What is Digg?98 Comments
- OliverDreams, on 10/12/2007, -11/+57Every single word that Olbermann spoke is the absolute documentable truth. I wonder if the neocons can even recognize the truth when they see it? Olbermann will go down in history as a great american patriot...and Bush will go down in history as the worse american president.
- timbellomo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+40Olbermann's ratings getter better and better; FOX News' ratings get worse and worse.
- Anarchrist, on 10/12/2007, -7/+35Hopefully he continues the objectivity once Bush is out of office and kicks the ass of the hypocritical Democrat president just like he does with Bush.
- harumph, on 10/12/2007, -6/+33despite the fact that keith olbermann really tries hard to channel murrow, he is maybe the only person to state the patently obvious without embellishment or pussyfooting and still maintaining a certain eloquence. it is really too bad that the junking of the fairness doctrine has fragmented network news to the point of severe dilution. this is really the thing middle america needs to face. bush and co. do not have ordinary people's interests at heart and they need to to be confronted with that stark reality.
go olbermann! keep going until they disappear you to a secret camp somewhere.
sigh... - Digitallimit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27That was a truly chilling speech. The state of our nation is depressing.
- gill1109, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Can anyone explain what's this O'Reilly thing? (an old European speaking here)
I must say this Olbermann guy is quite cool, saying the things that we here in Europe have known for years... - loneagle, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33It is a crying shame that we finally have someone with balls (certainly few Dems can say the same...) yet not everyone is rushing to give him better ratings (rating not for Nielsen's sake but for responsive audience). Olbermann is a true patriot...!
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31@appleann
If you can bring yourself under some semblance of control, maybe you can offer some intelligent rebuttal. And I use the word "maybe" only because I am giving you tbe benefit of the doubt- but quite frankly, I don't think you'll make it. - horizonsonfire, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26At this point, with Olbermann's popularity going up as much as it is, it would be incredibly hard to just 'make him disappear'. People would put two and two together and say, "Hey, he was criticizing the administration about the way in which they treated their critics..."
Anyway, to save another comment, Keith Olbermann is a true patriot. He is a man that deserves everyone's respect, regardless of political affiliation. You don't have to agree with what he says, but you at least have to respect him for having the courage to go on national television and lay out what he thinks.
People like Olbermann seem to be exceedingly rare in the media today. Most political shows seem to only consist of figureheads spouting off the day's talking points. Other shows don't have the guts to take a stance on an issue; they worry too much about being politically correct. Anyhow, that's my two (or three) cents. - eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27you do know that diggers are actually people outside the internet right?
- neec, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32Hey we love him over at Daily Kos. Keith just keeps kicking bush ass.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18read about it on wikipedia. basically olberman has called oreilly the worst person in the world and gave him an award for the honor. and so oreilly got his panties in a wad and went all huffy puff on some callers into his show that mentioned olbermans name and threatened the callers that he was sending out the local cops to investigate the people. talk about big brother
- Sandbelt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Well I'd rather be slapped in the face by truth than tucked in at night by lies.
VV They agree VV - timbellomo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I think it's Woodward's new book - State of Denial? I may be mistaken.
- askldjd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19"BullyJack, come back here when you mature into adolescence and get your head out of your big fat dirty hairy stinking *****."
Wow, that comeback is very mature. - bubba9999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18One of the things I really admire about Olberman is that his speeches are opinion based on fact and events - things that are documented and actually happened. You can't spin it - you can't change definitions. You can't claim that things were taken out of context.
People keep calling him a leftist shill - however, I think he would pursue these subjects with the same methodology and zeal regardless of who was in power. Olberman is doing nothing but holding our elected representatives responsible for their words and actions. That is old school journalism. That's called integrity.
It's about time that someone spoke up for us. I'm no extremist - all I want is a government that isn't run by special interests. Which is impossible in this world. I know that the Dems will spin things as much as the GOP has, so I am glad that there are people out there like Olberman who will hold them responsible for their misdeeds. - postal21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I think hes taking a stand for what he believes in and attempting to question the accountability of our government.
Our bureaucracy doesnt report to anyone, the checks and balances are broken... its pretty stupid. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Though I like both Olbermann and Stuart, it seems the word is getting out if the recent approval ratings are any indication. And this is *despite* the falling gas prices and what's rumored to be a good economy. With any luck, the American voters will be sweeping out the trash this November- and hopefully replacing it with people that are more inclined to respect just what it is that "damned piece of paper" stands for.
- pablokorona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14is anyone else scared? we're a sad sad state.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23@bullyjack
All I can say is, "you wish." - syntax312, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
wow.. that quote is just powerful...... - dignon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Bill O'Reilly is the worst kind of media-created parasite. He contributes absolutely nothing and is only popular for the spectacle he creates. He is the WWF of news. All imagined, all fake, and very loud. Like the WWF he attracts the same type of people... not exactly the cerebral types. That his show is even on TV is a horrible reflection on the state of America. That it is popular is unforgivable.
- evensong, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Why is it that every day I turn to Digg, I find it easier to believe the impending loss of freedoms in the upcoming 2008 elections.
Olbermann is great, but he will not penetrate the masses, not on MSNBC. Jon Stewart, while popular, reaches only the college population. Both of them are on cable networks, and I have a feeling if Republicans have their way, they will be quickly censored. The middle age and elderly, which networks like Fox cater to will eventually win with their propaganda.
God the world is depressing these days.
/rant - xman00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I find it interesting that just about every negative Olbermann comment on this site is an ad hominem attack on the man. I read every post above (including the -20 ones), and not a single one of the anti-Olbermann posters addressed the contents of his speech - not one!
To these people I ask you: Do you think name-calling is the only way to deal with differing opinons? Is this how you go through your life? If you disagree with Olbermann's speech, list the points you disagree with and why.
If you're not capable of presenting your differing thoughts in a clear and logical manner, then maybe you should question why you're venting your rage against a journalist in the first place. I think you may find that the source of your anger is not liberals, or Mexicans, or Jews, or terrorists, but, in fact, your own failings. - Jawood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@diggnate
It's Jawood.
Calling someone a lier when then are is telling the truth. Calling someone a "liberal, leftist, Moveon.org reading moron" or a "right wing, conservative zealot" is name calling.
This thread was about Keith Olbermann and not about the others. And I have to agree with Olbermann - the gutting, and trashing of our freedoms by the Bush adminstration is disgusting. The Freedoms that Bush et al. are allegedly protecting are being taken away by him and Congress is going along with it. I find that to be scary. The terrorists are not taking our freedoms, our Government is; and we're letting them get away with it under the idea that is will keep up "safe" and we are at "war with terror."
No sir, I refuse to bend over and go along with this. And I'll say the same thing when the Democrats are in power and they try to pull this *****!
I love my Freedoms and this country, but I'll be damned if I'll give up my Freedoms quietly! - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I have lost my freedom of speech.
Since 9/11, a person is no longer able to protest at his or her pleasure, rather, whenever there is a conference, party convention or rally of any kind they put up in what are called "free speech zones" which are a distance from the action, and are surrouned by a fence, where a person is "permitted to protest."
Well, before 9/11 a Citizen of this country never had to have permission to protest anything. The only people who were able to grant permission were parents of minors, specifically to their children.
A person used to have the right to be "secure in their papers" unless a warrent is granted based on probable cause. This clause, once wire communication was invented, has been taken to mean that the government cannot eaves drop on you without a warrent. This is not the case now, the President has authorized illegal wire taps.
Also, before this Presidency, the legislature passed law, and the President had veto power. Since this Presidency, only one bill has ever been vetoed (the stem-cell research bill), instead of vetoing bills the President has gotten in the habbit of issuing signing statements. These statements may not hold up in a legal challenge, but as of now, under the Executive Branch they effectively have the force of law, which in turn means that the power of the Legislative brach has been revoked. This is MY right to be represented in the Legislature by MY congressman.
- Jawood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@bubba
Thank you!
There's too much name calling these days and not enough rational argument, which is hurting all of us. And I agree, who ever is in power, Keith will call them on their lies and obfuscations. Wait and see when the Dems are in power. We'll be hearing a lot about how he's a "Right Wing, conservative, zealot" - I guarantee it! - tankko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Why do I need to give him better ratings...I just catch him on YouTube.
Seriously...think about it. Are ratings that accurate anymore in determining how many people are watching your message? - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9That's right, Olbermann, you calls it as it is :)
Olbermann for president '08! - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@baxtermadux - > and so oreilly got his panties in a wad
Shhhh - it's not polite to make fun of Bill O'Reilly's panties. - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@blapierre
As far as that is a way to describe him, I'd say, perhaps you are right, but as far as that is a way to dismiss what he says, you are sorely mistaken.
Olberman's comments are coherent, reasonable, and make points many people are affraid to make. One only has to listen to Rush or O'Reilly for a few minutes to determine that they are simply making things up and hate-mongering. One only has to listen to them for a few minutes to realize that they are willing to distort anything that comes their way for the advancement of their 'side.' This is not the case with Olberman.
But, that is really the burden placed on those who are not in power. Those whose people are in power can say anything they wish, whereas those not in power actaully have to make sense, they actaully have to make logical arguments in order to be listened to, and even then they are still considered nearer the margins than they belong. They can only act as indignant fact checkers in order to be listened to, whereas, O'Reilly can just sit there and make things up and still have an audience because his side has the appearance of legitimacy regardless what is spoken. - dignon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Correct. Bob Woodward's book, by probably the only other real journalist left in the USA (he's also one of the two reporters that uncovered the Watergate scandal), uses facts and the words of the people of this administration (yes, he has the tapes to prove it) to show just how far out of touch they are and how the culture of lies established itself as their standard mode of operation. Every American should read it... unfortunately, I fear most prefer ignorance.
- asaone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Keith rocks and has got it right
- jsmith39, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This is what I seriously don't understand about the wire tapping situation. No one is saying you shouldn't be able to wire tap, no one is saying you have to wait for a warrant before you can listen in. All that is being said is that eventually (within a short span of time) you have to tell us who you were listening too and why.
So why is the Bush administration twisting this up so much? This is me seriously asking the question, so please... serious replies. Not 'because he's a tool, or the devil or whatever' - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12I'm taking a stand for what I believe in.
And......I'm being dugg down for it.
I question the accountability of EVERYONE who is in our government and all those who are running for office.
Digging me down for supplying credible information and refusing to flatter someone who is addressing only half of the problem is absurd.
And our bureaucracy can change for the better if everyone starts researching WHO is lying and stops voting for them.
Thus the link. - MrBlackthorne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It is interesting that every critical post here has nothing to do with the content; they're all just one-line personal jabs at Olbermann. If you're going to criticize the commentary, at least criticize the content, not the person delivering the content.
- Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6College students aren't the only ones watching The Daily Show. There are a lot of middle aged fans like myself.
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are funny, smartly written and informative. - tokkio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I understand your viewpoint, but the truth is that some lies and untruths may weigh much more heavily on the state of our union than others. We know that there are liars on both sides of the issue, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't reprimand them as well; but to go the high road to circumvent Olbermann's is very dangerous indeed.
- shaun944, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8approxinfinity
absolutely true that he sucked before, but you don't know if he was simply caving to pressure from his management/producers and finally decided to ignore them or perhaps he was a schill before. Either way, he has changed and is now just about the only mainstream Cable News personality willing to actually speak openly and honestly about the government. That is a good thing no matter how you spin it, and I think that any time someone corrects past mistakes they ought to be applauded for it, heck, his subject, Mr. Bush would be a hell of a lot better and so would the country if he could admit and correct his mistakes - instead he just builds lies to cover his mistakes, which is of course exactly the subject of Mr. Olberman's piece. - DooM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5First of all, linking to FactCheck's main page is like me rebutting an argument by throwing an encyclopedia on the table.
Second of all, you make good points about our system but I fail to see what that has to do with what Keith was talking about, AND as has been noted some lies are worse than others. Exagerration from a party with no control of any branch of the government is far less troubling than the watering down of our constitution by those with full control of the government.
Keith's Special Comment was specifically about statements made by Bush this week -- deciding that he must automatically extend time to talking about anything a Democrat has done this week is silliness. If I decide to rag on the Detroit Red Wings I shouldn't have to spend the same amount of time ragging on the Chicago Blackhawks... although, I will. :)
The difference between Olbermann and O'Reilly is fact checking and honesty. - Invasion14, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13The Following is pulled from this website. http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/politics/cablenewsratings.htm
The O'Reilly Factor averaged a 1.8 rating with an average of 2,119,000 million viewers a night for July of 2006. So the factor had a slight decrease in total average viewers per night over June. So if you hear O'Reilly say his numbers are up, he is lying again.
The O'Reilly Factor averaged a 1.8 rating with an average of 2,141,000 million viewers a night for June of 2006. So the factor had a slight increase in total average viewers per night over the May numbers, but his rating stayed the same as May. This is the first time the factor viewers have increased from the last month in about 6 months. His overall numbers are still way down from October of 2005 when he was averaging 3.1 million viewers a night. So when O'Reilly says his numbers are up, you know he is lying.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/aug_s_total_viewers_vs_aug_2005_42895.asp
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/july06ranker.pdf - rlelston, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Every U.S. citizen, heck every living soul should watch this! Keep up the good work Keep up the vigilance and challenge our leaders to tell us the Truth!
- Eccles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7There's a reason to focus on the Republicans, Koosebane; they're the ones in power. They are the majority in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. If those were controlled by Democrats, we'd be focussing on them.
- ISAACHKIP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Olbermann points out how Bush is more concerned with maintaining & advancing his party's control of American politics than telling the truth, etc. This reminded me of something that is attributed to Jack Abramoff: that he was not only working to see that the Republican (Conservative) Party controlled the House, Senate, & Presidency, but to ensure that the GOP might control government indefinity... In other words, one-party rule... How does this fit in with the idea of a Democracy? It's all about winning... Winning at any & all costs... That sports mentality... Well, this isn't a game... It's a sad day in & for America when a president can spew these types of blatant lies & there's only one journalist (or a very few) who'll express his outrage... Thanks Keith for expressing MY outrage for me!
- gill1109, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5ah, BILL O'Reilly
thanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29 - DFrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jon Stewart reaches far more than the "college population". I'm 40. My husband is 30. We have friends from 18 to 65. All of them adore Stewart. He rules youtube also. I don't know where you get the idea that his audience is so narrow.
- kristov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I say we continue to blame the party who has NO control for all of the faults of the party who has FULL control and is making all the decisions.
- DFrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Read Patriot Act Two. Even speaking out here could get us thrown in jail, our citizenship revoked and charges of terrorism filed. They listen to calls, laugh at search warrents and can torture your children to make you comply. Are you deaf and blind? Go read the the Patriot Act Two and educate yourself. Don't just believe what some right winger is telling you. Don't think you are immune from all this. Even the ACLU is fighting this in court. The Bill of Rights is history now.
- cipher64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3 Sorry for the resumbission, the first one didn't go right....
With so much Bush bashing going on I wonder isn't this "the president", the person elected by the nation. So what did happen here did he rig the system, or did the system fail, or none of the above but it is actually the people themselves at fault. Why do I say the last well I think it should be mandatory to vote just as you can draft people to go and fight for the nation, I think poeple shouldn't be given a choice not to vote. That's one freedom that democracy should take away. So come next elections go and vote people and once a candidate is elected then be a nation and stand united behind your president, IMHO that's how you say to the world we believe in our system and we're one nation. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"glowing red book"? Reference?
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is