Keith Olbermann FIRED!....?

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
1. he' still a cock sucking pice of shit.

2. what does 6'4" have to do with anything/ Plus, he'd never see it coming.

3. Reports are now saying he wanted more money and NBC said no.

4. Hence the word "hypocrite" dumbass.
FAIL...




And btw, Here's to hoping all of the partisan hacks on TV get fired.
 

lurker37160

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Posts
526
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
248
Location
Murfreesboro (Tennessee, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It's her Lesbian Rage that works my nerves.

Lurker: As a 100% straight male you got a chip on your shoulder about an intelligent and articulate lesbian who probably has a better haircut than you? Rachael is just about as smart as human beings can be, especially when they work as a news commentator. :smile:
 

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
174
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
RE: Rachael Maddow
It's her Lesbian Rage that works my nerves.

Yeah, because you're 100% straight you know that her problem is that she hasn't met the right guy and been fucked senseless the correct way. Hence the rage. I'm sure.

I know, you're gay. Ever think your gay rage, or lack of it, might work on the nerves of others? She's articulate, well-educated, and ensures that her research team works as hard as she does to bring the truth out about members of both parties -- and corporations -- who don't have the general well fare of the Constitution and the USA as a priority. Lesbian rage, indeed. I still insist you're jealous of her hair cut. :biggrin1:
 
Last edited:

arkfarmbear

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
823
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
173
Location
Arkansas
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Not sure whats going on over at MSNBC with Keith Olbermann leaving. Based on the article over at Yahoo, it would appear either he was fired or that Keith left on bad terms with NBC brass.

I don't know why.

Keith has been the posterboy for MSNBC's venomous anti-conservative, anti-captialist ideology. It's not like Keith was a Black Sheep over there or anything. On the contrary, it seemed to me like they were looking to fill the lineup with a bunch of Keith knockoffs. Rachel is the "female Keith", Ed is the "Blue Collar Keith", and O'Donnell is the "Dull but Respectable anchorman looking Keith". All of them reeked of the same hate and negativity of Keith but with a different character.

Anyway, I know all you pro-Keith commie people out there expect all us Conservatives to start cheering, but you're wrong. Keith was just a small symptom of the underlying problem. We'll start cheering when America gets back to the days where Americans reject the anti-freedom, anti-Constitution and anti-American ideology that has funded organizations like MSNBC. That will only happen when enough Americans get so sick of MSNBC that they no longer can earn enough revenue through commercial advertising due to their low ratings. We are on the right track, because MSNBC ratings are very low, but they are still in business spreading their lies and hatred so it's no time to celebrate yet. And losing Keith may not have been connected to ratings, or affect them from here on so celebrating Keith's departure is pointless right now.

That's my two cents.


Why not just create one network controlled and supported by "right" americans? The current method is just too messy. To hell with that "freedom of speech" crap we hear from liberals. Whatdya think?
 

FantomX

1st Like
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Posts
148
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
113
Location
In a van down by the river!
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Do these threads always have to resort to people calling each other "idiots" or "unintelligent?"

Wouldn't it be better to prove the other person wrong through actual debate and facts as opposed to relying on petty name calling?
 

stratedude

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Posts
2,383
Media
16
Likes
1,076
Points
583
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Why not just create one network controlled and supported by "right" americans? The current method is just too messy. To hell with that "freedom of speech" crap we hear from liberals. Whatdya think?

A "One Network" controlled by one group would be a very Communistic system. As a free market capitalist, I am for healthy competition between multiple companies. I am for whatever earns revenue, and against whatever has to be subsidized by taxpayers.

And most people don't even realize this, but LIBERALS do not get their message out through Cable or AM news. That's why MSNBC and NPR will always be losers. Liberals get their news message out through ENTERTAINMENT. That's why The Daily show, MTV, pop and underground music and far-left leaning Hollywood movies do so well. That is where a vast majority of liberals get their information. The proof is in the revenue.

So in a sense, FoxNews is actually competing with 40 years of liberal propaganda pumped into the public's minds through liberally biased movies. It's message vs message, not Cable News vs Cable News.

So for all you liberals that look and FoxNews and AM radio and say, "Hey you guys are getting your message out. Now let us speak!" and want to either censor Cable and AM or subsidize liberal AM or Cable need to consider that conservatives could just as easily say that movies and music should have an equal amount of Conservative content. What a shitty would we would live in!!

