Why I like Keith Olbermann

tornandfrayed · Post by **tornandfrayed** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:08 pm

He tells it like it is, but he's funny too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32698624

Just trying to show that the street runs both ways...
And it is all hilarious! All the TV clowns are funny...
Just don't think I want to take my life learning cues from them.

Plastered Bastards · Post by **Plastered Bastards** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:05 pm

I liked him waaaaaaaaay better on Sportscenter when he anchored with Dan Patrick.

But cool that you dig him.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:12 pm

I like Keith Olbermann because he always looks like he's smelling a fart.

tornandfrayed · Post by **tornandfrayed** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:17 pm

He is always smelling a fart.

And he does harbor a hidden desire to be a Sportscaster, but...

What makes his opinions or "facts" any less valid then say a right-wing conservative "opinion" show host?

And he is funny.....

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:18 pm

I would, too, if my job was pointing out right-wing stupidity.

With any luck, they'll reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and he, like all the other pissy-pants, will have to give equal time. I SOOOO want that, because it will make politics the most entertaining thing on TV and radio. Imagine the disgust on Hannity's face as Arianna Huffington blathers on for as long as Hannity did, and there's nothing he can do. NOTHING pisses a wingnut off like a level playing-field.

--->JMS

VENTGtr · Post by **VENTGtr** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:27 pm

tornandfrayed wrote: What makes his opinions or "facts" any less valid then say a right-wing conservative "opinion" show host?

Facts.

whitedevilone · Post by **whitedevilone** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:55 pm

Ah yeeesss the Fairness Doctrine.The last hope for boring liberal talk shows with no listeners.If we can't beat them, we'll cut them off at the knees.Wonderful,and not the least bit suprising.The empty can rattles the most.Yea censorship!!If we can't stop the people from listening to what they want and forming their own opinions,we'll have the government force them to stop!!

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:58 pm

I usually watch him when I need a good laugh. But other than the maybe 6 other people who watch his show ..

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:06 pm

whitedevilone wrote:.If we can't beat them, we'll cut them off at the knees.Wonderful,and not the least bit suprising.The empty can rattles the most.

Equal time would be "cutting them off at the knees?" Wonderful, and not the least bit surprising. The squeaky wheel doesn't want the grease, it just wants to squeak, squeak, squeak.

--->JMS

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:07 pm

lonewolf wrote:I like Keith Olbermann because he always looks like he's smelling a fart.

LOL

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:12 pm

songsmith wrote:I would, too, if my job was pointing out right-wing stupidity.
With any luck, they'll reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and he, like all the other pissy-pants, will have to give equal time. I SOOOO want that, because it will make politics the most entertaining thing on TV and radio. Imagine the disgust on Hannity's face as Arianna Huffington blathers on for as long as Hannity did, and there's nothing he can do. NOTHING pisses a wingnut off like a level playing-field. --->JMS

Who is going to watch the blathering liberals? Look at the rating, the shows you hate, all the Fox News shows do about 3 to 4 times more audience than the MSNBC shows on at the same time slot.

Air America went bankrupt in about one year. Rush makes hundreds of millions because people listen to him. NO one listened to liberal Air America.

The free market clearly showed that there is no market for liberal radio going head to head with the conservative radio shows. The free market shows that MSNBC cannot hold a candle to Fox News shows.

Wish as much as you want, the reality is that Rush and Fox News rule and liberal radio and cable TV blow, ratings wise.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:39 pm

As usual, you forget about all the shows that you neo's usually rant about... you know, mainstream TV. Fox News Channel wishes it had Katie Couric's ratings. Saturday Night Live, Family Guy, etc. are entertainment shows that annihilate anything Faux News offers. Compare apples and apples? Check 60 Minutes' ratings against Bill-O.
Radio? Put say, Rocky against WRTA.
The Fairness Doctrine, which to my knowledge was seldom-enforced, was already a law once, and was rescinded in the late 80's. Rush simply could not have had any success before that, because he depends on not having to look at both sides of an issue. He NEEDS to be unanswered, or his bubble will burst. Incidentally, while Rush used to take the occasional carefully-screened opposing caller, he has not taken a single differing viewpoint in over a year. He can't.
At any rate, if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, and all viewpoints were once again welcome, that would render both lib and con media, well, unnecessary. It would be a (drumroll, please) mainstream public forum. Bullies would be bullied. Knuckledraggers would lose interest and go back to WWE. The current fever-pitch of divisiveness would lose a lot of steam because the people who are easily swayed by nonstop partisanship really don't care to sit through someone else's ideas and views, and would simply do what they did before the loss of the Fairness Doctrine and 9/11 factionalized the media: live life.--->JMS

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:03 pm

Katie Couric is the only news show that is above fox news in the particular time slot rating. As for MSNBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, And other CBS ? They are beating them all. Those networks combined can't match Fox News ... Fox has had the number one rated show on tv with the seven, eight, nine and ten o'clock slots for the past couple of years. Heck, even the repeats of O'reilley at 5:00 am beat msnbc lol ..

bassist_25 · Post by **bassist_25** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:27 pm

tornandfrayed wrote:
What makes his opinions or "facts" any less valid then say a right-wing conservative "opinion" show host?

