now.
Make sure you open your head and wash out the lies as well.
Jeter I'am a die hard Yankee fan but on this I disagree. Just because LD is married to a Mexican does not keep him from taking racist positions. Need I point out to you Strom Thurmond and his positions on race while at the same time hiding the fact that he had a Afro-American daughter for all them years. I could give you other examples but you get my my point. The Texas Rangers (not the BB team) bragged during the late 19th century in this country that they had Mexican blood too...on their boots. Lou Dobbs is an opportunist and the example KO called him on shows he is also a hyprocrite!
Good to know. I married a mexican too, so looks like I can't be a racist either. Hear that AA? ;)
And larry craig isn't gay because he married a woman!
And nobody that marries a woman can possibly be sexist or misogynistic!
It's almost as if Jeter has never heard the phrase "credit to their race", where racists show that they accept some people more than others, as better than others. Of course it's possible to be prejudiced against a general population while accepting, even loving, one specific member of that population.
Oops, sorry Brab, you made my point first, I just put it in up thread.(regarding racism & spouse)
I had a friend in grade school. his dad was a disabled WWII vet, and his mom was Japanese. I only went to his house one time, that's all I'll say.
No problem, you said it well.
It really shouldn't have to be said at all. People should have thought of that on their own instead of scrambling to their buddy Tommy's defense. "Oh no Tommy's dug himself into another hole...now we have to prove that Dobbs isn't a racist in order to help him out...ooh I know!"
Truly sad.
Hey Bob, pay attention. Clams didn't say KO didn't call Lou Dobbs racist, Clams claimed that KO never called opponents of illegal immigration racist. Therefore, your entire post only furthered Clams claim, so thank you for that.
But is Dobbs not a member of the illegal immigration club?
opponents meaning more than one, Sue. further down I've already said I recognized that he called Lou Dobbs racist.
Good for you , calling Lou Dobbs a racist is wrong and is another example of the smearing Olbermann does.
KO quotes Dobbs correctly, and correctly calls his statements racist.
That's nowhere near a smear.
But you knew that before you posted your ignorance.
"So when Olbermann calls opponents of illegal immigration "racists", that is the truth?"
I have no idea what you think you're arguing here. "Racist" is subjective. It is an...
OPINION!
This is your most sacred cow, that anything you say is your opinion and therefore unchallengeable. But when Olbermann expresses his opinion, then somehow you're comfortable discussing whether it's the "truth" or not. How interesting.
For the record, you are being intellectually dishonest, again. When you say "racists", then it sounds like you're talking about opponents of illegal immigration in general. That's the only way it makes sense. If he's talking about two specific people (and in this thread only one has been found), then the circumstances of those two people's comments can either strengthen or weaken Olbermann's conclusion. In other words, if he only says it about a couple of people, and their comments or actions are clearly racist, then you have no point whatsoever. Again, the only way it makes sense is if it's a habit for him to call anyone with that view racist, where obviously many of those people must have been falsely accused.
Otherwise, you're obligated to deal in specific charges against specific people, and to show how they are not racists in order to support your point. That is, if you're interested in being honest about it, of course.
Let me make this real simple. And you can believe it or not, I could care less.
I have seen Olbermann unjustly ascribe racial motives to honest opponents of illegal immigration on his program - in other words, he has accused them of being racists, it's the same thing. If you don't believe me, fine. Or if anyone else believes it or not, that is their business.
You can parse words or blather on about two specific people, or twenty, it makes no difference.
Olbermann is a dishonest hack when it comes to this issue, he blatantly hauls out the race card when discussing it and that is the truth.
Does he call all opponents racists? Well, duh, I have no idea, I have not seen him every night, nor everytime he discusses it.....but I have seen it more than once.
As I said repeatedly, you can believe it or not. Or continue to pine away at Keith and prop him on his pedestal for those of you who gush at his O'Reilly bashings, because apparently he has little else.
That was my point from the beginning, both of these men are partisan spinmeisters, one no better than the other......but you have your dog in the fight so you will defend him to the death, go for it.
"I have seen Olbermann unjustly ascribe racial motives to honest opponents of illegal immigration on his program..."
Then show the unjustness, and make that your argument. Real simple. To make some vague claim doesn't cover that, since nobody else knows the circumstances you're talking about. How can you possibly ask someone else to comment on the validity of specific charges that you're not revealing? See how that's disingenuous?
"You can parse words or blather on about two specific people, or twenty, it makes no difference."
How am I parsing words?
"Olbermann is a dishonest hack when it comes to this issue, he blatantly hauls out the race card when discussing it and that is the truth."
Funny, that sounds like an opinion. And an opinion that you've failed to back up repeatedly at that. Again, how is it that you are comfortable saying that anyone else's opinion is a lie?
"Does he call all opponents racists? Well, duh, I have no idea, I have not seen him every night, nor everytime he discusses it.....but I have seen it more than once."
Again, if it's not general practice, then you should be dealing in specifics. Otherwise nobody knows what the hell you're referring to, and you should know that.
"As I said repeatedly, you can believe it or not. Or continue to pine away at Keith and prop him on his pedestal for those of you who gush at his O'Reilly bashings, because apparently he has little else."
I don't believe it on your word. I believe it if I see examples. I don't watch him, so I don't know how many times he's made that charge. I would advise not to put words in my mouth, since nothing I said made any positive reference to Keith whatsoever.
"That was my point from the beginning, both of these men are partisan spinmeisters, one no better than the other......but you have your dog in the fight so you will defend him to the death, go for it."
I defy you to show how this is any different from when I defend you or Jeter or Bruce from false charges. I'm simply pointing out your double standard and intellectual dishonesty in your criticism. That's the same thing I do for anyone, and you know that by now.
Personally I find it a stretch to say that they are equivalent. Until I see dozens of instances of demonstrable lies on Olbermann's part, he behaves better, and is more honest. If you have a legitimate criticism of him, I have no problem accepting that.
"I have seen Olbermann unjustly ascribe racial motives to honest opponents of illegal immigration on his program - in other words, he has accused them of being racists, it's the same thing."
But you can't provide any examples at all, and you expect everyone to just take your word for it for the sake of your (non) argument.
"You can parse words or blather on about two specific people, or twenty, it makes no difference."
Of course it makes a difference, because you didn't claim that he called just two specific people racists; you claimed that he had done this repeatedly and you stated that he didn't say in the context of just "some people."
"Olbermann is a dishonest hack when it comes to this issue, he blatantly hauls out the race card when discussing it and that is the truth."
And again, you can't come up with any examples, but according to you it's the truth.
"Does he call all opponents racists? Well, duh, I have no idea, I have not seen him every night, nor everytime he discusses it.....but I have seen it more than once."
Do you think that if you keep saying that over and over again that we will forget that you can't come up with a single example to back it up?
So when Olbermann calls opponents of illegal immigration "racists", that is the truth? -TOM-
With just one word... - YES -
Most of my conservative friends in Texas and CalyFornYa are very much racists. I respect the ones who admit it more than ones in denial. Especially racist, are the people in my home state of Texas.
AND... I've traveled our entire country for 4 years and found the same to be true in most states.
So... there's your answer. And that's the way it is on January 8th 2008.
Borrowed that from Walter.
Preach on, brother.
SOLON S...
Hi.. Are you talkin to me?
There is a distinct difference in the two. Olbermann doesn't go around doing the things O'Reilly does. The thing is that O'Reilly does these things and then goes back and spins it to his audience that events such as this only prove his vast importance to the country as a whole. I mean for pet's sakes he actually believes that if a candidate doesn't come his show it will undoubtedly cost them the election. Reasonable people know he ambushes Democrats and lies about being independent. Olbermann is essentially the only one with a national platform to bring his ego mania and hypocrisy to light. I think Olbermann is justified in his attacks.
