While reading more and more on Moyers, I scribbled a note on one of the articles I printed out calling that sanctimonious self-proclaimed journalist, “Keith Olbermann with a federal subsidy.”
A few seconds later, I chanced on the transcript of his December 14, 2007 program where that angry anchor was the Democrat’s guest. Then, Olbermann opined:
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom and not merely because it the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as his troops still fight this very evening in Iraq.
Shouldn’t that mean that Olbermann will now be praising men like Rick Santelli, congressional Republicans, conservative talk radio hosts, bloggers like us, editorial pages like those of the Wall Street Journal, all of whom, in dissenting from and disagreeing with government policy, now serve as “the life’s blood of human freedom” in the United States?
Last time I saw his show, however, Olbermann was criticizing such people as obstructionist. Well, offensive as Olbermann is, at least he doesn’t take a government subsidy to support his hypocrisy.
Keith, like Jon Stewart, has replaced JimmieJunkYardDawgCarville as the snapping, yipping, foaming mouthpiece for the Left.
I think it’s high time to put these rabid dogs out of their misery, no? Where are all the creative juices from the Right to pound sand up Keith’s and Jon’s tight holes?
I wish that joint 2007 Limbaugh-FoxNews show had worked and found an audience.
Ummm…Dan?
KO was talking about repubs- like the founder of this blog-who called Americans traitors.
It was a sad time for America when disagreeing with the president meant you were traitor.
Thankfully those days are gone, so disagree all you want and KO might criticize you for it – but probablly not call you a traitor.
Dan misses the target yet again. By a miile.
Hear, my capricious capuchin: KO has no obligaiton to praise ranting lunatics just because they’re ranting. Nor does Santelli’s rabid demagoguery constitute “dissent.” Praise is reserved for those who make sense, who speak from principle. Rick Santelli is a loudmouth media whore rabble rouser whining about things that are in his own best interest.
Also, Moyers does not receive a federal subsidy. You can claim that PBS is taxpayer funded but that does not equate to a subsidy.
You obviously don’t know how public broadcasting works.
I’ve been trying to post here over the past few days, but man, I don’t even know how to respond to some of this stuff. I just don’t see why someone would pretend to be so dense as to suggest in public that Kieth Olbermann should be cheering on the Republican party in their opposition to the Obama administration because of something he said back when all the political details were totally different. Why be so obtuse?
Speaking of consistency, what happened to the idea that there are certain things Americans shouldn’t say about the President or his policies because it undermines our security by giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Certainly you remember who was spinning that little yarn over the past 8 years, don’t you?
Obtuse, Levi, did you read my post? Olbermann called Obama’s opponents obstructionist. And I didn’t say he should cheer on the GOP and other critics of the president but praise them for daring to dissent. That is, if he wants to be consistent with what he has said.
Um, do you even know why conservatives criticized the media for undermining our security? Go back and check what we (and other conservatives) said. It wasn’t their broad criticisms to which we objected, it was their manner . . .
And so far, we’re not dealing with any criticisms of Obama which address national security policies, merely those which address his domestic profligacy. So, Levi, are you saying we shouldn’t say certain things about Obama’s domestic policy?
So, please Levi, familiarize yourself with my arguments before you comment.
And wow, PeeJ, wow, is all I can say. You just prove my points about so many leftists just by opening your mouth, or turning on your computer as the case may be. You reduce all critics of the president’s policies to ranting. To borrow your expression, there have been numerous Obama critics who speak from principle, whose arguments make sense (many of whom I named above). Has Olbermann acknowledged them and praised them? Or as he attacked them with rhetoric which makes Santelli’s seem tame by comparison?
And again, to borrow one of your expressions, the average American who watched Olbemann’s show would conclude that he is just another one of those ranting lunatics.
And, as to the federal subsidy point, do you understand what rhetoric is? And would Moyers have a platform on a network which did not receive money from the federal government? To stay on the air, PBS requires federal subsidies. Moyers’ show airs on PBS. ‘Nuff said?
You obviously don’t know why public broadcasting is called public.
And so, gillie, so dissent is only democracy’s life blood when leveled against Republicans?
So, unless you guys provide examples of Olbermann (or Moyers) for that matter praising Obama’s sensible critics, my point stands. And once again, when you use the language you do, you make help conform what conservatives have been saying about guys like you.
I mean, the average Americans who watch Olbemann’s show would conclude
The average americans seem to be completely out of touch with you Dan. Or something like that.
Gee, PeeJ, do you delight in helping confirm my image of a leftist blogger and troll on conservative sites? 🙂
Looks like you really stirred up the Obama culties, Dan. Maybe the best rebuttal to them are the words of one of the senior members of Dear Leader’s cabinet:
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!†– Hillary Rodham Clinton
But I guess, to Obama’s glassy-eyed cult of worshipers, there’s a different set of rules in play when the president happens to be the Dear Leader of their Cult of Personality. And slobbering media talking heads like Olberdouche and Chris “Tingly-leg” Matthews are the high priests.
Criticizing Obama is kind of like blasphemy, and disagreeing with his policies is heresy. So sayeth the cult.
As for trolling, I just queried some folks about that over at my bloggy home away from home, sincerely questioning whether what I’m doing here is trolling. (Yes, you do know where to find me) In all honesty, I do not believe I’m engaging in trollery. I have that nasty liberal tendency to cite facts, empriical data, resort to logic and and stuff but does that make me a troll? And yes, that’s a purely rhetorical question.
BTW, referring to an earlier comment you made, I do know a thing or two about rhetoric, having been a national forensics titleist a few decades ago and teaching colllege courses in logic and rhetoric. I’m just saying.
What strikes me though, is that my impression is, your immediate response to every comment I make is defensive, antagonistic, and, to me, nothing short of whiny.
From my viewpoint, you’re consistent but it’s a a constancy of persecution complex. Martyr complex. Transferrence. Pot:kettle.
I would very much enjoy a debate about issues, an honest debate relying only upon well accepted rhetorical technique, a debate which eschewed invective and which was free of ideological assertion. One which, in short, relied upon convincing evidence and sound logic to persuade. While I admit to occasionally phrasing some statements purely to poke you with a sharp stick, so to speak, by and large I have endeavored to keep my comments germane, reality based, supportable.
It would be nice if I could expect similar in return. I look forward to your substantial response.
Obtuse, Levi, did you read my post?
Yes, that’s how this works.
Olbermann called Obama’s opponents obstructionist.
I’d call them that, too. Ron Paul is sincere in his opposition. The rest of ’em burned through every ounce of credibility they ever had.
And I didn’t say he should cheer on the GOP and other critics of the president but praise them for daring to dissent. That is, if he wants to be consistent with what he has said.
Here comes the semantics!
Um, do you even know why conservatives criticized the media for undermining our security? Go back and check what we (and other conservatives) said. It wasn’t their broad criticisms to which we objected, it was their manner . . .
Buddy, I don’t need to go back and check anything, I was paying attention the first time. I’m not even sure what you’re saying here — that you were okay with people being against the war, but not with how they said it? Well excuse me. We’ll try to confine it within your speech codes the next time you guys go apeshit and get a bunch of people killed for no reason, at great expense.
And so far, we’re not dealing with any criticisms of Obama which address national security policies, merely those which address his domestic profligacy. So, Levi, are you saying we shouldn’t say certain things about Obama’s domestic policy?
I’m not saying anything of the sort. What I am telling you is that you have no credibility on this front, and it will be impossible for you to get any credibility until you regain control and actually do what you’ve been promising to do for the last 30 years. Why should any of us have to listen to what you say should be done about economic policy when you’ve recently and consistently not even heeded your own advice?
Further, how can these guys already be redeemed in your eyes? The Republicans in charge have been doing nothing if not making the Republicans in the voting booths look like total suckers for years now, doesn’t that make you mad?
So, please Levi, familiarize yourself with my arguments before you comment.
Come off it man. I’m reading your shit, why would I be here otherwise?
#10: “Buddy, I don’t need to go back and check anything, I was paying attention the first time.”
The fu*k you were. GPW, is alluding to very specific breaches of security cavalierly committed by a certain leftist rag (whose stock, incidentally, is now worth less than a copy of the paper’s Sunday edition). You have NO IDEA what he’s referring to (but naturally, you have a strong, idiotic opinion about it anyway).
I have that nasty liberal tendency to cite facts, empriical data, resort to logic and and stuff
Sort of like your calling GPW a capricious capuchin.
Given GPW’s religious status, that means you are saying that Jews are monkeys.
Perhaps you can show us the facts behind that argument. Or you can admit that you said it purely to insult him, which demonstrates your own bad faith and hypocrisy in calling for a “principled argument”.
#12: “I have that nasty liberal tendency to cite facts, empriical data, resort to logic and and stuff”
Well, on this thread, that has been limited to you pointing out the crucial difference between Moyers receiving a federal subsidy and his salary being funded by taxpayer dollars, a distinction utterly inconsequential to the point being made. Impressive.
[citation needed]
The..um, “point” being made is an an assertion, without supporting evidence and explication. Do you not understand the difference between making assertions and making a point? Hint: assertions are cheap and easy – facile, even. I supplied facts which show that Bill Moyer’s salary is NOT funded by taxpayer money. YOU make the same base assertion, without reference to any actual facts. Show your work, son, or get the grade you deserve.
It is a constant struggle to see what is beyond your nose. C’mon, kids, at least try.
Given GPW’s religious status, that means you are saying that Jews are monkeys.
Hmmm. You maanaged to interpret that in an awesomely facile manner. Could it be, could it possibly, conceivably, in any way possible, that I was engaging in a bit of old queer rhetoric? Was it Alfred Bester that introduced that little literary fillip? Hell, I can’t remember any more. I didn’t know Dan was Jewish. Really.
Learn something about traditions, child.
Look at it this way, Sean A; this so-called great debator and rhetoric master is reduced to having to call his opponents names and refer to them as “children”.
As the old saying goes, when that has happened, the one doing it has obviously lost the debate and has nothing left other than to tear down his superiors.
#16: NDT, apparently PeeJ’s intellect and eloquence is so staggering that it was both pedestrian and vulgar for us to challenge him to express a persuasive opinion on this quaint little website. How silly for us to assume this comment thread is a sufficient forum to accommodate PeeJ’s riveting forensic stylings. We have no right to expect a reasoned opinion from the man without first stipulating to strict, internationally-recognized rhetorical guidelines to govern the debate and at least providing him with reasonable access to power point, pie-chart graphics, and a laser pointer. And God knows it would be plain stupid not to have the Nobel Committee on hand to ensure that PeeJ’s remarks are adequately considered for later recognition. Finally, let’s be honest, NDT. We probably don’t have enough intelligence between us to even understand any opinion the elitist douchebag might have expressed anyway. I don’t know about you, but I’ve learned several valuable lessons here tonight.
Help! Please release my comment stuck in the filter!
The fu*k you were. GPW, is alluding to very specific breaches of security cavalierly committed by a certain leftist rag (whose stock, incidentally, is now worth less than a copy of the paper’s Sunday edition). You have NO IDEA what he’s referring to (but naturally, you have a strong, idiotic opinion about it anyway).
Uh, you’ve got to be kidding. There’s nothing even remotely specific about anything GPW has said in this threrad, let alone ‘very specific.’ But to acknowledge your joke of an argument, I’m guessing you’re referring to the New York Times and their stories about CIA black sites and shit? That was hardly the only thing labeled as traitorous by the Republicans during the Bush years, and you know it.
You boys need to work on your collective problem with selective memory. It makes you sound really stupid.
Ok, I call bullshit. Lets see the sources on that Levi. Show us some links of Republicans calling anything besides leaking national security secrets traitorous.
Like what? balancing the budget? The Republican congress is the ONLY congress to have written a balanced budget in the last 30 years, and it was actually only 14 years ago.
I’d also note that Republicans were decreasing the deficit and were on track to have the budget balanced again by 2010… that is before Democrats took over congress in 2006 and blew that out of the water, and long before Obama took over and more than doubled it in just his first month.
AE, you’re forgetting the first rule of liberal posting. “I’m a liberal. Because I’m so much mor enlightened than you, I don’t need to post links.”
PeeJ, I’m still having issues taking you seriously when you argued that we have a right (apparenetly in the penumbras and emmenations of the Constitution) to drive
So Taliban boy in the Cali prison isn’t a traitor? Or what about ‘the American Taliban’ who makes the fun Jihadi videos?
As to Non Al-quida Americans being beyond the pale, lets not forget the NYT (mentioned above) and the stupid comments that lead to damage like Dianne Feinstein’s disclosure of us operations in Pakistan.
There are traitors, some of us actually have the onions to call them such.
If we want to broaden the brush, we can compare Michael Moore, and Billy Zane to Tokyo Rose, with their propeganda films.
Bugger, Filter.
Ok, I call bullshit. Lets see the sources on that Levi. Show us some links of Republicans calling anything besides leaking national security secrets traitorous.
That’s exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about. I presume you’re talking about the secret prisons, aren’t you? Those weren’t being kept secret because of national security, doofus, they were being kept secret because they violated all sorts of American and international laws. This is a case of a reporter exposing government corruption, and you think she’s a traitor. That’s a typical reaction and you know it.
Like what? balancing the budget? The Republican congress is the ONLY congress to have written a balanced budget in the last 30 years, and it was actually only 14 years ago.
Who cares about what you did 14 years ago? 8 years ago you were spending like crackheads, isn’t that more reflective of where the party is at? I’d say so. Ken Griffey Jr. was the best player in baseball 14 years ago, and in recent years he’s been extremely mediocre if he wasn’t totally sidelined with injuries. If you’re a general manager, which information is more relevant to whether or not you’d want to put him on your team? Griffey as he was 14 years ago, or Griffey as he was last season?
I’d also note that Republicans were decreasing the deficit and were on track to have the budget balanced again by 2010… that is before Democrats took over congress in 2006 and blew that out of the water, and long before Obama took over and more than doubled it in just his first month.
Sure, sure. All of the economic crisis is on the Democrats, because they’ve been in control of Congress for the past 2 years. That makes sense.
I wonder, if the Republicans were doing such a good job in the first place, why did you guys go from winning the Presidency and bigger majorities in both Houses in 2004 to getting swept by the Democrats in 2006? If you guys were doing such a good job, why has the American people totally abandoned your party in the past two elections? You know the only Democratic seat you’ve been able to flip in the past 4 years was William Jefferson’s? Why would that be happening if you guys were doing such a great job?
If you guys were doing such a good job, why has the American people totally abandoned your party in the past two elections?
One, given the fact that nearly a majority of the country voted Republican in the last election, that’s hardly “abandonment”.
Two, given that the media lies with impunity about Republicans while covering up scandal after scandal after scandal among Obama Party members helps. Do you think Obama would have been elected had it been revealed that his Cabinet picks and advisors would all be tax cheats — and that he himself fully supports and endorses not paying your taxes?
Those weren’t being kept secret because of national security, doofus, they were being kept secret because they violated all sorts of American and international laws.
Really? How do you reconcile that with your support of this?
Answer: Because it’s not wrong when Obama does it. That’s the only thing you and your fellow leftists believe consistently, Levi. You fully support wiretapping when Obama needs it.
Those weren’t being kept secret because of national security, doofus, they were being kept secret because they violated all sorts of American and international laws.
Really? How do you reconcile that with your support of this?
Answer: Because it’s not wrong when Obama does it. That’s the only thing you and your fellow leftists believe consistently, Levi. You fully support wiretapping when Obama needs it.
No, that’s not how this is playing out. I certainly don’t support Obama’s retention of these idiotic Bush policies, and soon enough, the blood on Bush’s hands will be on Obama’s if he keeps walking down this path. There is also nothing resembling the full-throated support of such policies by conservative media in liberal media.
I’ve been thoroughly disappointed by Obama’s administration so far, and I only expect that it’s going to get worse. Liberals aren’t wrapped up in Obama the way that conservatives were wrapped up in Bush.
I certainly don’t support Obama’s retention of these idiotic Bush policies, and soon enough, the blood on Bush’s hands will be on Obama’s if he keeps walking down this path.
Spin, spin, spin, Obama boy!
If you were consistent, Obama’s adoption of and support of these policies in the first place would be grounds for immediate impeachment. There is no “path to walk down”, there is no excuse whatsoever for this behavior, there is nothing that would justify this at all — at least that’s what you were saying when you were having your aneurysms about Bush doing it.
The more you dance, the more you demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left — and worse, how you were willing to destroy the security of our country and give up all sorts of state secrets that you allow Obama to claim so that you could make political attacks on Bush.
Spin, spin, spin, Obama boy!
If you were consistent, Obama’s adoption of and support of these policies in the first place would be grounds for immediate impeachment. There is no “path to walk downâ€, there is no excuse whatsoever for this behavior, there is nothing that would justify this at all — at least that’s what you were saying when you were having your aneurysms about Bush doing it.
The more you dance, the more you demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left — and worse, how you were willing to destroy the security of our country and give up all sorts of state secrets that you allow Obama to claim so that you could make political attacks on Bush.
If you think I’m going to start making excuses for Obama, I’m not. But it’s unrealistic to expect a new President to undo 8 years of policy in one month and you know it. Don’t you remember the Gorelick Wall?
#28: “But it’s unrealistic to expect a new President to undo 8 years of policy in one month and you know it.”
I disagree, Levi. I think Obama’s done a bang up job tearing down capitalism, contract law, national security, and welfare reform in his first 30 days. At that pace, he should be able to burn down the entire f-ing country by the close of year 2.
If you think I’m going to start making excuses for Obama, I’m not.
Start? Why, Levi, you’re knee-deep in them. You’ve already stated that Obama cannot be held accountable for anything he’s done since he’s only been in office for less than a month. Therefore, his support of torture, his support of wiretapping, his finding that detaining people is perfectly legitimate, his finding that extraordinary rendition is OK, all that is quite all right.
What we’re going to find is that that 30 days will stretch into 60 days, 120 days, a year — all with policies that liberal leftists like yourself said were automatically wrong and should be immediately repealed.
Damn! Now I gotta clean Dr. Pepper off my monitor and out of my nose.
#26: “Liberals aren’t wrapped up in Obama the way that conservatives were wrapped up in Bush.”
You’re right, Levi. Liberals aren’t wrapped up in Obama. They’re actually SHRINK-wrapped up in Obama. Hence, that muffled sound you hear whenever an ACORN operative is speaking.
#28 – “But it’s unrealistic to expect a new President to undo 8 years of policy in one month and you know it. Don’t you remember the Gorelick Wall?”
So you DO admit that it was Clinton who dropped the ball during his administration, which resulted in 9/11 that your ilk constantly reminds us was done under Bush’s watch! No Gorelick wall = no 9/11 attacks.
Maybe you could announce this little factoid to your friends at HuffPo, DailyKos and Moveon.org. But somehow I doubt you will.
Regards,
Peter H.
And back on-topic regarding Keith Olberfrau, he’s back to his old tricks by smearing the governor of Alaska without offering any argument to the contrary:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/02/23/olbermann-attacks-sick-liar-palin-gutting-special-olympics-defends-ob
Between Olbermann and Matthews, MSNBC is becoming the short bus of networks.
Now those are two guys that need to come out of the closet.
Regards,
Peter H.