What I've mentioned many times before on here, my dear Dave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It's what drives a lot of pundits' success, and it's what drives a lot of the argumentation of politics on this site.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:30 pm

Two kinds of people watch / listen to the likes of Hannity, Beck, O"Riley and Linebaugh.

1. Stupid people. One's who get NO other information into their lives except from these fools. Their "team spirit" mentality loves to watch the other team get kicked in the face. They are to stupid to recognise the lies intertwined with the twisted truth. These are mostly poorly educated people.

2. The rich. They love it that the uneducated people are getting fooled. They get a good laugh at the same time. And the talking heads are all about keeping the rich rich, somehow fooling the people that the money of the rich will "trickle down"

.

That is the base of the modern Republican Party. They are "lock step" loyal, therefore higher ratings for their entertainment shows than their liberal counterparts.

On the other hand the people who watch the likes of Shultz, Maddow, Olberman, and Matthews in general are more educated, middle class people. Who also watch Fox and listen to Limbaugh. I've talked to many liberals who listen to BOTH sources, but rarely have I talked to a conservative who watches MSNBC.

So, with all of this said, don't think that ratings in any way represent the way the majority of voters will vote. Fax may have 90% viewership of the %100 that will vote Republican. While MSNBC may have 30% viewership of the 100% that will vote Democrat.

RobTheDrummer · Post by **RobTheDrummer** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:30 pm

bassist_25 wrote:
tornandfrayed wrote:
What makes his opinions or "facts" any less valid then say a right-wing conservative "opinion" show host?

What I've mentioned many times before on here, my dear Dave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It's what drives a lot of pundits' success, and it's what drives a lot of the argumentation of politics on this site.

+1

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:13 pm

songsmith wrote:As usual, you forget about all the shows that you neo's usually rant about... you know, mainstream TV. Fox News Channel wishes it had Katie Couric's ratings. Saturday Night Live, Family Guy, etc. are entertainment shows that annihilate anything Faux News offers. Compare apples and apples? Check 60 Minutes' ratings against Bill-O.
Radio? Put say, Rocky against WRTA.
The Fairness Doctrine, which to my knowledge was seldom-enforced, was already a law once, and was rescinded in the late 80's. Rush simply could not have had any success before that, because he depends on not having to look at both sides of an issue. He NEEDS to be unanswered, or his bubble will burst. Incidentally, while Rush used to take the occasional carefully-screened opposing caller, he has not taken a single differing viewpoint in over a year. He can't.
At any rate, if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, and all viewpoints were once again welcome, that would render both lib and con media, well, unnecessary. It would be a (drumroll, please) mainstream public forum. Bullies would be bullied. Knuckledraggers would lose interest and go back to WWE. The current fever-pitch of divisiveness would lose a lot of steam because the people who are easily swayed by nonstop partisanship really don't care to sit through someone else's ideas and views, and would simply do what they did before the loss of the Fairness Doctrine and 9/11 factionalized the media: live life.--->JMS

What a surprise, a socialist against the First Amendment freedom of speech. He wants government regulated speech. Just who is the bully here?

Merge · Post by **Merge** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:37 pm

I'm kind of middle of the road with my politics, but I can't stand Olberman. He's an elitist prick who talks out of his ass. He deserved to get fired from ESPN. Any show he's on, I won't watch.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:31 pm

undercoverjoe wrote:
songsmith wrote:As usual, you forget about all the shows that you neo's usually rant about... you know, mainstream TV. Fox News Channel wishes it had Katie Couric's ratings. Saturday Night Live, Family Guy, etc. are entertainment shows that annihilate anything Faux News offers. Compare apples and apples? Check 60 Minutes' ratings against Bill-O.
Radio? Put say, Rocky against WRTA.
The Fairness Doctrine, which to my knowledge was seldom-enforced, was already a law once, and was rescinded in the late 80's. Rush simply could not have had any success before that, because he depends on not having to look at both sides of an issue. He NEEDS to be unanswered, or his bubble will burst. Incidentally, while Rush used to take the occasional carefully-screened opposing caller, he has not taken a single differing viewpoint in over a year. He can't.
At any rate, if the Fairness Doctrine were reinstated, and all viewpoints were once again welcome, that would render both lib and con media, well, unnecessary. It would be a (drumroll, please) mainstream public forum. Bullies would be bullied. Knuckledraggers would lose interest and go back to WWE. The current fever-pitch of divisiveness would lose a lot of steam because the people who are easily swayed by nonstop partisanship really don't care to sit through someone else's ideas and views, and would simply do what they did before the loss of the Fairness Doctrine and 9/11 factionalized the media: live life.--->JMS
What a surprise, a socialist against the First Amendment freedom of speech. He wants government regulated speech. Just who is the bully here?

Question. If a liberal bought all of the media and it only portrayed his point of view, he would still be entitled to free speech. But would it be fair ?

If a liberal owned a majority would it be fair ?

Or would you prefer a balance between the two.

I remember the conservative cry that the big three networks gave better newscasts to Obama than to McCain. The actual facts were that McCain had more favorable news accounts than Obama, and Obama had more negative accounts than McCain. So don't cry the old lie that all media is liberal. Facts show otherwise.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:35 pm

Hawk wrote:The actual facts were that McCain had more favorable news accounts than Obama, and Obama had more negative accounts than McCain. So don't cry the old lie that all media is liberal. Facts show otherwise.

In what alternate universe did you pull this bit of disinformation out of your ass?

Joe Biden makes mental mistakes about every time he speaks. Zero about it from the major media types at ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN and PBS. Let Sarah Palin utter one thing the libs do not agree about and they go after her kids and grand child.

All of the criminal liberal media that I listed above are balanced by Fox news on the right for TV and Rush types on the radio. They both play their roles to perfection.

Notice both ignored Ron Paul and any third party candidates. Their role is to perpetuate the two party system, and make it the only parties in this country.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:27 am

Hawk wrote:Question. If a liberal bought all of the media and it only portrayed his point of view, he would still be entitled to free speech. But would it be fair ?

No, it would be a monopoly and violate anti-trust laws.

However, if a liberal bought all of the media and it only portrayed his point of view, only a very small fraction of the population would pay any attention to it and then ALL of the media would go bankrupt.

Of course, there would be some smart people waiting in the wings to pick it all up at 10 cents on the dollar and make it profitable again.

tornandfrayed · Post by **tornandfrayed** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:14 am

My political views are mostly focused on my desire to help. I get to help a lot of people out and I guess I don't really talk politics except on here..

Hmmm... Point well made.

Sapo · Post by **Sapo** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:46 am

Hawk wrote:Two kinds of people watch / listen to the likes of Hannity, Beck, O"Riley and Linebaugh.

1. Stupid people. One's who get NO other information into their lives except from these fools. Their "team spirit" mentality loves to watch the other team get kicked in the face. They are to stupid to recognise the lies intertwined with the twisted truth. These are mostly poorly educated people.

2. The rich. They love it that the uneducated people are getting fooled. They get a good laugh at the same time. And the talking heads are all about keeping the rich rich, somehow fooling the people that the money of the rich will "trickle down" .

That's it, just keep on calling names and insulting people. That'll win you lots of arguments.

slink · Post by **slink** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:33 am

Sapo wrote:
Hawk wrote:Two kinds of people watch / listen to the likes of Hannity, Beck, O"Riley and Linebaugh.

1. Stupid people. One's who get NO other information into their lives except from these fools. Their "team spirit" mentality loves to watch the other team get kicked in the face. They are to stupid to recognise the lies intertwined with the twisted truth. These are mostly poorly educated people.

2. The rich. They love it that the uneducated people are getting fooled. They get a good laugh at the same time. And the talking heads are all about keeping the rich rich, somehow fooling the people that the money of the rich will "trickle down" .

That's it, just keep on calling names and insulting people. That'll win you lots of arguments.

I gotta agree with Sapo keep up the good work Bill. Also I never heard of this Linebaugh person (CHEAP SHOT SORRY).

So what would you call a person who listens to or agrees with only the liberal point of view? Using your reasoning would this person be a stupid person also? Also, are you saying only Republicans are rich or are there rich Democrats that love it that the uneducated people are getting fooled?

My favorite on Fox is Charles Krauthammer you should check him out.

I didn't think Olbermann was funny at all, maybe it was just that clip, I'll check his show out.

tornandfrayed · Post by **tornandfrayed** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:22 am

bassist_25 wrote:
tornandfrayed wrote:
What makes his opinions or "facts" any less valid then say a right-wing conservative "opinion" show host?

What I've mentioned many times before on here, my dear Dave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

And I do agree but does this make one or the other more viable or true? Of course not!

And calling anyone stupid based on what they watch is not fair. I only ask that people gather and see several sources. Make your decision based on multiple facts and also your life experience. That is the most that we can ask of people.

rockpage.net

Why I like Keith Olbermann

Why I like Keith Olbermann

he

Re: he

Re: he

Re: he

problem

Re: he