Hypocrites
 

Before anybody on national television bashes anybody they check the poll numbers. As long as the the percentages would cover their commentary the newscaster bash their own mother to get ahead in the Neilson Ratings..:usd:

The fact that he spends HALF is show ripping Bush EVERYDAY kinda raises a few red flags for me on his agenda. Sure he can raise questions on Bush's policys, thats fine and totally fair. But when its obvious he hates W with a passion how can one call him fair? He constantly gets in cheap shots and stupid little jokes. He's not a serious news reporter anyway, he's no different than watching John Stewart on the Daily show in my opionion. My favorite was after W's State of the Union spech when there was a sharp increase in W's poll numbers. Olberman spends maybe 5 seconds on that and proceeds to say the polls are meaningless because more Repubs watched his speach than Dems so they dont count. But everytime W's polls drop...Its the top strory! Nah, but no bias! :rotfl: have you EVER heard him praise W? For anything? i think not.... Its always negative.

You still haven't answered how that makes him a "liberal".

Perhaps he believes in an honest, competent and transparent government that respects the US Consititution. If that was his agenda it would certainly justify some of his behavior.

-spence

I dont know if he himself is a liberal. But he certainly reports the news from an anti Bush left wing perspective. I dont see any difference in the way Olberman reports on the issues than how Nebe does....they sound very alike...

The great Liberal cover-up..
Nebe IS Olberman!!!!! :eek:

ha maybe. But man they sound so alike!

I still think Spence raised a good point... bashing bush doesnt make KO a liberal...
maybe he just has a personal distrust/dislike for bush...???

So anti-bush = left wing?

That's just absurd. I didn't think you had any idea what you were talking about.

Bryan, that fish must have been a shad...

-spence

Yup...
and Yup....

Did u evr notice u never see Nebe an KO in the same room.

Of course he hates Bush. Thats why you can't believe a word he says becuase he has an obvious bias against Bush. Thats my whole point...

So Olberman is not Left wing is what your saying? Look its one thing to disagree with W on issues but its another thing to slander the man and go out of ones way to rip him apart like Olberman does. How you cant see his clear bias is beyond me....

Slander is a legal word Skippy, are now accusing KO of lying about Bush?

If someone was to ask you to describe a liberal, what would you say?

-spence

Heres one persons thoughts on that question.

By: Michael Bauman,
Ever since Michael Dukakis suffered a terrible drubbing at the polls for flashing his ACLU card in public and for identifying himself as a liberal without embarrassment, the dreaded “L” word has fallen into wide disfavor, even disrepute. Some liberal politicians, like Bill Clinton, don’t like to use it all. Nevertheless, it’s still possible to know who’s a liberal and who is not.

You might be a liberal if . . .

You think that consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.

You named your children Moonglow and Arizona.

You think the really alarming violence takes place outside the abortion clinic.

You’ve ever referred to the “root cause” of something.

You pray to “The Woman Upstairs.”

You think we never gave peace a chance.

You had to be told that “Manhattan,” “menopause” and “boycott” were not sexist words

You begin sentences with the words “I feel.”

Your driver’s license has a hyphen because for you one last name just isn’t enough.

You don’t think “All in the Family” is a very funny program, but watch it anyway because Meathead makes a lot of sense.

You think OJ is out looking for the real killers.

You think Keth Olbermann is an astute social commentator.

You think it takes a village.

You think that the words “to promote the general welfare” in the Constitution mean to promote welfare generally.

You think that, even though more people voted against him than for him in both the 1992 and the 1996 presidential elections, Bill Clinton had a mandate.

You think that conservatives, like preservatives, ought to be federally regulated.

You ever wore earth shoes.

You have ever wondered out loud, “Why can’t we all just get along?”

You think the New York Times prints all the news that’s fit.

You think that Rush Limbaugh is just an entertainer.

You spent Columbus Day reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

You reach the limits of your talent and then complain that you ran into a glass ceiling.

You wear more ribbons on your lapel than in your hair.

You think that the really dangerous McCarthy was Joe, not Eugene.

You blame the Unabomber’s parents.

You fail to see the connection between Lenin and Lennon.

You have ever agreed with Martin Sheen or Barbra Streisand.

Aside from perhaps 2 items that's really not funny at all :sleeps:

You'd think if Liberals were so dumb they'd be a lot easier to lampoon.

-spence

You might be a Liberal if you lack the ability to laugh at yourself

How about a definition for "Still Drinking the Kool-Aid"?

I hope this is received with the Humor that is intended.

Actually Spence is correct. I'm about as conservative as you can get on most issues and I have had it with him. He has let all facets of his supporters down. Funny thing is I don't think it was intentional. I believe he is an honest guy tyring to please everyone but delegating too much power to his advisors. However, that is the problem, you can't please everyone.

As I said before, Bush has basically ceeded all his power to those whom he foolishly trusts. Bush isn't evil, he's just not smart enough to be running the country.

Which is pretty obvious...but remember...he was chosen by GOP insiders for expressly this reason!

-spence

i agree.

The anti-christ and his followers are still drinking the kool-aid for their admittance to failings will never be recognized by them.

Bingo.

you and me is like beer and pretzels. :uhuh:

Yep Liberals love the kool-aid...

Skip do you still believe in Santa?

Do you still believe Iraq never had or used WMD's?

Skip, I'd delete this post quick like before anyone sees it.

-spence

I guess gassing Kurds doesnt count as Iraq having or using WMD's right?

That's not the point, your previous post was a non sequitur.

-spence

What it is, Is they had the WMD'S when Bush sr. went to war, when Jr went to look for them they found nothing. because there were none. He wanted to succeed were his old man couldn't and guess what he isn't doing any better than Dad, He lied and now us as tax payers are paying the price and will be until we retire and then some.

Bush Rant
 

Well, I can help myself, so I guess you have to "Support Bacteria!-they're the only culture some people have"!!!!!And I don't mean us Publicans!!

:laugha:

I believe they had them, because we gave Iraq the WMD's when they went to war with Iran, which was highly illegal. That is why the pentagon was so sure they had them.

I dont gove a flying F- if they used them or not over there, the fact is that they were never going to use them 'over here', and that was the battle cry- that Iraq was going to attack us with 'WMD's'

I dont think anyone thought Iraq would attack us, the whole WMD thing was mainly that we knew Saddam had ties to Al Queada and Hamas and could very easily hand over WMD's to those terroist groups. And Bush beileved, as do I, that that was a strong possiblty and we just couldnt take that chance in a post 9/11 world. I guess you trusted Saddam to be a good little dictator and behave. I for one would'nt have taken that chance, Especially after 9/11. Who in thier right mind would have!?

Now we have a very simalur situation with Iran. We know they are trying to get a Nuke, they have siad they will destroy Isreal and we all know they have major ties to Al Queada. I doubt Iran will attack the U.S. but they certainly have the potential to destroy our allies and hand over weapons to Al Queada, who could use them to attack us. Do you trust that nut job in Iran to have wmd's? Given your stance on Iraq i can only assume you will not support any military action in Iran if it should come to that.

Actually, no we didn't...

What's been made clear after the fact is that the Administration had no credible evidence linking Saddam and Bin Laden, yet for some reason Skip believes it's true.

Can someone do the math here?

Actually we don't. We don't have any evidence that proves they are working on a nuke. There is much evidence that's suspect, but nothing conclusive.

This isn't to say Iran isn't a threat...but it certainly calls into question the motives of those sounding the alarm. So far their track record of success is quite poor.

-spence

Here's some rather interesting stuff to read...

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F

Not really...all he's doing is stating rumor and unchecked statements as hard facts to get you to believe there's something of substance.

Skip...are you listening?

Every US Government group tasked with investigating this issue has come up completely cold...nothing...nada...zip...zilch.

The stuff from your tap is the Kool-Aid, the stuff in the pitcher in your fridge is water...

Time for a little switcheraroo.

-spence

Ok so you say those are all lies and made up. How about some new stuff. Tons of documents captured in Afganastan and Iraq have recently been released and more are to be followed. Here's some more for ya...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...ieqmb.asp?pg=1

Of course this is from the weekly standard so i'm sure its all propaganda. But facts are facts. Some interesting stuff in this atricle, Including Iraqs ties to Philippine terroists which i have never heard of until reading this. Interesting read if nothing else.

The military plan to invade Iraq was inspired in conception and proved to be brilliant in execution. The civilian plan for holding and occupying Iraq has proven to be a tremendous failure. It shows a squandering of a victory that, I think, is hard to comprehend - so great is the magnitude.

I believe there is no greater example of the absolute inept nature of the Bush administration than talk of some sort of military option for dealing with Iran before figuring their way out of Iraq.

If having this viewpoint makes me a liberal I will live with that title.

I believe we have the finest armed forces any country in history has enjoyed. We, as a country, owe them better. Sending them into Iraq to take care of Saddam was like sending a team of Lipizzaner stallions to drag a broken down cart filled with rotten manure out of a filthy slum.

Using half-baked theories about what Saddam might have done had we not invaded is wrong. It is like using the comely nature of Ms. Lewinsky’s lips to explain the mistake that lead to impeachment hearings that proceeded the ones they are talking about for Mr. Bush. Although in that case we were talking about a ruined dress. In this one, a ruined country.

Yep and in these new documents the only thing the facts demonstrate is that a person reported hearing some of this second or third hand from a single unconfirmed source.

Sort of like the info they foolishly relied upon from Curveball :doh:

On it's own it has little value other than it give conspiracy folks something else to write about. OH BUT WHAT IF!!!

More importantly, it adds nothing to the argument that Bush were justified to remove Saddam because of links to al Qaida as we do know for a fact that the Administration didn't have the intel to support it's claims to the link before the decision was made.

And Bob, I'm with you. Even though our troops have signed up for whatever mission they are sent on...they are still our brothers and sisters and should be treated with much more respect.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and all have pissed on our troops like they are their little toy army, and the likes of Skippy can't seem to get why some are so outraged :realmad:

-spence

i think the exit plan for iraq is to march into iran.. time will tell.