Olberman fired up...

I miss extended cable :)

This is a few months old, but wow.

Just wow.

Comments

[Scott Cheatham]

Olberman's a tired broadcaster who got booted from SportsCenter years ago for not following the rules. I liked him in his younger years when he paired up with Dan Patrick but he's trying to reinvent himself as some politico and it doesn't work.

He wants to demonize the Prez but he forgets the man who served before him lied under oath about an affair he had with a barely old enough woman, pardoned his brother on his way out of office and had people lie about his investments (and his wife's too) and those who had incriminating information mysteriously disappeared, went to jail willingly or Ahem, "killed themselves".

I call this selective memory Mr. Olberman!

[matt]

Scott - wow!

Yeah, that was a really good point (sarcasm included). No one will think you wrote that comment with a bigger agenda than Olbermann (still sarcasm).

[chad]

I like this guy. He did a great piece on Ron Paul as well. I just can't imagine what would happen if President Bush were to resign. Then we'd have President Cheney or President Pelosi? I shutter at the thought.

[mark]

Matt,
Way to critically engage Scott's comment(sarcasm included).

[Scott Cheatham]

Matt,

Wow...Mark has a point. I don't mind criticism but I think you're missing the point. By stating facts from the Clinton presidency, I'm merely comparing and contrasting the two. If Olberman is going to spew hate speech about Bush, he needs to contrast that with recent history. He can't which is why I said "Selective Memory".

[Bob Hyatt]

Now, now, boys...

"Hate speech" is definitely the wrong term.

This was very strong political commentary.

And no, he didn't do a compare and contrast with the Clinton presidency, but that wasn't really his point.

This was a commentary on the Bush presidency. And from a former College Republican, even though I winced occasionally listening to it- I think in many ways it was right on.

[matt]

Mark,

I am really confused at your comment. If you think I am wrong in how I responded, then how is using my same tactics to call me out justifiable. Seems a lot like the same reasoning we are in Iraq. Was your comment a subtle way of supporting the Bush presidency and Iraq war (of course when I say subtle way of supporting the war I am referring of course to the subversive rhetoric Bob, Walsh, and Keesmat say Paul uses to proclaim freedom for the slaves and repressive woman in Colossians)?

And Scott, Bob proved my point. If I want to be upset at something President Bush has done wrong I don't have to reference what the last President has done wrong. If I did, I would be forced to do it for every President, and it would last hours. Your comment had an agenda whether you consciously realized it or not. It's okay just admit it. You'll feel better, I'll feel better.

[peter]

olberman reminds me of oreilly. i used to like watching his show. but he gradually got more and more partisan and irrational. now i really can't stomach him.

oreilly started out more centrist when he started. then he jumped into the deep end.

i guess it's never really possible to escape subjectivity.

[Jason]

Peter:

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

[Mark]

Matt,
I think politics is not the realm of a Christian because the church its own polis. So I don't support any politicans because they thrive on allowing the nation state to thrive rather than the church. I just found your comment to one an arrogant liberal ass would make. Mine responses was such as well and I am sorry.

[matt]

My apologies as well. I wasn't taking this comment thread all that seriously, so I had some fun at others expenses. Once again, I am sorry.

And in all honesty, being said that something I said sounded like something :an arrogant liberal ass would make" did make my day.

But why couldn't it just be "ass"? Seriously, why is it necessary to add "arrogant liberal" to the statement. An ass is an ass no matter which side he or she is being an ass for.