Quote :

"NO CARES IF YOU THINK HE'S AN ASSHOLE"

hmmm.....really??

Quote :

"YOU ARE THE REASON PEOPLE THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID. "

more good ones...you are full of them

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 1:43 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/12/2007 1:42:11 PM

Quote :

"YOU ARE THE REASON PEOPLE THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID."

basing your views of a group of people off one person makes you the stupid one

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 1:43 PM. Reason : quote]

12/12/2007 1:42:53 PM

Well Twista, you're doing the same exact thing so I'm 100% in this thread.

12/12/2007 1:45:18 PM

Quote :

"^^no i dont watch their shows "

that's fine - i don't watch their shows either, no do i watch Olbermann (i don't have cable anyway).
But I simply don't believe you when you try to claim ignorance on the style and methods O'Reilly and Limbaugh use to argue. I've never watched a full episode of the O'Reilly factor either, but that doesn't mean I haven't seen clips, read transcripts, or seen full interviews with or by him.

12/12/2007 1:46:22 PM

Agentillian you are 100% right when you say O'Reilly flips out...Hannity does too...Rush doesnt...Rush talks alot like Olbermann...which annoys the crap out of me too

12/12/2007 1:49:39 PM

Quote :

"WHAT IS HE WRONG ABOUT? NO CARES IF YOU THINK HE'S AN ASSHOLE. HE'S RIGHT. STFU. YOU ARE THE REASON PEOPLE THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID."

Soapbox douchebag post of the year.

Go back to chit chat, IMStoned420

12/12/2007 2:03:17 PM

Not a douchebag. I think my history of posting in here has been, for the most part, pretty tasteful up until this point. But trik really pissed me off with his obvious attempt to derail this thread, which worked. I feel completely validated in calling him out here. Twista too.

Just for the record, I don't think conservatives, as a whole, are stupid. I think there are lots of stupid conservatives, the same way there are lots of stupid liberals. If I had it my way, we would do away with those labels because they have just become a way to attack someone's character and not their ideas. I have smart, intelligent friends who come from the right and the left and I try my best to judge a way of thinking based on it's merit and not where it comes from. With that said, I think trik is the biggest toolbag I've ever seen post in here. And that's judging him completely based on what I've seen in this thread.

12/12/2007 2:14:47 PM

Prawn Star is just trolling himself, don't mind him.

12/12/2007 2:17:20 PM

^^The thread is about the messenger little guy...

im just staying on topic...

Quote :

"I feel completely validated in calling him out here. Twista too. "

well good work kid...im glad you feel good about yourself

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/12/2007 2:22:10 PM

This thread was never about the messenger until you tried to make it into that.

12/12/2007 2:28:14 PM

The thread was obviously centered around what was said in the video and you neglected on at least half a dozen occasions when asked, to comment on anything that was said in that video. So, I will ask you one more time. What exactly in the video was Olbermann wrong about? Please phrase your answer in the form of a video commentary.

12/12/2007 2:29:01 PM

what was this thread about? another thread to bash bush?

12/12/2007 2:29:41 PM

the title of the thread is "Kieth Olbermann pwns so much"

and then everything that God wrote was about how much a badass Olbermann is...soo.....like i said...stay on topic

12/12/2007 2:32:09 PM

Quote :

"The thread was obviously centered around what was said in the video and you neglected on at least half a dozen occasions when asked, to comment on anything that was said in that video. So, I will ask you one more time. What exactly in the video was Olbermann wrong about? Please phrase your answer in the form of a video commentary."

Quote :

"the title of the thread is "Kieth Olbermann pwns so much" and then everything that God wrote was about how much a badass Olbermann is...soo.....like i said...stay on topic"

I absolutely love how badly you're losing this thread. Kinda makes it even better that your main ally here is TreeTwista.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2007 2:33:36 PM

haha...do you really??

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 2:36 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/12/2007 2:36:35 PM

btw IMStoned420

Quote :

"Well Twista, you're doing the same exact thing so I'm 100% in this thread."

thats 100% false

i'm not doing anything to paint an entire group of people based off one individual...you seem to be the only one doing that...don't blame your own incompetence on me

12/12/2007 2:36:45 PM

what is there to say about the video

i have said that olbermann is a hate spewing left wing idiot...and the CONTENT of the video is nothing more than the thread titles from democratic underground...and i hate how he turned that into something that he thinks makes him impressive...

hows that kiddo??

Quote :

"I absolutely love how badly you're losing this thread. Kinda makes it even better that your main ally here is TreeTwista."

and i like this reverse psychology right here...i like it alot...what are you 12 years old??

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 2:39 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/12/2007 2:38:56 PM

^^

Quote :

"Just for the record, I don't think conservatives, as a whole, are stupid. I think there are lots of stupid conservatives, the same way there are lots of stupid liberals. If I had it my way, we would do away with those labels because they have just become a way to attack someone's character and not their ideas. I have smart, intelligent friends who come from the right and the left and I try my best to judge a way of thinking based on it's merit and not where it comes from. With that said, I think trik is the biggest toolbag I've ever seen post in here. And that's judging him completely based on what I've seen in this thread."

I was referring to the fact that neither one of you has enlightened me as to what Olbermann is wrong about. Obviously I'm much too simple minded to figure this fact out for myself and it makes me feel oh so terribly stupid at not being able to realize it. I was merely asking you, in your infinite wisdom, to disclose that information upon so that I may bask in the light that is true competence.

But you won't do that, so I called yall names.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 2:40 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2007 2:39:29 PM

hahah, once again, you didn't provide anything at all.

12/12/2007 2:39:49 PM

Quote :

"neither one of you has enlightened me as to what Olbermann is wrong about"

couldnt if we tried

12/12/2007 2:40:25 PM

So you admit that he's correct in nearly every assertion he puts forth?

12/12/2007 2:41:55 PM

IMStoned420...^^^^right there where you said you dont think conservatives, liberals, etc as a group are stupid...that wasnt your original position...that was your followup...that was your retort...you had already said people like trik make conservatives look stupid...then i called you out for basing your views on a group based on your opinion of one person...you then said thats what I've been doing, when you were clearly just lying your ass off since I had not done that at all...seems all you're doing in this thread is pitching a fit any time someone criticizes Olbermann

12/12/2007 2:42:18 PM

^^seriously...if you are so high ...why are you such a pissed of liberal?

Where did I say "nearly"??

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 2:45 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/12/2007 2:44:35 PM

^^

Quote :

"YOU ARE THE REASON PEOPLE THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE STUPID."

Absolutely nowhere in that quote is there any place where it explicitly states that I thought conservatives are stupid, nor was it ever my intention. It has clearly been pointed out numerous times here, that there seems to be a general consensus among many individuals that conservatives are labeled as stupider than liberals. I was merely pointing out the reason behind this as an example was clearly being displayed. This was all in an attempt to raise the intelligence level of this thread from name-calling Olbermann in order to discredit his thoughts and words. I never said, nor have I ever said that I think conservatives, as a group of people are stupid. That would be an incredibly ignorant thing to believe.

But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Quote :

"seriously...if you are so high ...why are you such a pissed of liberal?"

I'm not even going to respond to that.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 2:48 PM. Reason : ]

12/12/2007 2:47:08 PM

thanks for putting words in your mouth? kind of like this?

Quote :

"So you admit that he's correct in nearly every assertion he puts forth?"

also you didnt address where you blatantly lied about me "doing the exact same thing" when i have done no such thing

Quote :

"I'm not even going to respond to that."

thats a reponse

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2007 2:48:10 PM

Quote :

"thanks for putting words in your mouth? kind of like this?"

So asking a question is putting words in someone's mouth? Funny, because I thought it was a chance for someone to express their own thoughts and ideas.

Quote :

"also you didnt address where you blatantly lied about me "doing the exact same thing" when i have done no such thing"

Neither one of you has chosen to respond to my question about what Olbermann has incorrectly stated. That's what I was talking about.

12/12/2007 2:51:54 PM

Quote :

"So asking a question is putting words in someone's mouth?"

when its a blatant strawman ad hom, YES

Quote :

"Neither one of you has chosen to respond to my question about what Olbermann has incorrectly stated. That's what I was talking about."

well everyone was talking about this since your post was immediately after

Quote :

"basing your views of a group of people off one person makes you the stupid one"

i'd tell you to put down the bong and try and gather your thoughts, but if you had been hitting the bong i doubt you'd be pitching such a hissy fit about...i dont even know what about...about anyone daring to criticize the great Keith Olberman

12/12/2007 2:53:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm not even going to respond to that. "

i know...its absurd...there is no way you should be that pissed off

12/12/2007 2:54:42 PM

restart:

So that Keith Olbermann sure is right about everything he said in that video. Anyone care to refute him?