Woah! I totally agree Chris. Didn't see that coming, right? :P
Not only that, but BillO makes the story ALL ABOUT HIM. He becomes the focus of the story instead of the actual story itself.I'm sorry, but comparing KO to BO is like comparing a knock out to body odor (sorry, I couldn't resist!)
In all seriousness though, Olbermann watch is highly partisan, and subsequently is hardly truthful. Also, they seem to take the most offense to what Olbermann says about Bush, like Bush is still favored by a majority of this country.
The fact of the matter is, in the past 10-12 years we've seen a hard shift in the media to the right, so when someone in the media actually starts to rail against the Bush regime, they must be extreme left-wing and a partisan hack.
Exactly, when some media commentator is so entrenched in their partisanship that any information they disseminate is highly suspect, this includes both O'Reilly and Olbermann. To say one is a total liar, and the other is some truth savior, is naive and ridiculous.....and only trotted out by those with similar slanted partisan views.
Haven't you made a big enough fool of yourself in this thread yet? How can you keep posting even after being called on your blatant lies? Either come up with those alleged quotes to back up your nonsense, or move on. It's like you're actually trying to see how much credibility you can lose in a single thread.
Exhibit A (look above)....
While you're busy compiling the quotes to back up your claims that Olbermann has "slandered" people and that he has called all illegal-immigration opponents racists, you can also show us some specific instances of "highly suspect" information that Olbermann has disseminated.
Don't bother posting again until you come up with those quotes, just to give yourself and everyone else a little time to catch up with all your lies. And that way we'll all know that you're actually looking for those quotes that you seem so positive that you've heard.
As entertaining as it is to watch you troll around screeching at my posts, "you're losing credibility, STOP!!", it's more fun watching you spin your wheels while you just look desperate trying to head off whatever I say.
So keep at it, by all means.......what a tool.
hmmmm someone is a tool on this thread, you got that part right.
Who died & made you Boss of this thread?
Hey everyone, Clams gets to tell us when we can post.
Jeter,
Tommy tells posters not to reply to or read his items on a regular basis when they disagree with him.
Jeter , this Clams guy seems to be the "Worst Person in the World" today.
I'm telling him to back up his claims or shut up. He can't do either.
I'm telling him to back up his claims or shut up. - clams casino
Clams, I was informed a while back that that's a false dichotomy in righty world.
And, Tommy, I'm not a defender for Clams because he needs it, I'm just amused at the lengths you'll go to to hang onto a lame position, and I'm hoping against hope that you might be discouraged from digging yourself a hole this deep very often.
It's funny to a point, but very boring too.
Exactly J, Clams is hauling out all of his defenders now, this always means he is drowning for he needs the backup.
I love his admonitions, and then his "shut ups" to boot. As if..........
Just for the record CC isn't hauling anyone out to defend him. As much as I dislike some of your debate tactics, I've even defended you on occasion when people have attacked you in an unfair way. I feel that applying two different sets of standards to yourself and to CC. Both of you need to stop with accusing the other one of lying. It's gone from there to school yard taunting and it's becoming pointless... KO is a partisan, no one is denying that statement. I think he is more fair then BOR, but I'm willing to hear out your argument if you feel differently. If you feel they are equal then back up your statement with examples, that all you've been asked to do which is no more and no less then what you would expect from any other poster on this website.
"Exactly J, Clams is hauling out all of his defenders now, this always means he is drowning for he needs the backup."
You're delusional. I have neither the power nor the desire to "haul out" any "defenders." The reason that there are other people calling you on your b.s. is because you have so very obviously backed yourself into a corner with lies and phony accusations.
is it hard being wrong all the time tommy? I'm curious.
I am. It's signed "Tommy."
But Tommy, you're assuming that KO is entrenched in partisanship. I'll submit to you that he reports the news as objectively as could be told. That's REPORT the news, not his special comments, or his O'Reilly feud, which are generally opinion pieces.
And let's face it, at least KO has the decency to correct himself when he makes a mistake. We all know that O'Reilly would never do that.
DB,
My point is neither has any moral highground to build a house on when it comes to spin and one-sided reporting. Actually, as I said in another post, when was the last time you saw anyone on Olbermann's program that disagrees with him? On occasion, at least O'Reilly does that.
In any event, I have no respect for either of them because they aren't interested in fair, informative programming - they are invested in destroying one another and pushing their respective points of view.....and that is fine if one wants to sit and watch that.
I watch only for entertainment value with very little afterthought , which is what I doubt would make them feel particularly relevant, more like meh.
My point is
usually hidden by your hat.
Tommy you also mis-characterized me. I said "Olbermann WATCH" not KO himself.
Sorry, my mistake noted and I apologize. I misunderstood your comment, thanks for correcting.
no prob bob
Wait one minute there Tommy. According to the standards you applied to C.C. up above your a lair and misrep his comments.
No appologies or corrections accepted.
They better hope that non-partisan candidate doesn't get elected. Or even win the neighborhood of make believe primary.
Bob the way these two act on a mainstream network is the reason so many Americans get turned off by the news media. I could not agree with you more. I do not agree about Bloomberg though, I urge all Americans to support Obama , I think he is the only one who can bring change and help the partisan gridlock that has destroyed America. Then the likes of OReilly and FOX and Olbermann will change or disappear.
Bill lies and Keith deals in facts, that is a big difference between the two.
KO is correct about BO -- O'Reilly is a blatant liar and a loudmouthed boob. Don't even get me started on how absurd the non-sequitur re 'illegal aliens' is... Man.
"Hey Bill...how's the weather?"
"The illegal aliens are sending all our good weather back home!"
What a jackass.
I am sorry but how could Roger Clemens not beat out Bill O for worst person the the world yesterday?
Why do people get all bent out of shape with steroids in baseball but don't even blink about them in football...?
"Why do people get all bent out of shape with steroids in baseball but don't even blink about them in football...?"
Because football has been doing at least some testing for the past 20 years. Baseball only started testing about two years ago for them.
You know more about sports than me so thank you for clairfying that
It is a good point, I just think steroids are bad for all sports and our youth. I think people are more upset about Baseball because they have been blatant.
Football got tough in part because Lyle Alzado (Broncos, Browns, Raiders) actually died in part because of his overuse of steroids.
I think it's because nobody huge in football has been nailed for steroids. I think if Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, etc etc ever tested positive or admitted theirs and others' widespread use of steroids and/or HGH, things would be different. Who's the biggest name in football steroids right now...isn't it the guy with the Chargers with a ton of sacks? Merriman? He's certainly no Marino.
What's the record for consecutively making the list? BillO has got to be close.
'The only thing sleeping under a bridge is that guy's brain. Ten million illegal alien workers are sending billions of dollars back home, and Edwards is running around saying nobody has any money.' "
I saw this BillO segment and couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The first sentence is just typical conservative denial in action – with the injection of BillO’s usual conservative “humor” to throw the lie off balance in the hopes of making it sound credible. Then the second sentence has NOTHING to do with the problem of neglected VETS. If this isn’t your typical BillO spin – no, not even spin, just outright LIES – then I don’t know what is.
GW better hurry up and bomb Iran already because the latest polls show focus of concern for (even) Republican voters is higher toward jobs and the economy than it is the War in Iraq – so it’s no surprise that the Republican pundits will be turning up the spin to try to put that focus elsewhere.
There are so many things wrong with Republimarica right now, that the Dems could nominate an ameba and be ahead of the game this election.
All you have to do is google "videos of homeless veterans" and you get a list of 125,000 videos and news reports about them. I guess bill is too busy preening to use the google...
No doubt that BO can at times be an imbecile. I flip between his show and KO's every night, and notice that at least BO has guests on his shoe who disagree with him. Does KO ever allow guests on his show who disagree with him? There's never any debate on countdown. It's just guests telling KO that he's correct about something, or vice versa.
maybe so, but when O'Reilly has a guest he disagrees with, its not a debate, its O'Reilly belittling and insulting and shouting down the person across the table. Jeremy Glick anyone?
Well, no surprise there... that's basically the 'modus operandi' of the Right Wing: trot out the ad hominems when you have no valid argument.
It's been demonstrated quite well that the average 'head of lettuce' in teeveeland responds favourably to mindless mockery and personal attacks over intelligent logical discourse. Sad but true.
And anyone should wonder why Obama is dragging his feet to appear on The Factor?
If you ask me every Democratic politician in America should refuse to be interviewed for ANY Faux "News" show. Then you'd REALLY see some crying.
Thomp.Steve can you point out any factual errors on Olbermans show , or do you just disagree with his point of view? Other than his silly celebrity news I find him to be very informed and I agree with him most of the time. While Bilo's lies and misstatements are well documented here and other places as well as on "Countdown." Billo may have people on who disagree with him but he doesn't let them speak and shouts over them, when that doesn''t work he either twists their statements or cuts their mic. I agree KO and Billo are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. But tell me maybe just maybe conservative Republicans have no progressive ideas that can be defended withoout resorting to lies and distortions of the truth. How do you justify "torture" how do you justify illegal "wiretaps" of citizens. how do you justify "homeless Vets"?One side stands for progress and compassion the other a return to the dark ages that is not only the worst person but the worst ideology in the world. Keep up the good work MMFA and KO!
Both BO and KO are partisan hacks and I flip through both for their entertainment value, not by any means expecting any objective reporting. With that in mind I was just commenting on how dull KO can be. He'll prelude a segment saying something to the effect that bush or republicans are bad and stupid. Then he'll have a guest on who will say exactly the same thing, albeit in less flowery language than Keith. I mean, it's just too predictable. I'd like to see him have people on their who actually challenge his opinions.
And for anyone interested in seeing KO call Lou Dobbs a racist, just youtube it. It's on there.
Thomp.Steve Lou Dobs has had people on his show (without informing his viewers) that have been shown to have ties to "white supremacist" or be one themselves. i consider LD's views on illegal immigration to be opportunist and "nativist", KO was not off the mark.
Good point Steve, I have rarely seen anyone on Olbermann's program who challenges or disagrees with him. Why is that? It's because he is so full of himself that his fragile ego can't take a little substantive debate, he just might lose.
Hacks, both of them - as I said, they essentially wash each other out and offer little in the way of anything productive for anyone but their respective rabid fans.
o YAWN tommy, we get it, you think O'Reilly and KO are essentially the same. What is the point of repeating yourself over and over? Especially when you have no proof beyond your own 'because i said so' and what you're saying is demonstrably false. go and make site that is dedicated to proving ko and o'reilly to be the same. this site is about conservative misinformation, including O'Reilly. God, get over it already you're so pathetic.
Tom,
Lets spend 2008 talking about the issues, threads, arguments, philosophies, and opinions rather than issuing insults ok?
cough... err... a little selective in your outrage, perhaps, aa?
AA just doesn't understand why the left won't practice "bipartisonship" and start doing things their way.
All of the "oh, yeah? Well, Olbermann is biased, too!" business is simply a cheap attempt at distraction from the issue at hand in line with the old dictum about attacking the facts, the law, or the opponent.
Just figure this: Even if it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, that doesn't mean the kettle isn't black. Like the saying has it, "If it's the truth, what does it matter who said it?"
As for this "Olbermann doesn't have anyone on who disagrees with him" business, who says that Olbermann takes a stand on the news he reports? Notice: REPORTS. His first and second stories of the night are generally straight laced, with perhaps some minor invective thrown out there, but he gives it to all sides, not just one.
Case in point, he railed against Clinton on last night's program, yet a week ago everyone on here was tripping over themselves about how much he loves Clinton because of his coverage during the Iowa caucuses.
Face it, comparing KO to BillO is apples and boobs.
You wrote:
His first and second stories of the night are generally straight laced, with perhaps some minor invective thrown out there,...
Thanks for the laugh.nice job, I knew someone was going to selectively quote me to prove a point. I just didn't think it would be you AA.
"Lets spend 2008 talking about the issues, threads, arguments, philosophies, and opinions rather than issuing insults ok?"--AnotherAmerican [about an hour ago]
My money was on 43 minutes. Guess I lost.
Oops! I made an error concerning the timing. Who had their money on three minutes?
ouch....zing!
Therick, you just don't get Barney's cutting analysis of the issues.This consists of copying and pasting part of someone's post, then adding a snarky remark(ex: Thanks for the laugh!) with nothing reality based to back it up.Har.
This is one of the most bizarre threads in a while.AA mentioned recently that he should have been a lawyer, with his love of debating. I'm dreaming of a sitcom about AA, Tommy, Sueeld and Bobthep starting a law firm.That would be awesome.
Careful HB, No sitcom writing until the strike is settled.
But I will be on the lookout next fall for
"Mayberry Legal".
I know, I know, I'll get off my roan of rage now.
Judge Perkins: AnotherAmerican, would you like to cross examine the witness?
AA: No, your honor, but for the record I'd just like to say thanks for the laugh.
Tommy: I object!
Judge: You object to a statement from your own defense team?
Tommy: Yes. If you see it differently, then we just disagree.
Sueeld: Your honor, I'd like to call a witness.
Judge: Who?
Sueeld: Mr. Keith Olbermann
Bob the P: I OBJECT DUE TO THIS MAN'S HISTORY OF POINTING OUT RACISM WHERE NONE EXISTS.
Judge: Now you're objecting to another member of your own team!
Tommy: I object!
AA: Thanks for the laugh.
Bob the P: I'm outta here, this is starting to make sense.
[Keith Olbermann takes te stand, and Sueeld begins her cross examination]
Sueeld: I ask you sternly, Mr. Olbermann, are you or are you not, THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD?
Olbermann: NO! BillO is!
Judge: Case dismissed!
Tommy: I object!
I think I just wet myself.
me too. Therick is clearly astride a belly-laugh buckskin.
The horse jokes never get old for you do they?
Why would they? :-)
They get funnier precisely because of the beaten-to-death angle (to me, anyway)
I had to go through this thread again before going to bed.One of the most astounding displays of right wing concrete thinking and willful ignorance ever on display, and it was a team effort.
Clamscasino, next time put a limit on it. Maybe explain something 3 times, assume everybody's had their laughs, and walk away.
On second thought, don't. You might be detoxing them. ;0)
Don't get me wrong I totally love them (horse jokes) Keep them coming.
I have to say I'm very surpised at the length certain people will got to defend him. I'd like to think that most people on this site are fair and will call BS when they see it, but people really seem to pull out all the stops to defend him for some bizzar reason.
This guy is O'crazy? He argues both sides without actually addressing the issue. He is amazing. No wonder Bill is on TV.
Atlanta Lawyer
A Casual Observation From an Independent...
I vote for whoever will best represent We The People. Such as the Republican Governator in CalyFornIA. Arnold (Terminator) Schwarzenegger.
TOMMY has beaten this poor horse to death. Tommy crashed and burned months ago on this thread. Yet... Instead of dowsing those flames, he marches forward in total denial of his failure.
No.. I'm not here to defend CC. I just came here to report the facts.
YOU ARE BETTER THAN THIS TOMMY
Are we to assume, then, that "homeless veterans" do not exist in the parallel universe Fox Noise inhabits?