Olbermann Free Fall

[bigmack]

Down 44%! :eek:

Where would he go from here?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/2_4_10_08_43_00.png

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/keith-olbermann-msnbc-glenn-beck-bill-oreilly-fox-news.html

[PaceAdvantage]

I for one, can't get enough of these kinds of articles.

Do you realize how happy KO must have been on election day 2008? Do you realize the kinds of fantasies (non-sexual of course) that were running through his oversized mellon? Fantasies about improved ratings now that the age of Obama would soon be upon us all?

[Thought Keith to himself]I mean, how could viewers not flock to KO now that Obama had been officially elected? It was the mandate of all mandates! The ascendancy of the Democratic party to ultimate power, and the death of the Republican party as we know it...[/Thought Keith to himself]

My how that must have been quite the psyche crash...

[ArlJim78]

we can only hope that this turd is finally flushed. For the life of me I can't understand how this guy remains employed in a lead role by the network that calls itself "The Place for Politics". More like "the place for bitter, angry, spiteful, unfunny, unentertaining, partisan hacks".

I'm pretty sure I read that the 2am REDEYE show on Fox has higher ratings than poor old Keith does in primetime.

[rastajenk]

The blogosphere has really been dumping on Kaustic Keith recently. Here's an especially entertaining one from The American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_fat_lady_sings_for_keith_o.html).

Give it a quick look to find such gems as this: "Meanwhile, Olbermann's personal problems with women -- including his mother -- are legion and well-publicized. Never married, he is a 51-year-old eggplant of a man whose dates begin and end with the first." :D

[andymays]

This guy is a weak minded egomaniac as well according to most published reports. I'm sure the drop in viewership is killing him because he knows people are voting with their remotes.

[bigmack]

The American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_fat_lady_sings_for_keith_o.html).
Once again, Olbermann left a job unhappily, returning to sportscasting at Fox Sports. He was subsequently fired, and the remainder of his contract was paid off. (“I fired him,” Rupert Murdoch said recently. “He’s crazy.”)

[boxcar]

The blogosphere has really been dumping on Kaustic Keith recently. Here's an especially entertaining one from The American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_fat_lady_sings_for_keith_o.html).

Give it a quick look to find such gems as this: "Meanwhile, Olbermann's personal problems with women -- including his mother -- are legion and well-publicized. Never married, he is a 51-year-old eggplant of a man whose dates begin and end with the first." :D

Hmm...interesting. KO has redefined "double dating".

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

i watch clips of his show sometimes that are posted at DU and it's unbelievable the hate he has for the right. He was concocting a story last night that sarah palin should be mad at rush limbaugh for saying retards because she got mad at emanual. first of all, like that will ever happen. second of all, if a buddy of mine calls me a name, i dont care, if an enemy does, i do care. that is true in all aspects of life, not just politics.

KO is the worst of the worst, worse than hannity even. worse than maddow, just barely worse than Mathews

[sandpit]

The blogosphere has really been dumping on Kaustic Keith recently. Here's an especially entertaining one from The American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_fat_lady_sings_for_keith_o.html).

Give it a quick look to find such gems as this: "Meanwhile, Olbermann's personal problems with women -- including his mother -- are legion and well-publicized. Never married, he is a 51-year-old eggplant of a man whose dates begin and end with the first." :D

Sounds like the male version of Ann Coulter :D .

Seriously, I don't know why this guy keeps coming up in these threads. He's obviously irrelevant from a ratings standpoint, and he's a complete crackpot to boot. As someone said, he should be flushed...from this forum.

[toetoe]

a man whose dates begin and end with the first." :D

With the fist, you say ?





Mack,

All this talk's giving me a tentpole. Oops, sorry. :blush: .





Uberkeith as bad as Mad Cow and the Tingler ? That's ba-a-a-a-ad. :( .