Instead, let the Conservatives have their Cable and AM news, and you Liberals can continue to pump out Anti-Soldier movies, anti-cop music, and photos of crucifixes in jars of urine. Deal?
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
A "One Network" controlled by one group would be a very Communistic system. As a free market capitalist, I am for healthy competition between multiple companies. I am for whatever earns revenue, and against whatever has to be subsidized by taxpayers.

And most people don't even realize this, but LIBERALS do not get their message out through Cable or AM news. That's why MSNBC and NPR will always be losers. Liberals get their news message out through ENTERTAINMENT. That's why The Daily show, MTV, pop and underground music and far-left leaning Hollywood movies do so well. That is where a vast majority of liberals get their information. The proof is in the revenue.

So in a sense, FoxNews is actually competing with 40 years of liberal propaganda pumped into the public's minds through liberally biased movies. It's message vs message, not Cable News vs Cable News.

So for all you liberals that look and FoxNews and AM radio and say, "Hey you guys are getting your message out. Now let us speak!" and want to either censor Cable and AM or subsidize liberal AM or Cable need to consider that conservatives could just as easily say that movies and music should have an equal amount of Conservative content. What a shitty would we would live in!!

Instead, let the Conservatives have their Cable and AM news, and you Liberals can continue to pump out Anti-Soldier movies, anti-cop music, and photos of crucifixes in jars of urine. Deal?

Lol!

If this had been an ironic post, it would have been brilliant.

But as conservatives don't get or do irony.....
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male

Meniscus

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
3,434
Media
0
Likes
1,947
Points
333
Location
Massachusetts, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Do these threads always have to resort to people calling each other "idiots" or "unintelligent?"

Wouldn't it be better to prove the other person wrong through actual debate and facts as opposed to relying on petty name calling?

Well said, Fantom. I was thinking much the same thing as I read through this thread. Alas, many of the posters in this thread (like the OP)--and in the media itself--have demonstrated such a disinterest in the facts, an inability to recognize them when presented with them, and even less ability to interpret them, that any effort to engage them in an actual debate is likely to be a futile waste of time and effort.

But to be fair, it's difficult to know what the facts are when journalism has been replaced by demagoguery and punditry, and the media cannot be trusted.

I also want to say that VinylBoy is right that freedom of speech comes with taking responsibilty for what you say (post #28 on page 2). The right to state your beliefs does not mean freedom from having your beliefs challenged, your facts checked, your rationale analyzed, and your motives scrutinized.
 

Meniscus

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
3,434
Media
0
Likes
1,947
Points
333
Location
Massachusetts, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
...conservatives could just as easily say that movies and music should have an equal amount of Conservative content. What a shitty would we would live in!!

I, for one, would never say that any media organization should have an equal amount of liberal and conservative content. However, the content should have integrity. It should be well and thoroughly researched, intelligently analyzed, and should not be influenced by political or corporate interests. Were that the case, I suspect that journalism would have a "liberal bias," and I think that's exactly as it should be. That's because true liberalism is about the freedom and well-being of the people and the nation as a whole, whereas conservatism has all too often demonstrated itself as being primarily concerned with revenue, profit, expansion, economic domination, and the preservation of the rich and privileged, at the expense of the "common man."
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
Objective, professional, rational, poised and penetrating journalism has just lost one of its pillars.

Contractual obligations notwithstanding, he would be such a seminal addition to the Fox News team. How about a "Hannity & Olbermann"?

 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
A "One Network" controlled by one group would be a very Communistic system. As a free market capitalist, I am for healthy competition between multiple companies. I am for whatever earns revenue, and against whatever has to be subsidized by taxpayers . . . .
Comprehending sarcasm's not really in your wheelhouse, is it?

A complete lack of imagination - one of the hallmarks of Rightwing Authoritarians.

Im glad to see that the lying cock sucking piece of shit is gone. He's one person I would have no problem going to jail for knocking him the FUCK out if I saw him in public.

Turns out he's just a greedy piece of shit that wants more money. See, even the most ardent socialists are nothing but fucking hypocrites.
1. he' still a cock sucking pice of shit.
2. what does 6'4" have to do with anything/ Plus, he'd never see it coming.
3. Reports are now saying he wanted more money and NBC said no.
4. Hence the word "hypocrite" dumbass.
..:rolleyes2: amazing.

Keith olberman was a piece of work, full of liberal propaganda. Let me ask you keith olberman fans and the rest of you liberal idiots, who created "political correctness"? You stinking liberals created it to stifle free speech, in a country where we have free speech rights, the liberals are the only ones that want to be heard. . . .
You're an idiot and beneath the dignity of a substantive reply.
Thank you!!!

corrected for accuracy.....the liberal media watchdog organization......
Why so timid? Why not "stinking liberal"? LOL.

My god, this country is rife with programmed, propagandized idiots!
Vile, angry idiots!
 
Last edited:

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Actually maxcok and I are lovers and his dick isn't as big as he says it is.
Well you've never seen my dick (and never will, I assure you) and I've never said how big it is, so you're talking out your ass, Nellie. But that's nothing new.

Plus, much as I love my dick, I'd sooner saw it off at the root than even consider the horror of being your lover.

It's her Lesbian Rage that works my nerves.
Why do you hate all the lesbians so much? Is it because they're so much stronger and studlier than you?

Objective, professional, rational, poised and penetrating journalism has just lost one of its pillars.

Contractual obligations notwithstanding, he would be such a seminal addition to the Fox News team. How about a "Hannity & Olbermann"?
I love it! Keith would obliterate him without breaking a sweat. Better yet, pay-per-view tag team wrestling matches with the likes of Fatfuck Pillpopper Limbaugh and Mann Coulter getting their whiney asses kicked by Keith and Rachel in an actual mudwrestling pit. A ratings bonanza! :biggrin2:
 
Last edited:

hypoc8

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
717
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
238
Location
SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Do these threads always have to resort to people calling each other "idiots" or "unintelligent?"

Wouldn't it be better to prove the other person wrong through actual debate and facts as opposed to relying on petty name calling?

But it's just so much more fun calling people "idiots, trolls, etc., etc." And it doesn't take much thought or energy.

Who wants to spend time and energy fact finding and debating when all you have to do to show everyone that you are right and they are wrong is call them a troll! Works every time.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
But it's just so much more fun calling people "idiots, trolls, etc., etc." And it doesn't take much thought or energy.

Who wants to spend time and energy fact finding and debating when all you have to do to show everyone that you are right and they are wrong is call them a troll! Works every time.

If the shoe fits: definition of internet trolling.

So, anyone who has a problem with trolling behavior being called out as such, is either in actual or sympathetic league with the troll.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Ever hear of sarcasm?

Yes:

Sarcasm

"Definition of SARCASM

1
: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2
a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
b : the use or language of sarcasm"

Sarcasm

"Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.” [1] Though irony is usually the immediate context[2] most authorities sharply distinguish sarcasm from irony,[3] however others argue that sarcasm may or often does involve irony[4] or employs ambivalence.[5] Sarcasm has been identified as a possible bullying action.
[snip]
"Sarcasm can frequently be unnoticed in print form, often times requiring the inflection or tone of voice to indicate the quip.
...."

Did you think you were being sarcastic?
 

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Do these threads always have to resort to people calling each other "idiots" or "unintelligent?"

Wouldn't it be better to prove the other person wrong through actual debate and facts as opposed to relying on petty name calling?
No, showing respect to the radical right will accomplish nothing. The wingnuts have made it abundantly clear for years that anyone who disagrees with their political ideology is human garbage and should literally be forced to capitulate or die. There's no civil response to a person who is so full of themselves that they think anyone who is different needs to be eliminated. There is no place in a civilized society for the eliminationist rhetoric they espouse at every chance.

So, I have adopted the logical position that anyone who wishes ill will towards me, my family or friends is in fact my enemy. Not because I have a problem with them, but because they have a problem with me and are actively seeking ways to destroy me. I have no choice but to actively defend myself, and that's exactly what I do each and every day of my life. I meet fire with fire and anyone who crosses my path had damned well better be ready to go all the way, because I sure as hell am.

Personally, I'm done playing games with these wingnuts and pretending that they are just regular, hardworking, loyal Americans too. They're not regular Americans, they are dangerous, radical freaks. Do not trust these people, do not associate with them and do not do business with them. Treat them like the domestic enemy that they have defined themselves as.


Who wants to spend time and energy fact finding and debating when all you have to do to show everyone that you are right and they are wrong is call them a troll! Works every time.
It is not the duty of the attacked to open a dialogue with the attacker. If wingnuts want to be treated like decent human beings worthy of being heard and respected, then all they have to do is behave like decent human beings worthy of being heard and respected.

Instead, the wingnuts choose to alienate others and self-segregate themselves along ideological lines. THEY chose this path. THEY defined all Americans with different values as traitors and the enemy of 'their' America.

The wingnuts are the aggressor and only they can end the acrimony by ending their hatred of the world, by apologizing, and by proving through good deeds over time that they are good people.

In the mean time, I stay vigiliant at all times. The man who trusts his enemy is the man who dies first.
 
Last edited: