MovieChat Forums > Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann Discussion > This guy is a laugh RIOT!!

This guy is a laugh RIOT!!

posted 17 years ago by zigfried-2
30 replies | jump to latest

This has to be one of the funniest shows on TV! I always make a point to watch when something big has happened with the President or the Republicans. There is nothing funnier than watching this Olbermann guy frothing at the mouth. And does he attack Bill O'Reilly and Fox News EVERY night?? Me thinks I see a case of RATINGS ENVY!!
ANd I love the way his guests are always people who AGREE with him! Tonight he started the show with a segment on the Bush amdinistartion TORTURING terrorists (oh, horror!!). He had two guests on (that Dean guy from the Nixon era and some guy from Georgetown), both of whom agreed with Olbermann. So the questioning went something like, "How horrible is this?" "It is more horrible than anything on earth." "How evil are these people?" "They are evil because they are trying to cover up how incompetent they are." "This is what we KNOW is happening. Isn't there more HORRIBLE stuff going on that we don't even know aabout??" "Oh, yes, there absolutely is!!" LOL
At least O'Reilly brings in guests who actually DISAGREE with him so we can hear BOTH sides of the issue --did I hear someone say Fair and balanced? This show is for idiots who just want to hear people who agree with what they already believe and are afraid to have their beliefs challenged in any way whatsoever!

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kineticways 17 years ago

ANd I love the way his guests are always people who AGREE with him!

I watch this show everyday religiously and that is the only thing I don't like about the show. But at least his guests like John Dean, Nixon Administration White House Counsel, and Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at Georgetown University, have facts and experience to support Keith's panderings.

last movie(s) viewed:
Superman Returns
Little Miss Sunshine
Hollywoodland

reply

[–] Benihanahasnofunflare 12 years ago

Facts are so 20th century.

reply

[–] PhantomLord_78 17 years ago

he said "torturing terrorists, oh horror!"
Let me correct you sir
Torturing SUSPECTED terrorists.
With our lovely patriot act and us holding "emey combatants" and "terror suspects" with absolutely no due process, these people very well could know NOTHING. So we're probably torturing some innocent people.
So, yeah, I think that's a bad thing.
I hope somebody tortures you, trying to get info you don't have out of you

"The Horsemen are drawing nearer..."
http://www.myspace.com/bigcoz

reply

[–] zigfried-2 17 years ago

It was Olbermann who claimed that the USA was torturing prisonors. I added the "oh horror" becasue I know that he is full of horsesh**!! The united states does not torture prisonors. Waterboarding is not torture nor is putting someone in a cold room and dousingthem with cold water. Nor is playing loud ,music. Torture is cutting off body parts (like heads), ar causing severe pain or permenant physical damage. None of our interrogation techniques iinvolve any of this.
As to the prisonors being "suspected" =oh, well. They were captured on the battlefield and now they are prisonors. They don't get protection from the constitiution or rigt to legal representation. They are prisonors of war and we are affording them Geneva convention protection even though we don't have to. they are not fighting under a nation's flag nor in uniform so technically, they are not protected by the GC. But we are giving it to them anyway.
Compare the way Al Qaeda treats their prisonors and the way we treat ours. Al Qaeda captures US soldiers(and citizens) and disembowels them and dumps them in a river or hangs them from a bridge. Or they cut their heads off and post the video on the internet.
We put our prisonors in Gitmo where they get three meals a day, expert healthcare, are allowed to worship as they please, and are monitored by the International Red Cross, which has a station at the prison. Who would YOU rather be captured by?

reply

[–] kineticways 17 years ago

You're kidding right? Or are you just trying roil whoever reads this? You know all this how?

last movie(s) viewed:
Superman Returns
Little Miss Sunshine
Hollywoodland

reply

[–] zigfried-2 17 years ago

I know this because I try to keep up on actual current events, not blogs, or morons like Olberman.

reply

[–] judehii 17 years ago

Are you just a complete moron? Do you watch the news or read the papers or anything? I'm not even going to bother refuting your uninformed idiocy, just look up the *beep* article on Wikipedia.

Also, have you ever been tortured? Ever seen someone tortured? Do you know exactly what's going on in Guantanamo Bay? Have you been there yourself and watched everything they do off the record or camera? Do you understand that because of waived habeas corpus if some jackass DID decide to do something nasty to someone there, they would have no rights to question it? That it would never see the light of day?

No?

Well, are you so naive to believe it never happens?

I think you are.

reply

[–] zigfried-2 17 years ago

Of course you are not going to bother refuting my claims. Because you can't! Anyone who gets their world news from Wikipedia, deserves to look like an idiot.

And to answer your question, no I have never been tortured. Have YOU? And what the hell does that have to do with anything? Also, who has "waived habeas corpus" rights? Are you referring to Habeas Corpus rights for prisoners of war or enemy combatants? Sorry, but they are not afforded such rights.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zigfried-2 17 years ago

Uh, hate to break it to you pal, but we are not torturing our prisonors. Just cuz Olberman says it is true, don't make it true!

reply

[–] clay56 17 years ago

---------------------------------------------------------
"Just cuz Olberman says it is true, don't make it true!"
---------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm,
Olbermann has a pretty SOLID track record as far as getting the facts down. Not to say he's perfect, but I'd be more inclined to take his word on an issue MUCH sooner than I would GWB 43.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zigfried-2 17 years ago

"Olbermann has a pretty SOLID track record as far as getting the facts down"

Uhhh, you are joking right? Are you SERIOUSLY stating that Keith Olbermann is a journalist? What a joke!
He is the TV equivelant ot Rush Limbaugh, only Rush does not distort the truth the way Olbermann does. This guy lies on his show almost every night --and they are lies that are VERY easy to fact-check. So for you to state that Olbermann has a solid track record does not make you look too good dude! Get your facts from reliable sources, not from political hacks who misquote, take out of context and outright LIE day after day.
Take a step into reality!!

reply

[–] clay56 17 years ago

-----------------------------
"Uhhh, you are joking right?"
-----------------------------
Nope

------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you SERIOUSLY stating that Keith Olbermann is a
journalist?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prettymuch yep,
And no matter what one may think of Olbermann as a journalist, he's always been a stickler for getting the facts straight and he lets people know it when he himself and/or other's make their mistakes especially when (UNLIKE Olbermann) those others don't own up to them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This guy lies on his show almost every night --and they are lies that are
VERY easy to fact-check."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean Olbermann makes HUGE mistakes the way Rush Limbaugh did when he referred to a real U.S. soldier as phoney one? Or are you stating he's literally lied like Bill O'Reilly did when he continually announced U.S. trade embargo with France that had NO existance whatsoever?
And one of these easy, "fast-check" sites wouldn't be "Olbermann Watch" would it? I LUVED it when someone posted a badly edited video from that site trying not very well to make it APPEAR Olbermann was lying about something he CLEARLY wasn't. That was pretty obvious even BEFORE someone else posted the FULL clip.
No, Olbermann ISN'T the best out there and he's certainly no Edward R. Murrow eventhough he's currently using Murrow's--"Good Night and Good Luck"--closing line. He's as much as said so himself.
But the two biggest criticisms I read about him are; "He never has anyone on who debates him." and "He lies." I'll grant the first one to a point eventhough he and his guests aren't always in full agreement. For anyone who makes accusations of lying, he/she can at least say WHAT Olbermann is "lying" about to make a "fast check" easier. As it is, only the first criticism has any REAL substance to it. And if that's all the legitimate ammunition Olbermann's critics have to use against him, I'd say Olbermann is WAY ahead ethics wise in the cable journalism field and shows much promise in the years to come as a journalist!

reply

[–] zigfried-2 16 years ago

I have never heard of the "Olbermann check" website of which you speak. Don't need it. When you are actually WELL INFORMED you don't need hack websites to provide you with the facts because you are walking around with them in your head.
You stating that Olbermann "always been a stickler for getting the facts straight" says more about you than it does about Olbermann. As I have stated before, Olbermann is a master of the misquote, the out of context quote and the omission of facts.
A fine example is when he chose Barbara Bush as his worst person in the world because she donated money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund that was earmarked fo be used for eductaional software to be purchased from her son's software company. Olbermann conveniently neglected to mention that it was only a small portion of her donation that was so earmarked. Indeed, mrs. Bush has donated a great deal of money to the fund with no such stipulation. But Olbermann did not mention this because it would not fit with his "agenda".
The Rush Limbaugh "phony soldier" comment is another example of a case where, if you heard what he said, you know what he was talking about and the left-wing attempt to take his quote of context just makes them look intellectually dishonest.
They did the same thing with Ann Coulter when they accused her of saying she wanted John Edwards to die in a terrorist attack. Anyone who heard the actual quote knows that is NOT what she said!
This happens over and over again.
But that does not matter to the left but it should. If you have to lie in order to get me to vote for you, then you have lost my support.
One of the joys of Olbermann's show for me, on the odd occasion that I watch it, is it is SO EASY to disprove 90% of what the guy says.

reply

[–] clay56 16 years ago

Hey Zigfried!
Nice post!
A. Barbara Bush: Now I really have to confess I didn't really like Olbermann's going after the eighty year old former First Lady like he did. But it looked like Olbermann may have been going on what he read in the Houston Chronicle, which makes no mention of non-earmarked funds, before the evening he reported it. Still if Keith blew it here, he just may put himself on his OWN "Worst Person's" segment. He's done it more than once before.
B. "Comedian" Rush Limbaugh: Yes, Olbermann did state Limbaugh's was talking about a REAL phoney soildier. This is eventhough, according to Olbermann, Limbaugh did not stipulate this individual for the two minutes he truly appeared to be referring to anti Iraq soildiers in general as phoney. Olbermann said this would have been sufficient had Limbaugh been trying to apologize for his misstatement. Instead, Limbaugh goes after Brian McGough, who did a spot for votevets.org, in which he charged Limbaugh with lying and dared Limbaugh to bring him on his show. Limbaugh responded charging that others must have put McGough up to what he was doing by telling him lies. McGough replied to this, saying essentially NO ONE had put him up to what he did and that his motivation for what he did came DIRECTLY from Limbaugh. And to my knowledge, Limbaugh STILL hasn't had McGough on his show yet. Looks like Keith's not the ONLY one who dosen't do debates. :)
C. Is for "Coultergeist:" And I'll grant you this one. Poor Ann HAS been misquoted. To be fair, she was misquoting Bill Maher who'd ACTUALLY stated that if Dick Chaney died, many soldiers would be alive today. Cruel as that may sound, she turned it into something worse when she said Maher had wished Chaney dead. This was in response to public outcry over her use of a homophobic slur in reference to John Edwards which promped her to conclude her monologue saying; "So I've learned my lesson. If I say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he'd been killed in a terrorist assisination plot." Thus, in Ann's defense, she wasn't REALLY hoping Edwards would be killed. She was only being sarcastic in the most horrible way imaginable.
P.S.
I agree with you about being "WELL INFORMED."
Hope this was helpful.
Take Care!!!

reply

[–] zigfried-2 16 years ago

Actually, the article in the Houston Chronicle did indeed state that Mrs. Bush gave other money to the fund that was not earmarked for the software company. This is the quote form the article

**Becker said she wasn't at liberty to divulge how much money the Bush family gave to the hurricane funds, but said the "rest of their donation was not earmarked for anything."**

That is the article that Olbermann referred to when he gave Mrs. Bush the worst person in the world. You may claim this is a "mistake" but I am saying that Olbermann does this all the time. He leaves out pertinent facts or he misquotes or takes things out of context. So many times I have watchd that show and said, "That is NOT what they said" or "THat is NOT what they did".

THe other thing that I think makes Olbermann look like a woos is that he brings folks on who agree with hsi opinions. There is no debate because all of Olbermann's guests support his opinions. Therefore the "other side" gets little to no exposure on the show. When O'Reilly begins his show with his "Talking Points" segment he frequently follows it with a guest who has an opposing viewpoint. Olberman does not do this.

reply

[–] clay56 16 years ago

The quote you provided mentions the overall donation of the Bush family not the individual donation of the former First Lady.
And again, I concede, Olbermann's not "fair and balanced," neither is O'Reilly.
The difference is Keith hasn't claimed such. And yet again, "Countdown" is not a debate show, neither is "Factor"...for different reasons of course. :)

reply

[–] zigfried-2 16 years ago

Have you ever watched O'Reilly's show? It is puzzling how you could claim his show is not a debate show if you are at all familiar with the show. When he states his opinion on whatever topic he is discussing, what are hisfirst words to his guest? "Where am I wrong?" is what he says. The guest then tells him where he/she believes he is wrong. Yet you claim it is NOT a debate show?
He has regular segments where he has someone from the left and someone from the right debating issues (it used to be Michelle Maulkin and Kirstin Powers, but he changes the names every few months). He also has a regualar segment with Bernie (forget his last name) from the right and Jane (forget her last name too) from the left where they debate the media. Yet you claim it is NOT a debate show?
Having been a regular viewer of his show for a number of years, I would say that 70-80% of every show is debate, either with Bill as one of the debaters or as the moderator between a Democrat and Republican. SO I disagree with you strongly --O'Reilly is NOT afraid to debate the issues with those he disagrees with. his show is primarily a debate show. And he rarely ever cuts mics, berates, or tells people to "shut up" (and when he has done this it is usually over the defense of children, a topic where he is very passionate).
I agree with you that Olbermann's show is in no way a debate show.

reply

[–] clay56 16 years ago

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is puzzling how you could claim his show is not a debate show if you are
at all familiar with the show."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im even more puzzled how someone who tries to bully, inturrupt, and outshout guests expressing even slight disagreement could consider his program an ACTUAL debate show.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He has regular segments where he has someone from the left and someone
from the right debating issues."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
He also had Geraldo Rivera, the guy who use to be Billo's personal "yes" man, on one night. And when Rivera voiced disagreement on an issue involving immigration, O'Reilly began to grill him. From there came a "debate" or what most of us OUTSIDE "the zone" call a screaming match that was just SLIGHTLY louder than what he generally has with his dissenting guests. Wonder if those two have made up yet. :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And he rarely ever cuts mics, berates, or tells people to "shut up"
(and when he has done this it is usually over the defense of children, a
topic where he is very passionate)."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's cut the mic's of and/or lied to prominant figures like Geneva Convention expert Ann Wright when she refused to be talked over, inturrupted or intimidated by O'Reilly who insisted she confine her answers to his loaded questions with a yes or no. He did so another time to his OWN radio co-host. He told Jeremy Glick to "shut up" three times inside three seconds before cutting his mic. He told the same lie in two different interviews to the SAME retired four star general when he knew he was clearly loosing ground in the so-called debate involving the Iraq war. And Im sure he's very "passionate" about the welfare of children especially in more recent times. I've even heard of a book he's written on the subject. Knowing O'Reilly, its prettymuch a smokescreen he's thrown up to keep from having to apologize to the parents of the ONE child who's reputation he so horribly smeared with his wreckless "passion."
And again, Olbermann hasn't had debates on his show. But he's shown far more maturity and integrity with guests who've disagreed with him. Can't see Billo taking statements as well that begin with: "I don't agree" or "That's an unfair inference," since his is a "debate" show...at least in HIS mind where "The Paris Business Review" REALLY exists. :)

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IronWings2112 16 years ago

"When O'Reilly begins his show with his "Talking Points" segment he frequently follows it with a guest who has an opposing viewpoint. Olberman does not do this."
and then continues to shout them down lol

he will bring on people with opposing views who just can't hold their own weight(unknowns and people with little experience), or he will bring on people with opposing views who are extremists(which makes any opposing viewpoint look insane). or he will bring on people who he claims have an opposing view on things, but they end up agreeing with him(more conservative commentators.
also I see sometimes a bigger name Republican strategist or ex-politician, where the Democratic strategist is just a total wieny.

but often times he just shouts them down and doesn't give them much of a chance to talk.

reply

[–] mwer347-1 16 years ago

Does anybody remember when the atrocities at Abu Grab were revealed, and Bush said the Geneva Conventions didn't have any place in this war because the enemy was no longer real soldiers? In fact, he said the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply to anybody we took prisoner.

reply

[–] zigfried-2 16 years ago

Technically, President Bush is correct. The Geneva Conventions apply to soldiers fighting under a nation's flag, in uniform. Al Qaeda and other prisoners captured in the War on Terror are "enemy combatants" , therefore the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. Of course, it is all a moot point as we are treating the priosners humanely anyway.

reply

[–] bjboyer-1 16 years ago

This is all I have to say:

CABLE NEWS RACE THURS., MAR. 29, 2007 VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,844,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 2,299,000
FNC GRETA 1,689,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,381,000
FNC HUME 1,336,000
CNN KING 1,062,000
CNN DOBBS 874,000
CNN COOPER 756,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 712,000
CNNHN GRACE 646,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 510,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 463,000

reply

[–] clay56 16 years ago

And here's more...as in more recent! :)
On September 7 and October 19, 2007, Olbermann BEAT O'Reilly in the age twenty-five to fifty-four demographic ratings. They're noticed most by commercial sponsors which is probably why poor Billo was practically pleading with his viewers to set their DVR's and Tivo's to Factor on Friday nights. O'Reilly made "Countdown's" WPIW list for this since that kind of solicitation is something Nielsons don't like to see.
Yep, O'Reilly's still way ahead. But his show's taken dips in the ratings each year while Olbermann's numbers continue to grow. Oh, but ratings are just icing on the cake for Keith. Personally, I think he's happy enough making sure everyone knows it when O'Reilly slips up from (almost) one night to the next! :)

reply

[–] IronWings2112 16 years ago

"When O'Reilly begins his show with his "Talking Points" segment he frequently follows it with a guest who has an opposing viewpoint. Olberman does not do this."
and then continues to shout them down lol

he will bring on people with opposing views who just can't hold their own weight(unknowns and people with little experience), or he will bring on people with opposing views who are extremists(which makes any opposing viewpoint look insane). or he will bring on people who he claims have an opposing view on things, but they end up agreeing with him(more conservative commentators).
also I see sometimes a bigger name Republican strategist or ex-politician, where the Democratic strategist is just a total wieny.(again someone with little experience or name recognition)

but often times he just shouts them down and doesn't give them much of a chance to talk.

one other thing....
why would Fox News ever hire Oliver North?
the guy was part of a big scandal during the Reagan years, Iran-Contra.
did you know that most of the others involved have been hired by the current Bush Administration? the same people who sold weapons to Iran those years ago, now have influence in whether or not we attack Iran next. I guess it's no different than Cheney and Rumsfeld supporting Suddam along with the first President Bush, and then going after him when we can't control him, or we get tired with him. I believe we did similar things with Noriega as well.
a lot of it has to do with showing how tough we are, and not really about safety or government building. plus we all know those that the corporations that profit from war need to continue to make the profit. or they would be out of business. go watch the documentary "Why We Fight" for some insight ;).

reply

[–] zigfried-2 16 years ago

CHALLENGE: Watch the show and back up your claims with actual evidence.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]