fatheadfred Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Brokaw: But the fact is, Governor, that you had eight years of a Bush administration, and a lot of Republicans in Congress for the past eight years. So why wouldn Link to post Share on other sites
quarter23cd Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Still it won't make anyone watch the god awful sport. Hockey fans (and moms) are clearly out of touch with mainstream America. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 So Olbermann and O'Reilly are different and it has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of you agree with Olbermann and disagree with O'Reilly? Or that Oh Riley is just a jackass: Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Still it won't make anyone watch the god awful sport.Hockey is the one sport that you have to watch in person -- or play -- to love. You can't capture it on the tube (remember Fox Sports' attempt?!?). Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 (Orally Men for you Fawlty Tower types) Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 sorry if this was already posted somewhere, but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw1vEzqld0I while i'm not a fan of Olbermann as a political pundit at all, his comments at the end are totally spot on. disgusting so much for not continuing the Bush admin's policy of fear and scare tactics... Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I'll give him that. Olbermann doesn't hide his bias. Doesn't make him any less unbearable. Could it be perhaps that BO has always been the way he is and that the times have driven Olbermann to where he is today? Case in point I had never ever voted democrat before the republican party nominated Bush for president in 2000. When they did that all I could think of were the many stories about him from the 1970's & 1980's and others frm his time as "facilitator for the rangers nnew stadium" and gov of TX and I always thought what an spoiled brat Ahole he was. I voted for Gore that election as much as against Bush. But I still voted generally for republicans. Then by 2002 I switched, the republicans had so obviously gone drunk with power and it made me sick to think that they were doing everything they used to say that they did not, only on a ten-fold basis. From gerymanndering the hell out of TX to their obvious and very open relationship to special interests, to their embrace and love for judicial activism to the tarnishing of the oval office. It was too sickening to watch and see bad history being made right before my eyes. Perhaps Olbermann has gone throuh some similar transformation? Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Of course you will give olbermann the benefit of tv doubt. You agree with him. He's still a jack ass. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 O'Reilly is at least fun to mock - Olbermann is unbearable to watch. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 So Olbermann and O'Reilly are different and it has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of you agree with Olbermann and disagree with O'Reilly? olbermann is a deeply irritated and irritating blowhard who is very intelligent, and occasionally shows that with stream-of-consciousness tirades that have plenty of usually-unspoken-by-media insights into our politics and culture. o'reilly is a deeply disturbed and disturbing blowhard, and that's about all i can get out of the guy. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Of course you will give olbermann the benefit of tv doubt. You agree with him. He's still a jack ass. I Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Another difference is that Olbermann does correct himself when he makes factual errors. O'Reilly has never apologized for anything. Also, Olbermann comments mainly on the people in the news whereas Bill O'Reilly generally comments on what the people in the news think of Bill O'Reilly. Link to post Share on other sites
myboyblue Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I'll bite. JUDE - why are you voting for McCain? Sure, I'm interested as well. Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I have never seen Olbermann -- I watch CNN for a more liberal slant and Fox for a more conservative one since I believe in seeing and understanding what "conservative america" is seeing. What I dislike about O'Reilly can't be put into a single post, but what gets me is his shameless hawking of his merchandise. Rush and Hannity do it too I guess. Does Olbermann? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 McCain will let JUDE keep more of his money. Also, "oil futures". What more do you need to know? Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Hope he hedged some of those futures with a few shorties. Link to post Share on other sites
myboyblue Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 McCain will let JUDE keep more of his money. Also, "oil futures". What more do you need to know?McCain would let me keep more of my money as well and I'm sure as hell not voting for him. That is not true of the big picture depending on your views though. Stock markets historically do better under democrats. Macro vs micro thinking? Then again, I don't have oil futures. Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 there is an artist here in lower Manhattan that has a painting of Obama and a painting of McCain. Dems can write on it in blue, Reps in red and independents in black. very interesting comments from all sides. lots of blue ink though... Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I have never seen Olbermann -- I watch CNN for a more liberal slant and Fox for a more conservative one since I believe in seeing and understanding what "conservative america" is seeing. What I dislike about O'Reilly can't be put into a single post, but what gets me is his shameless hawking of his merchandise. Rush and Hannity do it too I guess. Does Olbermann? Every news network has a more liberal slant than fox. That is simply because Fox is so unashamedly so far right that by default the other networks have to be more liberal in presentation. I personally find CNN to be center to center right. Just because a news organization presents news that might now be gushing with praise for republicans does not make it a bastion of liberal bias. I rarely if ever see the other networks cheerleading for democrats or republicans for that matter. Only one network does that. Link to post Share on other sites
myboyblue Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 there is an artist here in lower Manhattan that has a painting of Obama and a painting of McCain. Dems can write on it in blue, Reps in red and independents in black. very interesting comments from all sides. lots of blue ink though... Based on some of the arguments in here, there must not be a lot of successful people in Manhattan. Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Based on some of the arguments in here, there must not be a lot of successful people in Manhattan. depends on who you talk to. Link to post Share on other sites
remphish1 Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Cindy McCains outfit cost an estimated $313,000 at the convention (That includes watch and jewelry) ... Just an interesting story... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_en_ot/cvn_gop_fashion My favortie quote from the article... "Cindy McCain accessorizes like a woman of her generation," Iglehart said. "It has all that sparkling going on." How many her age can accessorize like that!? Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Cindy McCains outfit cost an estimated $313,000 at the convention (That includes watch and jewelry) ... Just an interesting story... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_en_ot/cvn_gop_fashion My favortie quote from the article... "Cindy McCain accessorizes like a woman of her generation," Iglehart said. "It has all that sparkling going on." How many her age can accessorize like that!? I bet Jude is impressed. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 good for her Link to post Share on other sites
Elixir Sue Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 From Talking Points Memo: Mystery Solved! 09.05.08 -- 2:39AM By Josh Marshall A lot of people were asking tonight: what the hell was that mansion up behind John McCain tonight during the first part of the speech? As I noted below, the TV close-ups only showed McCain's head against the grass in the picture, which made it look like he was reprising his famed green screen performance. And when they panned out, it looked like McCain was showing off one of his mansions. Well, several readers have written in to tell me that the building is actually the main building on the campus of the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. And sure enough, this page on the school's website makes it pretty clear that they're correct. You can compare below ... So it's not a mansion, but a middle school. But that still doesn't answer the question of why they picked this picture to have him standing in front of -- when I would imagine that 99.9% of the US population would have no idea what they were looking at. (ed.note: Thanks to TPM Readers JR and EK for cluing us in.) Late Update: I'm surprised this hadn't occurred to me. But several readers have suggested that perhaps one of the tech geeks charged with setting up the audio/visual bells and whistles for the evening was tasked with getting pictures of Walter Reed Army Medical Center but goofed and got this instead. At first I thought, No, that's ridiculous. This is a major political party with big time professionals putting this together. Nothing is left to chance. I mean, is this the RNC or a scene out Spinal Tap or Waiting for Guffman? I still have a bit of a hard time believing they're quite that incompetent. But when you figure in what appears to be the utter lack of any logic for this school being behind McCain and the fact that it has 'Walter Reed' in its name, I'm really not sure you can discount this possibility. (ed.note: Special bonus snark: That's not stock photo keyword searching we can believe in.) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts