At least some of the US media still has balls.
 

lol, olbermann? he's to the democrats what limbaugh is to the republicans

:erm: Politics don't revolve around your black/white (Dem/Rep) view of things, you know. Olbermann constantly criticizes Dems for their inefficiency as a true opposition. i.e. their policy on Iraq/Cheney's impeachment.

Limbaugh is more of the ass licking type.

Give me a break. There are few people who see things in a black/white/democrat/republican way more than Keith Olbermann does. He criticizes the democrats because they're not partisan enough for his extremely liberal taste, not because he's somehow balanced in his approach.

Everything past the 5 minute mark is so dead on awesome, well said, and true.


Keith tends to get worked about minor shit too much but when it's a big deal he absolutely destroys.

he is a huge lefty and I don't agree with everything he says, but his show is entertaining

lefty or not, he effectively calls out fuckwads

not to mention the fact that it would arguably be world war iv, not iii

Yes, his latest book is decidedly non-partisan
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Conseque..._bxgy_b_text_b

He's a blowhard, alright. But from what little I've seen, I usually agree with him. He doesn't seem to be a flatout liar that Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly etc. are. If you want to compare him to them, I'd like to see you back that up with examples.

Does calling out this administration for being deceitful, unlawful, and war pigs, make one a liberal? Does this mean Jack Cafferty or Pat Buchanon are liberal? Lou Dobbs? I'm not sure what Olberman's stance on economic policy is, or view on abortion, states rights, limited government, treaties, welfare, et cetera are. I know he is against the war in Iraq, not sure about Afghanistan. Some people seem to paint with a wide brush.

In regards to the video, one of the best ways to illustrate someones true colors/incriminate them, is to use their own words. Not bad though, he has done better.

Criticizing one of the most anti-Republican administrations in this country's history doesn't make him a black/white party hawk.

if he actually believes the Bush administration is more dangerous than Al-Qaeda then he should stick to sports.


I like Olbermann, but his politics are not as thought out as he makes it seem. Iran has made clear their intentions on obtaining nuclear capacity and if you want to believe it's not to produce a weapon I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.



that simple linear extrapolation seems lost on Kieth here. If he and other lefties put as much cynicism towards Iran as they do Bush we would all be better off for it.

Not a single comment about Ahmadinajad in this whole rant. Tough to take seriously.

Cafferty - yes
Buchanan - no
Dobbs - no

It's not only what they're AGAINST, but what they're FOR that matters you know

Define Dangerous.

As of 1999, the U.S. was said to have 12,000 nuclear weapons of all types stockpiled.

AQ - 0

We have actually used them. If I werent a US citizen and lived, in say, Iran; who is more dangerous? US or AQ

Secondly, Iran is not legally allowed to build nuclear weapons. Though this is because they have voluntarily signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; they can back out and then build them legally. Countries that aren't members of the NPT like Isreal, Pakinstan, and S Africa built them. International relations is based upon sovereignty.

Hello everybody, this is cutie ming again.

Yes. He's not really comparable to Limbaugh. Fantastically liberal or not, he is not a worthless heap of hate mongering idiocy with near medieval views.

hey this niga is real dont be hatin