12/12/2007 2:56:40 PM

thank you for the restart

for the time being, i would not care to refute this particular video as i havent yet watched it

however in general, when i have seen olbermann, whether it be on sportscenter 10 years ago, or football night in america 10 days ago, he comes across as well spoken however he seems to be just as "sensationalist" as most other people on TV whose jobs depend on ratings...in that particular sense, I dont see a huge issue in the way that Olbermann, O'Reilly, etc do their jobs...this is based on my own limited knowledge of these two men specifically...aside from their obviously differing politics, I think they are both pushing buttons in similar ways for ratings...hence my initial surprise that people thought Olbermann was far and away a much more classier TV host

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2007 2:57:32 PM

Well then why are you posting in this thread? Are you trying to derail the topic into a page and a half of name-calling or something?

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : My response is still applicable even after your edit.]

12/12/2007 2:58:57 PM

^SIGH

Look man...everything that he said is straigh liberal drivel in my opinion. You are not going to be convinced otherwise and neither am I...I dont see any point in taking what he said point by point...i dont have the time or energy and you arent worth either anyway...

the thread was originally about the "messenger"..so thats what I was talking about

keep trying kid

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 3:04 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/12/2007 3:02:53 PM

not even worth it

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/12/2007 3:04:22 PM

^hahahaha...good point

no it was worth it...

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/12/2007 3:05:00 PM

restart :

Would anyone care to disprove what Olbermann sensationalistically claims in his reasoned, well-thought out commentary?

12/12/2007 3:06:26 PM

no..i would not care to

i dont need to

12/12/2007 3:07:14 PM

Then you are in the wrong section.

12/12/2007 3:10:16 PM

ohhhh..no...you are

12/12/2007 3:13:07 PM

Chance why the hell are you posting in here? All of your posts have either been about trik or Prawn Star...this thread is about Keith Olbermann...not trik and Prawn Star...so wtf are you doing here???

12/12/2007 3:14:02 PM

restart :

Would anyone care to disprove what Olbermann sensationalistically claims in his reasoned, well-thought out commentary?

12/12/2007 3:15:09 PM

Where is this reasoned, well-thought out commentary that you speak of?

50% of it is lame ad-hominems and false analogies (honestly, how the fuck do you compare Bush to Grover Cleveland?), and the other 50% is the kind of smug, self-righteous indignation that Olbermann is famous for.

Damn, I hate defending Bush, but Olbermann is a hack.

12/13/2007 12:51:46 AM

Quote :

"Olbermann speaks for the majority of Americans."

Scuba Steve

Do you have anything to substantiate this?

12/13/2007 1:01:47 AM

Quote :

"50% of it is lame ad-hominems and false analogies "

Which 50%?

12/13/2007 1:05:45 AM

Quote :

"do you honestly think ~150,000,000 people want Bush impeached?"

hell no! more like 6.6 billion people do.

Its threads like this that bring out the terrorists aka bush supporters.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 1:09 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2007 1:08:52 AM

^^ wait

So Olbermann is the one full of a self righteous indignation and you're defending Bush. That's hilarious.

this should go in the best quotes thread

12/13/2007 1:11:36 AM

I bolded the obvious ad hominems and false analogies

Quote :

"Finally, as promised, a Special Comment about the President's cataclysmic deception about Iran. --- There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr.. Bush has left us with tonight. We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole -- or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked -- at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so -- whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible. A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency: an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself. After Ms Perino's announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear. In August the President was told by his hand-picked Major Domo of intelligence Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what "everybody thought" about Iran might be, in essence, crap. Yet on October 17th the President said of Iran and its president Ahmadinejad: "I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War Three, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon." And as he said that, Mr.. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians. Or was it, Sir, to scare the Americans? Does Iran not really fit into the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used, to scare us about Iraq? In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, Sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility. A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president, shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience. Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bush. The Chicken Little of presidents is the one, Sir, that you see in the mirror. And the mind reels at the thought of a Vice President fully briefed on the revised Intel as long as two weeks ago -- briefed on the fact that Iran abandoned its pursuit of this imminent threat four years ago -- who never bothered to mention it to his boss. It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan's presidency it was widely believed that he was little more than a front-man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes, string-puller. Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historic malfeasance, it is inescapable, that Dick Cheney is either this president's evil ventriloquist, or he thinks he is. What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and gravity, and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a Congressional investigation -- or a criminal one? Mr. Bush -- if you can still hear us -- if you did not previously agree to this scenario in which Dick Cheney is the actual detective and you're Remington Steele -- you must disenthrall yourself: Mr. Cheney has usurped your constitutional powers, cut you out of the information loop, and led you down the path to an unprecedented presidency in which the facts are optional, the Intel is valued less than the hunch, and the assistant runs the store. The problem is, Sir, your assistant is robbing you -- and your country -- blind. Not merely in monetary terms, Mr.. Bush, but more importantly of the traditions and righteousness for which we have stood, at great risk, for centuries: Honesty, Law, Moral Force. Mr.. Cheney has helped, Sir, to make your Administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860's and 1870's and 1880's -- the ones that abandoned Reconstruction, and sent this country marching backwards into the pit of American Apartheid. Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland... Presidents who will be remembered only in a blur of failure, Mr.. Bush. Presidents who will be remembered only as functions of those who opposed them -- the opponents whom history proved right. Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland... Bush. Would that we could let this President off the hook by seeing him only as marionette or moron. But a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian, snake-oil salesman. The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post's website. It is staggering. March 31st: "Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon..." June 5th: Iran's "pursuit of nuclear weapons..." June 19th: "consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon..." July 12th: "the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons..." August 6th: "this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon..." Notice a pattern? Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon. Then, sometime between August 6th and August 9th, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the President, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror -- but there may not even be a tree there... McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then. August 9th: "They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program..." August 28th: "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons..." October 4th: "you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon..." October 17th: "until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the **capacity**, the **knowledge**, in order to make a nuclear weapon." Before August 9th, it's: Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon. After August 9th, it's: Desire, pursuit, want...knowledge technology know-how to enrich uranium. And we are to believe, Mr.. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003... And you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on October 17th... And that's just a coincidence? --- And we are to believe, Mr.. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week? Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be legally true -- something like "what the definition of is is -- but with the subject matter being not interns but the threat of nuclear war. Legally, it might save you from some war crimes trial... but ethically, it is a lie. It is indefensible. You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up. You, Mr.. Bush, are a bald-faced liar. -- And more over, you have just revealed that John Bolton, and Norman Podhoretz, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial board, are also bald-faced liars. We are to believe that the Intel Community, or maybe the State Department, cooked the raw intelligence about Iran, falsely diminished the Iranian nuclear threat, to make you look bad? And you proceeded to let them make you look bad? --- You not only knew all of this about Iran, in early August... But you also knew... it was... accurate. And instead of sharing this good news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent... You merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people, to legally cover your own backside... While you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of -- as you phrased it on August 28th: a quote "nuclear holocaust" -- and, as you phrased it on October 17th, quote: "World War Three." --- My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase "George Bush has no business being president." Well, guess what? Tonight: hanged by your own words... convicted by your own deliberate lies... You, sir, have no business... being president."

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 1:19 AM. Reason : 2]

12/13/2007 1:17:01 AM

k,

argue against the non-bolded terms



this is like pulling teeth.

12/13/2007 1:19:20 AM

His words are much less harsh than Bush's actions. If you want me to come out against a strongly worded statement against a tyrannical and incompetent president, you might as well just got to bed cause it isn't going to happen.

12/13/2007 1:21:37 AM

Why bother?

Without all the name-calling and indignation, there isn't much substance to Olbermann's latest rant.

Bush has been playing up the threat of Iran, despite being briefed in August that they may have dismantled their nuclear weapons program back in August. Is that news? Is that shocking?

Olbermann is a master of the melodrama.

12/13/2007 1:23:58 AM

So you don't think they're threats towards Iran since August, despite the intelligence they had, was in any way uncalled for?

12/13/2007 1:28:20 AM