funny how olberman rips perry for the 16th century reference but then olberman says the founding fathers advice was 500 years ago "or whatever it was"

I think, suprisingly, Olberman was the funniest in this clip.

>> ^bookface:

Agreed. Also, Keith Olberman isn't funny. Maher had Louis CK sitting right behind him and he does this? Welcome back, I guess.
>> ^westy:
this is just embarrassing to watch.
not funny , not productive , not well thought out.



That's what ruined this for me...Louis CK ruins everything here just by not getting up and walking out.

Agreed. Also, Keith Olberman isn't funny. Maher had Louis CK sitting right behind him and he does this? Welcome back, I guess.

>> ^westy:

this is just embarrassing to watch.
not funny , not productive , not well thought out.

Glad to see Keith Olberman found work.

Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative.

This kind of opinion can only be aimed at the FOX commentary side of the equation such as Beck, Hannity, et al. It does not apply to the "news" side. Most cable news programs have a distinct division between "News" (updates of current events) and "Commentary" (talking head opinion programs). I have seen nothing in FOX News' "news" that in any way is described by your litany of grievances. The only stuff that fits your description is the "commentary" side.

But talking about OPINION programs as "dishonesty, distortion, denial, undercutting reality", belies the nature of what you are implying. You are implying their NEWS lies, distorts, denies - when in reality you are grumping at COMMENTARY that (based on your bias) you interpret as lies, distorts, and denies. Must you not freely acknowledge that MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP, USA Today, and innumerable other news outlets are equal violators in that regard? How is the foaming commentary of Chris Matthews any better than Sean Hannity? How are the inane distortions and exaggerations of Beck any different than Maddow's?

FOX didn't start the birther movement. That started because Obama first refused to release his birth certificate, and then Hawaii refused to release it, and then they released a digitized copy, and finally released a document that does not necessarily rule out the possibility of being foreign born. FOX News didn't do all that. And the whole East Anglia corruption scandal is not FOX News' fault. Again, I only see this as you complaining that an critical voice is applying some strict standards of accountability to an organization that your personal bias prefers being given a free pass to lie. It isn't dishonesty - it is a rare application of journalistic standars to an otherwise unaccountable group caught red-handed cooking their books.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts

Bullcrap. Madddow & Olbermann prove they are only interested in left-leaning slant every time they open their mouths and flap their yaps. Someone with a right-leaning slant will say the exact thing about Beck or Hannity and you cannot argue the point because they are using your same logic. They can say that Beck 'cares about facts' too - as long as they reinforce his position. Maddow cares about facts - if they make her opinions look good. Neither of them tell the whole story, and both of them deliberately hide facts that contradict their narratives.

What you claim is 'craziness' is merely your own mental unhappiness over the existence of a dissenting perspective in a cable news universe that is otherwise homogenously oriented towards slavishly mirroring your own personal bias. Quite literally, FOX is a fly in your ideological ointment and its existence irks you. Rather than seek to dismiss it, you should welcome it as a much needed counterbalance to a milquetoast news industry that all too often does nothing but circle-jerk around a single opinion.


Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative. This isnt about right or left "perspectives" but about basic journalistic integrity, and basic respect for the truth. We see it again and again, FOX spews out some insinuating shit, and then gets debunked by other networks, but instead of acknowldging their mistakes and take steps to correct them, they keep up their lies.

FOX , for example, started the birther movement, the "Obama is a muslim" movement, and the tea party(based on the fictional idea that the original tea-party opposed taxes. They didnt, they opposed taxes to a foreign country). In addition, they keep fuelling lies about global warming ie: "climategate" consisting of a few misunderstood emails between scientists. This isnt journalism, this isnt "opposing views" this is dishonesty. and if it happened once or twice, you could blame sloppiness or mistakes, or maybe a biased reporter or two, but with FOX it is symptomatic and systematic.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts, they actually try to put things in its proper contexts and strive for honesty.

I would have agreed with you voodoo if it weren't for what I learned after Keith Olberman left MSNBC. Apparently these guys have a lot more say over what they talk about over the air than it would seem.

And as far as Fox getting rid of Glenn Beck, why would they? Fox news is all about the stupid crap Glenn Beck puts out. Glenn Beck IS Fox News.

I did a google search and did see the kill Bush protest signs. Mea Culpa

But I still don't know of an instance where an elected federal official let an assassination threat go so lightly. Over-the-Top Olberman doesn't count, for the reasons you stated.

Treason against a president you don't like is simply not a mainstream sentiment in the democratic party. You will sooner find a democrat getting teabagged by a republican than you will find one advocating for the murder of a republican.

I think the thing I'll miss the most about Olberman is his uncanny ability to relentlessly call people out and do it very articulately. Sure he had the mocking corny voice over too, but he was one of the few commentators who seemed to refuse to dumb down his language.

I have no idea if Loughner saw Palin's crosshairs, or heard any other politician, pundit, blogger, or private citizens "violent imagery". I am also very hesitant to write off his actions, which he should be held responsible for whether he was insane or not, as simply being the result of him being "crazy".

That being said, I think that this is a good time to consider that there may be people out there that take what we say to heart, even if they misinterpret what it was that we exactly meant. Bill Clinton's statement, and Olberman's expansion upon it here, are quite valid. I think that there is honor in striving to achieve a higher standard, where the objections that we pose towards those that don't share our opinions are as objective as possible, as well as in being willing to stand and accept responsibility for when we fall short of those higher standards.

There is no doubt that both sides have used such points in the past, for many years the comments regarding fighting a war/battle and fighting a campaign have been somewhat interchangable, but there is also no doubt (and Palin is just the most recent/glaring of the lot) that the Right has been the primary source of it. The left has dabbled in it but the right has always glorified its use of guns and targeting opponents and use of violence related speech to wind up its base even if they don't actually condone the use of such in reality. THIS is what the problem is. That these people (even the lefties) need to take a hard look at what they are saying and consider the repercussions.

Should everyone who has ever said "We will defeat them!" or whatever get all PC and worry now? No, absolutely not. But when people like Bachman start talking about a revolution and 2nd amendment repairs to the country etc, something needs to be done. People are emotional, and anyone saying this kind of thing either needs to be dead serious about a genuine revolution or shut their freaking mouths.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It is too soon to try and point political fingers here. Really. We are getting conflicting data about the lunatic. There are a lot of people trying to say he was influenced by 'right wing rhetoric', and are using the most tenuous, distant links to justify it. On the other hand, his high-school associate said he was a 'leftie', and his favorite books are Mein Kamph and the Communist Manifesto (hardly right wing material).
Is "radical rhetoric" to blame? Who can say at this point in time. However, I find it very interesting that all the hand-wringing navel gazing about 'rhetoric' is only coming from the perspective of 'right wing rhetoric' while completely ignoring all the poisonous left wing rhetoric out there. President Obama himself said, "If they bring a knife - we bring a gun". How is it any less valid to blame OBAMA then for this guy's actions, than a stupid map with targets on it? Olberman, Maddow, Bahar, and a host of left wing folks routinely engage in "radical rhetoric" at least as vitriolic as anything the right does. Where is the condemnation?
I see this as a rather disgusting and blatant attempt to create a one-sided media story that blames only half of the players in the rhetoric game for the actions of a guy who was probably not directly influenced by either side. Compounding the evil of murder with the evil of propoganda. Pathetic - and those who play along with it are just as pathetic.

It is too soon to try and point political fingers here. Really. We are getting conflicting data about the lunatic. There are a lot of people trying to say he was influenced by 'right wing rhetoric', and are using the most tenuous, distant links to justify it. On the other hand, his high-school associate said he was a 'leftie', and his favorite books are Mein Kamph and the Communist Manifesto (hardly right wing material).

Is "radical rhetoric" to blame? Who can say at this point in time. However, I find it very interesting that all the hand-wringing navel gazing about 'rhetoric' is only coming from the perspective of 'right wing rhetoric' while completely ignoring all the poisonous left wing rhetoric out there. President Obama himself said, "If they bring a knife - we bring a gun". How is it any less valid to blame OBAMA then for this guy's actions, than a stupid map with targets on it? Olberman, Maddow, Bahar, and a host of left wing folks routinely engage in "radical rhetoric" at least as vitriolic as anything the right does. Where is the condemnation?

I see this as a rather disgusting and blatant attempt to create a one-sided media story that blames only half of the players in the rhetoric game for the actions of a guy who was probably not directly influenced by either side. Compounding the evil of murder with the evil of propoganda. Pathetic - and those who play along with it are just as pathetic.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gleen, beck, olberman, foley, snl, kith, kids, hall, ivan chovsky' to 'glenn, beck, olberman, foley, snl, kith, kids, hall, ivan chovsky' - edited by Sagemind

Olberman / MSNBC and all it Leftest GE ilk controlled media outlets are so misleading. Go drink the Kool aid. Thank God there are clear thinking accurate fair and balanced news and commentary on FOX.

This is the kind of misleading "news" that fools the un intelligent and let them think they are correct.

The placing of the mosque anywhere near this area is an insult to America.


Hey nerunner do you even know what America is?