First Olbermann goes after Rumsfeld, now he nails Fredo

Sock,

Stick a sockpuppet in it, will you please?

 

Not. At. All.

It's only fair that I repeat tired arguments on every political thread. Why should I be left out?

 

Lyman --
Well, part of the reason for your assumption, of course, is that it is the right-wing, largely, that bangs the drum of media bias. Liberal venom is reserved largely for Fox News and talk radio, both of which are largely worthy of it.

Are you asking if I think the left beats some tropes about certain pundits to death? Of course.

Pat Buchanan's past is brought up nearly as much as Ted Kennedy's, which is doubly wrong since he's so easy to hammer on his nutty positions of the present. Of course, his near-constant flirting with outright anti-semitism brings a lot of this on, as well.

That's one, at least.

Still, I can't help but feel like this is a diversion. Do you think Olbermann and O'Reilly equate in their content, or merely in attitude? Because at the very least, Olbermann is trying to make valid points about the way people are being talked to by their government, even if you don't agree with what he's saying.

O'Reilly, on the other hand, says things like "Why does the ACLU want Americans to die?"

And, as Fenian so correctly points out, Olbermann surely has more credibility from a much shorter public record of howlingly obvious and self-aggrandizing lies.

I, like Pope, liked the first half of Olbermann's shot at Rumsfeld before he got to the Nazi stuff, though that section was more fleeting than some on here would like to think. But that still doesn't mean he equates with O'Reilly, who has never done a segment I have seen that has even had a chance of making any American think differently. War on Christmas? Boycott France? Don't those topics seem silly compared to what Olbermann is tackling here? (And yes, I know Olbermann does silly things, too. But he does them to be silly. That's a huge difference.)

 

Or, and this is gonna come as quite a shock, these threads are started for the same reasons every other thread on this site is started -- somebody found something interesting/funny/sick/perverted/naked and they want to share with everyone else.

I'm willing to bet that not a soul here has ever thought, "The guys at SportsJournalists.com will love me if I post this. And maybe we'll get make fun of pallister and lyman, too. Oh, happy days."

Grow up.

Your favorite political party has managed to compile a roster of shady individuals that is damn near unchallenged by any other group in the history of the two-party system. Tough to blame us for pointing that out.

 

Dog,

You are an idiot.

 

Zeke,

Here is where O'Reilly and Olbermann converge: they have a tendency to be caricatures of themselves. In O'Reilly's case, he is nothing but caricature. In KO's case, he has became the emblem of the angry left: anything and everything Bush and Co. do is the enemy of truth, justice and the American Way. The president/Cheney/Rummy will say something and KO will have a special comment, where in a barely contained fit of anger, he will condemn Bush and Co., declare them to be the enemy, etc. If KO keeps it up, he will pigeonhole himself.

 

For the record, I'm a centrist Libertarian hunter who has perhaps the largest gun collection of any SportsJournalists.com member. And I also think Olbermann has been dead on the money with his comments about Bush and Rumsfeld's fear-mongering.

I will be deeply disappointed if Olbermann doesn't attack the next administration with as much venom and intelligence as he has this one.

 

As has been pointed out before, Olbermann did attack Clinton several times.

Not nearly as much as he's attacked the Bushies, but I don't think we can hold it against him that the Clinton administration didn't screw up or lie as much as the current group.

 

Four 24-hour news channels in the country are three too many.

Speaking of Fox, loved E.D. Hill's mocking of Helen Thomas this morning.

Hmmm, let's see. A morning show airhead vs. the woman who has asked the first question at most presidential news conferences for a generation. Yeah, she sure showed Helen.

 

Yeah, but Helen Thomas wasn't a VH-1 VJ like E.D. Hill once was [when she was known as Edye Tarbox].

 

What do either of those things have to do with the fact that both are blowhards? One is a blowhard a lot of people here happen to agree with. The other is a blowhard a lot of people here happen to agree with.

It would be easy to dismiss whichever one an individual happens to disagree with.

 

How many marriages ago was that for the blonde miniskirted guardian of family values?