Keith Olbermann FIRED!....?

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
it's all about ratings. you people haven't figured it out yet. the masses don't go for your left leaning bullshit.
And yet there's still the myth of the "liberal media". :rolleyes:
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.
You know, when I read things like this it actually makes me wish that there was a major news organization in the US that was actually communist or socialist, so idiots could see what communism and socialism actually are (Hint: They're not the same thing). The face of socialism is not Keith Olbermann.
Using the slippery slope logic to argue this (Olbermann is more socialist than the right, therefore any of his ideas being implemented will eventually cause the country to become socialist) is about as accurate as saying that the views Sarah Palin espouses (more guns in the hands of more people in order to defend themselves, less involved government) will eventually cause the US to become anarchist. This is exactly the kind of logic that people espouse when they say they want such TV personalities to be silenced.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
You know, I thought it was kinda scary yesterday night. I just saw the movie "Machete", great gory movie along the lines of "Desperado", and it had a corrupt Texan politician with a strong stand on illegal immigration. Looking at his political advertising, which was about as comically evil as possible while still being airable on television, it occurred to me that it could actually be a real political ad for a Texan Tea Party candidate. (or for Sarah Palin)

I think when your political stance becomes that alarmingly close to that of a comically evil movie politician's, it's time to reevaluate where you stand.
 

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,353
Media
154
Likes
6,732
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
it's all about ratings. you people haven't figured it out yet. the masses don't go for your left leaning bullshit.


OHHH IGNORANT ONE (I guess I should be surprised) ...COUNTDOWN was the highest rated show on MSNBC ... Buzz is that KEITH left b/c of his feelings toward COMCAST and their take-over of NBC Universal. KEITH is not allowed to say what happened... That alone tells you KEITH wasn't fired cause 1, a company as greedy as Comsux would NEVER fire their biggest appeal and 2, KEITH would be shouting it from the highest mountain top.

If we were just lucky enough to get rid of some of the miscreant court jester quasi-journalistic scum at FASCIST NEWS then that would be a good day.
I guess we will have to settle with BECK being dropped from major markets in the country.

One thing I loved about KEITH is he never once lied to you or fed you Buillshit... He reported the facts as they were and would also comment on how he felt about them personally... He was far too kind in many cases !

As for not going for the left leaning bullshit...You would be wise to know that while the voting electorate is Center Right the American public is LEFT... now to just GET the intelligent people to VOTE !!!!!

~HH~
 

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,353
Media
154
Likes
6,732
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
It's her Lesbian Rage that works my nerves.


HAHAHAHHAAHA DUDE , this is so incredibly STUPID to the point of sad amusement.

MADDOW is probably the most placid journalist ON TV! She is quite easy going, even when her guests get defensive and start shouting at her she breathes and takes control of the interview WITHOUT AN OUNCE OF RAGE !!!!!!


~HH~
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
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. Free speech means both sides saying freely what they want to say, with no right to impinge on the others right. Its funny how us conservatives constantly say you have the right to say what you want even if you are wrong but we would fight to defend your right to say whatever it is you want to say. But not a commie liberal like Olberman who's sole purpose is the squelching of free speech and for only one sides view. Well folks that not what the USA is about.

Really ---- I think I've seen more O'Reilly bits than anyone ELSE on TV where he says, "Turn off his mike!" Free speech my ass!
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
This post bears repeating:

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.

------------------------------------

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.

Excellent post tallguy, one of the best, clearest essays on the disturbing nature of the rightwing mindset I've seen on this board. It's no surprise that we see that brainwashed mindset on full vitriolic display in this thread, venomous posters dancing wildly on the media grave of someone who - for his clear facts, unapologetic outspokenness, and unshrinking commitment to taking head-on the prolific rightwing lies, propaganda, and hypocrisy - must surely be one of their most despised nemeses.

Your post reminded me of an excerpt from a Peter Daou column I posted in another thread:

Words Have Consequences

We do not yet know whether the Arizona massacre was directly fueled by rightwing rhetoric. But we do know this: one of the most dangerous myths promulgated by the media and political establishment is that there is a comparable level of extremism among conservatives and liberals, that left and right are mirror images.

Even the most cursory perusal of rightwing radio, television, blogs and assorted punditry illustrates a profound distinction: in large measure, the right’s overarching purpose is to stoke hatred of the left, of liberalism. The right’s messaging infrastructure, meticulously constructed and refined over decades, promotes an image of liberals as traitors and America-haters, unworthy of their country and bent on destroying it. There is simply no comparable propaganda effort on the left.

The imbalance is stark: Democrats and liberals rail against the right’s ideas; the right rails against the left’s very existence. -- Peter Daou

There's much more where that came from. ^
 

BigfootTornado

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Posts
33
Media
16
Likes
2
Points
43
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Never really caught him much on MSNBC, but most of his time on Sunday Night Football was terrible. Majority of his jokes and attempts at humor sounded like he was trying too hard with his go-to tactic of chuckling at what you just said as the sign for the rest of the guys hosting to laugh along with you and show the viewers at home it's okay to laugh too cause it really is "funny". I swear Tony Dungy smiled and laughed cause he's a team player, but I'm sure he didn't mind the new environment after Olberman was gone.
 

D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
788
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
161
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.



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.

Reverse that: showing respect to the radical left wing nuts will accomplish absoluteley 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.



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.


en garde!
 
Last edited:

D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
788
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
161
You know, I thought it was kinda scary yesterday night. I just saw the movie "Machete", great gory movie along the lines of "Desperado", and it had a corrupt Texan politician with a strong stand on illegal immigration. Looking at his political advertising, which was about as comically evil as possible while still being airable on television, it occurred to me that it could actually be a real political ad for a Texan Tea Party candidate. (or for Sarah Palin)

I think when your political stance becomes that alarmingly close to that of a comically evil movie politician's, it's time to reevaluate where you stand.


"Don't tread on me" was a great political slogan
 

MercyfulFate

Experimental Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,177
Media
23
Likes
18
Points
123
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I don't know what's worse, this thread in general or the attacks on anyone who has 100% straight in their profile.

This thread is everything wrong with the US in one package.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't know what's worse, this thread in general or the attacks on anyone who has 100% straight in their profile.

There are plenty of straight people on this board, such as Calboner, talltpaguy, MalakingTiti, JustAsking and even the one-percenters like SilverTrain (just to name a few) who provide insightful Political commentary around here. There is no anti-straight agenda on LPSG or in the Politics section, so let's squash that idea right now before some politically vacuous type runs with it.

More words of truth from the supposed "intolerant, bitter, angry black man with no life, who's also a socialist, a leech on the government, an anti-heterosexual, and an enemy to white people."
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Reverse that: showing respect to the radical left wing nuts will accomplish absoluteley 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. . . .
But you see, that's a false equivalency. It's total bullshit spread by the right and allowed to go unchallenged by the media. The truth is there is no significant radical leftwing extremism that remotely approaches what is common on the right. Largely because it philosophically goes against everything the left is about, namely inclusiveness, openmindedness, cooperation and compassion - qualities that are in short supply on the right.

Here, let's try this again. Try to read the whole column in the link if you can. Try to do it with an open mind, and try to comprehend. I know that's a tall order, and though I'm pretty sure you won't, because it would go against everything you represent, it doesn't hurt to ask, now does it?

Words Have Consequences

We do not yet know whether the Arizona massacre was directly fueled by rightwing rhetoric. But we do know this: one of the most dangerous myths promulgated by the media and political establishment is that there is a comparable level of extremism among conservatives and liberals, that left and right are mirror images.

Even the most cursory perusal of rightwing radio, television, blogs and assorted punditry illustrates a profound distinction: in large measure, the right’s overarching purpose is to stoke hatred of the left, of liberalism. The right’s messaging infrastructure, meticulously constructed and refined over decades, promotes an image of liberals as traitors and America-haters, unworthy of their country and bent on destroying it. There is simply no comparable propaganda effort on the left.

The imbalance is stark: Democrats and liberals rail against the right’s ideas; the right rails against the left’s very existence. -- Peter Daou

[Full title of the column displayed this time around.]
 
Last edited:

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
Reverse that: showing respect to the radical left wing nuts will accomplish absoluteley 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...

Big_E, there are a couple of a crucial difference between talltpaguy's argument and your inversion of it.

First of all, tallpaguy's argument can be supported by the facts, while yours in just an empty assertion.

Secondly, while I don't discount the existence of "radical left wing nuts," if they are out there they aren't particularly active, visible, or influential, and the media pays them no mind. The people and views you are disparaging (Olbermann, Maddows, etc.) are intelligent, rational people who are capable of clearly explaining their views and supporting them with facts.

In contrast, Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. seem incapable of or unwilling to rationally explaining their views and providing supporting evidence, instead choosing to attack and degrade anyone with different views using faulty logic, exagerration, distortion, and misinformation. Then they call on (revisionist) history to draw outrageous parallels to compare liberals to facists or communists, while having the gall to compare themselves to the Founding Fathers and other defenders of freedom and liberty.

But you see, that's a false equivalency. It's total bullshit spread by the right and allowed to go unchallenged by the media. The truth is there is no significant radical leftwing extremism that remotely approaches what is common on the right.


Quite right.
 

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
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."

When you learn the correct definition of "freedom" that is when you realize that liberal ideology destroys freedom and that the conservative ideology is the only way to be truly 'free'.
 

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
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 would rather something like Hannity & Stewart. Olbermann isn't that smart and even worse, is mean spirited. Alan Colmes was too timid and was losing too many arguements after a while.
 

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
Four pages now, and there's still no sign of any Conservative who has posted their thoughts on this thread of ever reading the article. :rolleyes:

I started the thread, and before posting I read the entire article on Yahoo. What do you want to hear?
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
When you learn the correct definition of "freedom" that is when you realize that liberal ideology destroys freedom and that the conservative ideology is the only way to be truly 'free'.

That worked during the Eisenhower era. But even he would be a "liberal" in today's political climate.