A Hannity’s ass?
Olbermann is not the Rush (or Hannity) of the left- though he may be just as blindly partisan. For one thing, Democratic politicians don’t constantly kiss his ass.
There were none. The CIA, Army, UN, British, no one could find them. Not even ONE weapon. There were extensive reports, written by our own agencies that all said the same basic thing - “no evidence of…”.
Saddam couldn’t get his sons, his money, or even himself out of the country. How would he move any sort of weapons grade materials, or even basic components?
The WMD is a lie.
Something doesn’t become true just because you keep repeating it.
I think Beck is too much of a self parody too be dangerous. He’s a living examplar of Poe’s Law. I think he’s got to be either crazy or joking so I can’t take him seriously, and I think, at the end of the day, he doesn’t either (doesn’t he like to say, “you’d have to be an idiot to take me seriously?”).
Hannity is not mitigated by either humor, mental illness or self-awareness. He’s a dead-eyed little sociopath reading GOP talking points off a teleprompter (he also gets regular feeds on his computer during his radio show), repeating malicious internet gossip, and falsifying facts to suit the GOP narrative. He doesn’t have a single original opinion or genuine ethical opinion of his own. He doesn’t even have the education or qualifications to know what he’s talking about a lot of the time. He flunked out of college and got his start in far right, fringe talk radio where he used to pander to the most extreme lunatics and once supported a neo nazi for Congress.
He’s a perfect mouthpiece for the Republican party – intellectually and morally empty, with no personal opinions, ideology or personality to get in the way. He always reads the copy with conviction no matter how much it may conflict with what he said yesterday.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say and I have a sneaking suspicion that you don’t either. Considering I never said anything remotely resembling what you’ve said.
I said Olbermann and Limbaugh are both sensationalizing polemicists.
Man that’s some seriously obtuse stuff.
The best he’s got on Rush is that Rush isn’t equal opportunity, he didn’t call out W for his lies. That I can agree with, we all know W lied through his teeth on a regular basis. But Rush is a partisan we can only expect him to go for one side, as we can expect from Olbermann. The bit where Olbermann went after Obama for flip-flopping on torture, well Rush will go after Republicans for flip-flopping on core issues too.
Ok, he engages in regular hyperbole. I can agree with that.
Yes, it’s a cheap shot.
Umm, that’s politics. I think Obama does seek to exploit the recession for political gain. The idea that political animal like Obama doesn’t calculate political costs and benefits when he enacts public policy seems ridiculously naive to me. Accusing the other side of playing politics with policy is really saying nothing, because that’s what ALL politicians do, and if they don’t, they don’t get elected.
Ok, fair enough. I’ll accept that.
Now, you think Keith Olbermann does not do the same? Would you be kind enough to demonstrate why you think Keith Olbermann is different and better? Mind you I am more politically aligned with Keith Olbermann than I am with Rush. My beef is with screaming talking heads on radio and television as a substitute for substantive debate. In which case both Keith and Rush are the enemy.
Yes, he would rather the President fail to enact more socialism in this country.
Hardly that horrible a statement to make.
Most of you hoped Bush would fail at many of his policies.
Where the hell did you people get this “Obama is a socialist” meme from? I must have missed the part where he staffed his cabinet with trade unionists and nationalized heavy industry.
I love this notion that there’s some sort of cosmic fairness that requires every hateful blowhard on the right to be matched on the left. It doesn’t work that way.
The right has monsters like Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck because conservatives tend to be stupid and angry. The left doesn’t have them because we have ideas and the ability to control our emotions. However badly some conservatives with a modicum of compunction wish that their side weren’t populated by such awful troglodytes notwithstanding, you are never going to show that we have as many assholes as you do. So stop trying to figure out “Who is the left’s Limbaugh?? Hmmm??” We don’t have one; assholes are the right’s stock in trade.
You do have Peggy Noonan. I do like her. Maybe she could be your leader??
Whatever. Just nuke the whole damn South.
If so, there’s plenty of people that prove him right.
That’s how the Right sees it and that’s what they oppose. Get a clue and at least know the narrative of the other side before you try to dispute it.
Why shouldn’t they get a clue and look up the terminology before they try to insert it into their narrative?
Which is really, really sick. I may not have liked Bush, but I didn’t want him to fail – in the John Wayne philosophy, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.” That’s what you want any president to do. If they fail, then the country’s fucked.
Olbermann stated in his Worst Person in the World book that he’s met Rush a few times and the guy’s actually quite quiet and rather “colorless” in person. And that he’d really, REALLY rather being doing sports-casting. (I will give him props though for being a Steelers fan - Rush, that is)
On the left, I’d say Michael Moore really, REALLY pisses me off, but he’s not nearly as big as Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, etc.
I merely answered Sampiro’s question about why Hussein wouldn’t opt to use WMD on occupying U.S. forces rather than send them out of the country.
I would think my second paragraph would have put the lie to the notion that I believed that Hussein smuggled WMD out of Iraq.
Reading for comprehension rather than making knee-jerk assessments based upon who the poster happens to be would help you to avoid such mistakes in the future.
To claim it’s completely off-base is just as wrong as to claim it’s completely accurate. The government holding public debt of private institutions is pretty socialistic. The government holding stock is DEFINITELY socialistic. This whole citizens service corp is pretty socialistic.
It’s not way out of left field to say he is moving us toward socialism.
And what IS socialism?
Is moving us? Or are we moving him? Would he have run on such a platform if it were wildly unpopular?
Government ownership of the means of production.
- Owning debt - if the company goes into receivership the debtholder owns it.
- Owning stock - straight up ownership
- Citizen Service Corp - Ownership of corp of citizens producing real value for the society.
All three are socialistic.