[bigmack]

Uberkeith as bad as Mad Cow and the Tingler ? That's ba-a-a-a-ad. :( .
I pick-up the local rag and was gasted. Flabbergasted! :ThmbUp:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/2_4_10_16_15_54.png

[NJ Stinks]

Hard to know what to make of this thread. The man who can't draw flies draws flies.

Hmmm....

[jballscalls]

Hard to know what to make of this thread. The man who can't draw flies draws flies.

Hmmm....

I think that's exactly his problem. He's such an asshole, that once in a while you do need to check in to see if he's still spouting his horrible venom. It's that nasty. But it's also not interesting, therefore he doesn't keep you watching, you watch a segment or so, roll your eyes at his hate, then flip the channel.

it's the same as how the left feel about Beck, they hate him so much, yet they check in on him from time to time.

the only difference is, Beck also keeps alot of viewers, Olbermann, not so much

[delayjf]

Beck also keeps alot of viewers, Olbermann, not so much

Beck has more substance, he has a point of view and presents the facts that back up his point of view.

[Robert Goren]

Olbermann's rating has dropped for one reason. He has stopped being funny. I know a lot people say he was never funny, but he was if you are liberal. Not any more.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I watch Beck in that time slot if Sopranos re-runs aren't on A&E that particular day.

Beck is a bit obtuse most of the time with his theories, but those types of 'conspiracy' insinuations make for interesting television, whether it involves politics or extraterrestrials. He's a solid entertainer, sprinkled with a dash of factual political rhetoric, two parts sarcastic self-deprecation, and a hint of feined outrage that resonates with a large segment of the population. Even his most fiendishly wild implications of chicanery are buoyed by a research staff that is virtually unparalled on that front, making the outrageous seem arguably plausible, for the sake of consumption.

I watch Hannity if all else fails. I can barely tolerate that pom-pom waving of the GOP flag and generally, the first forty minutes is just insideous finger wagging and spin that rivals the torque of a Wenkel rotary engine.

But, Hannity does infuse an element of light-heartedness and isn't unwilling to have his feelings hurt. He recognizes the target that he paints on his back and takes the shots like a man. Furthermore, his closing segment, the Great, Great, Great, Great, Great American Panel is generally one of the better little serious, but lighthearted debate panels and the dissenting opinion is present, the stifling of which is generally limited to Hannity infusing his own, well-known position while serving as moderator.

Olbermann, in contrast, is an unwavering purveyor of labels. He has a pidgeonhole for everyone. If my college criminal sociology professor wasn't such a liberal, he'd talk about labelling theory - call someone something long enough and you can either effectively force them to fulfill that label, or they will unintentionally adopt that role on their own. In his case, his labelling is no different than the argument against Beck - his viewers will be poisoned to believe that our President is a Marxist revolutionary.

Olbermann's fatal flaw in this approach is that the President, and even his administration are readily perceived by viewers as one entity. A broad, arguably irrelevant, label can stick to a collective of that magnitude. When attempting to label a mass like a major segment of a population, diverse in social strata, economic composition, and idelogy - you simply alienate far too many people that can see for themselves what their neighbors and co-workers really represent.

Hannity busting liberal chops as 'tax and spenders' is quite different from Olbermann glaring into the camera and declaring dissenters racist, woman hating, gun-toting, redneck douchebags. One can be applied with some semblence of levity and irrefutable foundation, the other is just a blatant attempt to coerce both sides of the populace to detest one another.

In other words, Olbermann is crooning to a small group of hard-core fans and squelching at the public at large.

Plus, he's not funny, lacks any entertainment value, makes little effort to support his positions with substance, and admittedly has no interest in allowing dissent or in having the courage to address the targets that he paints upon himself.

Since people seem to enjoy comparing Olbermann to Beck and Hannity - I don't think there is much comparison - and it shows in the number of people that can stomach any or all of the three.

[NJ Stinks]

My thought is that Olbermann mistakenly thought his viewers before the presidential election were highly influenced by his commentary on GWB's administration. And votedly accordingly. They weren't being influenced. They already agreed with him about GWB and tuned in because it was fun to hear somebody who agrees with you bash the other side. In short, GWB got what he deserved on Countdown and we happily watched Keith go to town.

Now his audience wants things to get done in Washington but his constant bashing of the right isn't helping bi-partisanship. So he is being tuned out. As others noted here, Keith will never win anyone over with his charm. So his ability to understand what is his broader audience wants from his program is vital.

[mostpost]

Let's let Keith speak for himself.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#35248478

Righties hate Keith because he holds their feet to the fire and doesn't let them get away with anything.

[mostpost]

Beck has more substance, he has a point of view and presents the facts that back up his point of view.
As long as you don't fact check him, which of course none of his regular viewers do.

[boxcar]

Righties hate Keith because he holds their feet to the fire and doesn't let them get away with anything.

And Lefties hate Rush, Beck, Hannity and Fox News because they hold the Leftie's feet to the fire and don't let them get away with anything either.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Olbermann's fatal flaw in this approach is that the President, and even his administration are readily perceived by viewers as one entity.
You're projecting. The fact that you perceive the President and his administration as one entity, doesn't mean that I do. Nor does it mean that everyone else does. Olbermann targets certain groups because of what they DO not what they are. So I can be aware of the differences in individuals yet accept Olbemann's label based on policy.

[mostpost]

And Lefties hate Rush, Beck, Hannity and Fox News because they hold the Leftie's feet to the fire and don't let them get away with anything either.

Boxcar
The difference being that we do so based on truth.

[GameTheory]

Let's let Keith speak for himself.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#35248478

Righties hate Keith because he holds their feet to the fire and doesn't let them get away with anything.

I don't think righties hate Keith -- they think he is joke. He is too pathetic to be be threatened by. He can't even hold the interest of liberals, after all. I don't think the right really hates any of the liberal commentators. However, the left really do seem threatened by Rush, Beck, and the like. They are obsessed with bringing them down. The left doesn't need much help to fail in this arena.

Isn't KO main problem the same problem all the lefty commentators have? That their supposed audience just isn't interested? It isn't like there are other left-wing shows that are big successes -- they are all doing poorly and always have. Air America couldn't stay in business, etc. Now the answer for this domination of the right according to the right is that the left's ideas just don't hold up to any rational discussion, and therefore need emotion to sustain them. But that level of emotion can't be sustained either, which is why these liberal shows never last very long. This is especially true on radio which is more of a medium of ideas than television. If a left-wing show really tries to intelligently discuss the ideas, they can't hold the interest of anybody because the ideas obviously don't hold water, and anybody semi-honest can tell that. It is hard to argue with this line of reasoning. If the left is so smart, why won't anybody listen to them? (The left just thinks everyone is too dumb, I think, when in reality it is because they are just the opposite.)

Rational discussion can only serve to move people towards the right (or to the center starting from the left). It really does seem like the committed liberals actually refuse to engage on the idealogical front because rational thought is their kryptonite. (You can tell because they project so much "anti-rationality" on the other side and constantly tell everybody they are the rational, fact-based side -- they are trying to convince themselves of something they know isn't really true by repeating it over and over.) So KO's strategy has been to throw all sense of reason out the window and just rant, but since he is personally so repugnant to just about everybody, he can only pull that off in an era a high anger from the left towards the right -- in other words only in the George Bush era. Now that it is time to hold his own side's administration to the fire, which he refuses to do, very few are still interested in his schtick.

[Warren Henry]

The difference being that we do so based on truth.
So, the left is the sole source of TRUTH. Did you type this with a straight face? :confused:

[bigmack]

Righties hate Keith because he holds their feet to the fire and doesn't let them get away with anything.
:lol: :lol:

As one of his followers why don't one of you nerds let that snarky nerd in on a little secret. Get over the fixation with Fox. The guy is like Salieri in Amadeus & Fox is Mozart.

He's like a lamprey. He makes a fool of himself nightly.

pxgZcMGmkkI

[toetoe]

The difference being that we do so based on truth.



Ah ... my hero. Houston, we have tentpole. Again. :kiss: .

[NJ Stinks]

I don't need a daily dose of why I believe what I do. Yea, I'll come here and debate daily because it's fun but on the whole I don't need reassurance nightly from anybody.

For instance, I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. I don't have a need to hear anyone on the radio or TV tell me that I'm right to believe either. Nor do I need somebody to organize protests for me so I can get group support.

I'm a liberal who doesn't crave constant reinforcement.

Now. I'm not saying conservatives need reinforcement daily. After all, viewer numbers may not mean anything. :D

Oh yea. And John, if righties think Keith is a joke - I don't see anybody laughing. As a matter of fact, this thread wouldn't exist if that was the case. Anyway, you guys got me back to watching Countdown again tonight. Keith is on a roll! :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I don't think righties hate Keith -- they think he is joke. ...

Perhaps GameTheory's name is John and I misinterpreted you NJ - but if not - I believe that you are giving me credit where it isn't due.

[bigmack]

Keith is on a roll!
Neat. Give us a taste of one of his bits that hit home for you from his show tonight.

[NJ Stinks]

Neat. Give us a taste of one of his bits that hit home for you from his show tonight.

Every clip of the O'Reilly's Jon Stewart interview - that was edited out by FOX News when the interview was shown on O'Reilly's TV show - was a home run.

Palin's righteous stand that Emanual is a biggot for using the word "retard" - but Rush is not when using the same word - was pretty hilarious too.

[delayjf]

As long as you don't fact check him, which of course none of his regular viewers do.

For example?????

[bigmack]

edited out by FOX News when the interview was shown on O'Reilly's TV show - was a home run.

Palin's righteous stand that Emanual is a biggot for using the word "retard" - but Rush is not when using the same word - was pretty hilarious too.
No need to use any more than one g in your hunt-and-peck version of bigot.

Nice to know though. :lol:

Yee & KO appear to be further hipMoTized by the lure of Fox.

Little is addressed with Ed/Keith/Maddows outside a STRONG VERSION OF THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF HEAVY PROGRESSIVES.

Dispute that.

[mostpost]

For example?????Been there! Done that! A few months ago I made a pledge to Tom that I would watch Beck for a week and point out all lies and misinformation. Which I did and there were plenty.
Sadly, I could not fulfill my pledge to watch for a week. The first night my cats started cowering under the table and covering their ears. Tuesday night I started having nightmares and Wednesday during the show my TV turned itself off and refused to turn on again until I changed the channel.

[Tom]

Aye laddy, scary thing that truth be.
Yo ho ho.

[mostpost]

committed liberals actually refuse to engage on the idealogical front because rational thought is their kryptonite
Rational thought huh? Let's see how that works out.
The rational conservative will tell you that your raise more revenue by lowering taxes. I, the irrational liberal will point out that if you applied the Bush tax rates to the Clinton years you would have collected One trillion, six hundred and five billion dollars less than you actually did.
The rational conservative will then say, "but if the Bush tax cuts had been in effect the economy would have grown faster and there would have been more money to tax. I, the irrational liberal, would argue, "Since the economy tends to naturally grow (only 12 years since 1932 have had a lower GDP than the previous year) The way to determine which tax policy is best is to compare the % of growth.
During the Clinton years the average annual percentage of growth was 3.71%. During the Bush years the average was 2.35% That isn't even as good as tha Carter years, you should be so embarrased.

The rational conservative will say, "We should treat all terrorists as enemy combatants and Obama isn't doing that because he wants the terrorists to win" I, the irrational liberal say, "Over 300 terrorists were tried in federal court during the Bush administration, and a very large percentage were convicted.

The rational conservative will say, "The Christmas bomber should have been placed in military custody and interrogated as an enemy combatant. Once you Mirandize him you will never get anything out of him. I, the irrational liberal say, The Christmas bomber has take up residence with Sylvester and Granny and is singing like a canary. He has given us much information about other plots. He has given us the locations of training camps in Yemen. He has given us information about Al Qaeda leaders in Yemen.

I could probably go on with this for days, but it's late.

[mostpost]

No need to use any more than one g in your hunt-and-peck version of bigot.

Nice to know though. :lol:

Yee & KO appear to be further hipMoTized by the lure of Fox.

Little is addressed with Ed/Keith/Maddows outside a STRONG VERSION OF THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF HEAVY PROGRESSIVES.

Dispute that.
Thank God McCain didn't win the election. The first thing he would have done was pass the "One G to a word" law. MUST YOU GUYS CONTROL OUR ENTIRE LIVES!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[newtothegame]

Thank God McCain didn't win the election. The first thing he would have done was pass the "One G to a word" law. MUST YOU GUYS CONTROL OUR ENTIRE LIVES!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Funny....lol the left accusing the right of wanting to control someones life....that has to go up for post of the year lol

[NJ Stinks]

Perhaps GameTheory's name is John and I misinterpreted you NJ - but if not - I believe that you are giving me credit where it isn't due.

Just saw this. You are right, of course, John.

I'm sorry about that.

[GameTheory]

if righties think Keith is a joke - I don't see anybody laughing. As a matter of fact, this thread wouldn't exist if that was the case.Nobody's laughing? Read the thread again. Seems to me the whole point of this thread was to laugh at him. Why would anybody be threatened by KO? He has no influence -- that's the point. He lectures like he's got the world hanging on his every word and nobody is even watching. Hardly anyone can even stand him, even those who agree with him in principle. That's why he is being laughed at -- he has managed to be exceptionally pathetic among a group that is already notably dismal. He doesn't get attention for what he says or thinks, he gets "meta-attention" because he's such a train-wreck and people are curious how long it can possibly go on before they pull the plug on him.

[NJ Stinks]

Nobody's laughing? Read the thread again. Seems to me the whole point of this thread was to laugh at him. Why would anybody be threatened by KO? He has no influence -- that's the point. He lectures like he's got the world hanging on his every word and nobody is even watching. Hardly anyone can even stand him, even those who agree with him in principle. That's why he is being laughed at -- he has managed to be exceptionally pathetic among a group that is already notably dismal. He doesn't get attention for what he says or thinks, he gets "meta-attention" because he's such a train-wreck and people are curious how long it can possibly go on before they pull the plug on him.

Well, that's one theory. :)

[bigmack]

Well, that's one theory.
The thread is about his ratings being in the toilet. What theorem might you have to dispute his laughable ratings?

[dartman51]

Funny....lol the left accusing the right of wanting to control someones life....that has to go up for post of the year lol

Don't be to hard on Mosty, he's just a little out of touch with reality. Even Bill Maher, who was one of the BIGGEST Bish bashers and Obama supporter, is having second thoughts. A couple of his comments. "This is not what I voted for," and, "What he needs in his personality is a little George Bush ... What we need to do is to marry the good ideas that Barack Obama has with a little bit of that Bush attitude and certitude." You can see the entire clip here..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/14/bill-maher-takes-on-obama_n_215338.html

The problem with the Bush tax cuts was the increased spending. You can't do both at the same time. If Obama would leave the taxes alone and cut spending accross the board, not just a token 17% freeze AFTER they already raised the debt ceiling, they could make progress.

[dylbert]

Do we have to suffer through KO tomorrow during NBC's Super Bowl telecast? Thank the Lord for the mute button!

[boxcar]

I could probably go on with this for days, but it's late.

Thanks be to the Lord above for wisely creating day and night cycles! He surely knew that would be one way to curtail mindless drivel.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

The thread is about his ratings being in the toilet. What theorem might you have to dispute his laughable ratings?

See post #17 in this thread, Boxcar.

And try to be nice after you read it. :)

[Tom]

It would appear the NJ is correct in post 17.
I called all three of KO's pre-election viewers and they verified it.

[boxcar]

The difference being that we do so based on truth.

The only truth to that statement is that the left are all serial liars like their fearless leader. Have you not read this other truth: "Apples don't fall far from their tree"?

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Rational thought huh? Let's see how that works out. I didn't mean to suggest that ordinary liberals will refuse to argue about stuff using logic, reason, etc (as they see it), and I certainly don't want to have a policy debate (esp since I don't really represent either side as most people draw the lines). I was talking about media types specifically, and their tactics for trying to hold an audience.

That said, the intellectual ammunition from that side has generally been weak and they've been playing catch-up for years. Liberal authors (now calling themselves "progressive", of course) like George Lakoff and others have written a number of books trying to get liberals off their asses to feed their intellectuals so they can hold their own in a debate. (Which I think is good -- it would be nice if liberalism was more known for ideas instead of just snarkiness. There ARE a few intellectually honest people on that side doing good work; but is is notable that no one has ever heard of them, and also that they can't help but disagree with some major liberal tenets [because they are using their heads] as pushed by the liberal media clowns like KO.) The conservatives have a bunch of think tanks that have been around for a while providing them with philosophical underpinnings for their positions. (For instance, in response to your tax policy stuff, I can just send you to this link at the Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm1835.cfm -- again, I don't want to debate, just something to read.) But I tend to think liberals believe the people that disagree with them are hopeless cases not worth arguing with because they don't see them as wrong, but evil and also too stupid to ever change their mind. (In another thread AndyMays posted this relevant column from Charles Krauthammer touching on that topic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403623.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns) We're never going to get anywhere if liberals refuse to acknowledge that anyone but liberals could be worthwhile people and if they insist that the MOTIVES of conservatives are always greedy, non-compassionate, etc.

Anyway, back to the media pundits. Why do YOU think that liberal shows always fail? Why is there no liberal equivalent to Rush, O'Reilly, Beck, etc? (i.e. why no popular liberals?)

[boxcar]

See post #17 in this thread, Boxcar.

And try to be nice after you read it. :)

Okay...I read it...so, now what? Olberman never, never, never had the ratings of many of the people on Fox before, during or now after the presidential election. And KO's ratings are so low that he can't even reach high enough to lick the bottom of Beck's or O'Reilly's or Hannity's shoes.

Boxcar
P.S. I think I was pretty nice in this reply, considering that I've only nursed one cup of coffee, thus far.

[toetoe]

Killer Keith's report, Ray Scott style, on Hef's overindulgent night:



Hugh. Ill. 'Ludes.







KO's review of this post:

Toetoe posts for a star; perhaps two.

[NJ Stinks]

Anyway, back to the media pundits. Why do YOU think that liberal shows always fail? Why is there no liberal equivalent to Rush, O'Reilly, Beck, etc? (i.e. why no popular liberals?)

Here's the main reason as I see it:

Liberals don't live their lives thinking the sky is falling. So they don't need to tune in every day/night to find out if it's still true. Watching most shows on FOX News or listening to conservative talk radio is all about the sky is falling. If it's not about someone somehow taking away your money, it's about somebody somehow taking away your security. And it's all wrapped around the flag somehow so the baddy is not just bad for you but bad for every patriotic American. Apparently, there is an audience for this - maybe 15% of the country - that believe it hook, line, and sinker. Conversely, liberals don't believe the sky is falling so there is no urgency to tune in every day.

Taking it a step further, liberals got really involved in the last election because 8 years of Republican rule convinced us the sky was falling too. (Along with a slew of independents, of course.) So TV political shows got a real shot in the arm in 2008. But that bump slowly evaporated after the election because the sky no longer appeared to be falling. So many liberals and most independents went back to their normal viewing habits.

Anyway, that's my theory, GT. I look forward to the rebuttals to follow.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Come on now... the rallying cry for the person you elected to the highest office in the land has been CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS... and WE MUST ACT NOW!!!!

Please... that 'sky is falling' being indigenous to right-wingers or FOX is w-w-w-eak.

[chickenhead]

my "TV News" has now been cut back to just Charlie Rose, the pacing and style and focus I like. I just can't handle anything else for more than a few minutes anymore, and I don't find I miss anything. The internet is much better for research, anyway.

Charlie just annoys me, but in a likeable enough way.

[boxcar]

Come on now... the rallying cry for the person you elected to the highest office in the land has been CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS... and WE MUST ACT NOW!!!!

Please... that 'sky is falling' being indigenous to right-wingers or FOX is w-w-w-eak.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You nailed it squarely. With liberal politicians there's a crisis lurking behind every corner. Health care is still being called a "crisis" by libs today (even though it appears Scott Brown single-handedly put an end to it when he was elected up in the great, great, great state of MASS. Everything has come to a grinding halt on the bill.

And what about climate change? Listen to Gore sometimes to see what a horrible crisis the entire planet is in. The sky has been falling for years now with this money-grabbing scam. :rolleyes: Therefore, NJ, as usual, is fibbing through his pearly whites. :D Libs thrive on crises. Wasn't it Emmanuel who essentially said that we can't let a good crisis go to waste? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Come on now... the rallying cry for the person you elected to the highest office in the land has been CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS CRISIS... and WE MUST ACT NOW!!!!

Please... that 'sky is falling' being indigenous to right-wingers or FOX is w-w-w-eak.

Thank you for your rebuttal. :)

[NJ Stinks]

:lol: :lol: :lol: You nailed it squarely. With liberal politicians there's a crisis lurking behind every corner. Health care is still being called a "crisis" by libs today (even though it appears Scott Brown single-handedly put an end to it when he was elected up in the great, great, great state of MASS. Everything has come to a grinding halt on the bill.

And what about climate change? Listen to Gore sometimes to see what a horrible crisis the entire planet is in. The sky has been falling for years now with this money-grabbing scam. :rolleyes: Therefore, NJ, as usual, is fibbing through his pearly whites. :D Libs thrive on crises. Wasn't it Emmanuel who essentially said that we can't let a good crisis go to waste? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Thank you for your rebuttal. :)

[NJ Stinks]

my "TV News" has now been cut back to just Charlie Rose, the pacing and style and focus I like. I just can't handle anything else for more than a few minutes anymore, and I don't find I miss anything. The internet is much better for research, anyway.

Charlie just annoys me, but in a likeable enough way.

Oops, missed this one! Not necessarily a rebuttal but I may have to check out Charlie Rose. :)

[ElKabong]

KO's ratings tanked even further? Is the grim reaper w/ the pink slip too far away from him?

Michael Irvin was fired from his espn radio gig for a 25% ratings drop, he doesn't earn nearly the $$ KO does. KO has to be a bit nervous.

Might be time for KO to host some late nite radio show. I wonder if his reaction to the news w/b the same as Johnny Fever's when Andy Travis told him he was hosting a 2am show?..... "Oh God! I'll be interviewing psychics from the Water Department in that time slot!"

I'd love it :) Can't watch him for more than 3 minutes a week.

[witchdoctor]

They should put Olberman at Midnight. That way if I have trouble sleeping, I can turn on KO and he would put me to sleep in 5 minutes.

[cj's dad]

Thank you for your rebuttal. :)

My honest opinion is that liberal talk shows have no "substance" or "value" - in other words, philosophies/policies that can stand scrutiny or that ring solid with middle America.

[lsbets]

My honest opinion is that liberal talk shows have no "substance" or "value" - in other words, philosophies/policies that can stand scrutiny or that ring solid with middle America.

Change that to liberals have no substance or value and I would agree.