Not that I agree with any of these guys 100%, mind you, but they're always interesting, thought-provoking, and civil. What do you say that we all give it up for Jeff Greenfield, George Will, and David Brooks, folks?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
I just can't wait to hear from WD when he weighs in as he ultimately will with his unique and no doubt unusual take on your suggestion.
Having stated the above count me in.
RN is right. And the rancor will be 100% partisan, and nothing to do with what Will said.
WTF,it seems you've forgotten Keith Olbermann....dammit,it seems everyones forgotten Keith Olbermann.
An oversight, Russ, and I apologize.
Sorry to disappoint, but I can't comment because I'm completely unfamiliar with anything any of these guys have said or written.
I have no idea who the first guy even is. Never heard of him. He's a Lefty? Also, he's "punditry royalty"???
So, everyone is expecting me to say something that has nothing to do with what Will posted? And pre-criticizing me for it?
But nothing anyone has said yet mentions either of the three people Will praises as "royalty" in his post. Rusty mocks Keith Olbermann by feigning outrage that he isn't mentioned, and Will apologizes for the "oversight". I give you all "fails".
If you want something controversial, how about this: Replace "Jeff Greenfield" (whoever the hell he is) with Ed Schultz. I say this because I watched Ed last night and he mentioned the new rankings from "Talker's Magazine" had just come out (a magazine that ranks the top talk show hosts in the nation. Liberal and Conservative on the same list). Ed was the highest ranked Liberal talker, coming in at #4.
Personally I prefer Thom Hartmann, who was ranked #8. Thom Hartmann also has his own television program (The Big Picture, on RT). But Ed is still ranked higher and his TV show is on a higher profile network, so I guess he gets it (the "Royalty" designation). But Thom Hartmann is my personal choice.
"...The Big Picture, on RT...
Wow: The RT Network? This is the first time I'd heard of it. All I could find in Google was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29
Is he seriously such a failure that he can't get on TV in the US? Or is there another RT network here that I've been unable to find yet?
From Wikipedia: The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann is an American TV talk/news show owned, hosted and produced by political commentator and radio host Thom Hartmann, and Hartmann's production company (which also produces his radio show), Mythical Research, Inc.
[Thom Hartmann] licensed the show to RT, partially in exchange for use of their television studios and facilities. ...it is entirely owned by Hartmann's company, which has contractual editorial control over the program. The editorial staff of the show are employees of Hartmann's company, while the TV production staff work for RT.
The show is now recorded and broadcast live by RT America, the Washington, D.C.-based affiliate of RT with a presence on both over-the-air and cable TV systems in many major American cities, and also syndicated by Free Speech TV and carried nationwide on both Dish Network channel 9415, Direct TV Channel 358, and on local Public-access television stations across the country. From 1/17/2012 RT's international English-language channel started to broadcast it worldwide in over 100 countries. [end Wikipedia entry]
Yea, he's clearly a loser. Under the dmarks' definition that is. Although 99.999 percent of the population of the world are "losers" (under dmarks' definition), so it's really a rather meaningless insult.
" Although 99.999 percent of the population of the world are "losers" (under dmarks' definition), so it's really a rather meaningless insult."
That fits Olbermann, who throws away his career with his silly antics, and Thom, who can't land a gig in his own country. But no, it does not fit the 3 listed in this post.
As for the 99.999 % of us who don't have a career in broadcast journalism, Keith Olbermann's one of us for sure.
I'm a David Brooks fan.
Figures, they say he is a
'liberal icon'....the other two
seem fine as well, at least they
steer clear of 'slut'.
I like Brooks a lot, too, BB Idaho. The right thinks that he's left and the left thinks that he's right. My kind of pundit to a tee.
I heard Keith Olbermann is now broadcasting on shortwave radio between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.,his worst person in the world for the past 10 days has been Al Gore.....go figure.
WD,you say Sgt.Schultz was the #4 ranked liberal talk show host.How big was the field? Where there like 1,000 host or maybe 10,000 liberal talk show host.If big Ed was #4 against that many its a big deal....but if he was #4 against say 10...thats a horse of a different color.
dmarks: Thom, who can't land a gig in his own country.
This is an example of dmarks standing under the bright noon sun while insisting it's night out.
Yet... Thom in fact can't land a gig in his own country (as your detailed paragraphs showed).
Rusty: I don't know if you are joking or what, but I would not be surprised if Olbermann were really broadcasting on shortwave radio (1930 is calling: it wants its state-of-the-art medium back).
And yes the worst person in the world being Al Gore would fit in with how Olbermann used that part of his program to air petty jealousies and personal vendettas, helping cement his not-really-a-journalist, really-a-prima-donna credentials.
Kim Jong Il could have killed 200,000 people in a sports stadium just to get a "Worst Person in the World" recognition, and then he would blubber like a baby when Olbermann would instead give the honor to a chauffeur who dared to speak to Olbermann like an equal.
dmarks: Yet... Thom in fact can't land a gig in his own country (as your detailed paragraphs showed).
The paragraphs show the opposite. Can you not read and comprehend?
Quote: "The show is... broadcast live... in many major AMERICAN cities".
Also, it's recorded and broadcast from Washington DC (That's a city located inside the United States).
dmarks: Olbermann would instead give the honor to a chauffeur who dared to speak to Olbermann like an equal.
Nothing even remotely like what you describe ever happened.
"The paragraphs show the opposite. Can you not read and comprehend?"
I read and tell the truth about it. You read and lie about it. He got a job at a Russian network. He's a miserable failure who can't get a job at a US network.
--------------
I joked: "Olbermann would instead give the honor to a chauffeur who dared to speak to Olbermann like an equal."
You said: "Nothing even remotely like what you describe ever happened."
Time for a fact check... in reality, this is EXACTLY what happened: "According to Mediaite, a source at Current TV said the former Countdown host went through eight different car services while working at the network, complaining that the drivers "smelled" and "talked to him." (from Yahoo News. While the part about the Korean leader was a joke, the Olbermann part was not.
dmarks: He got a job at a Russian network. He's a miserable failure who can't get a job at a US network.
He doesn't work for a Russian network. RT syndicates the program. Thom Hartmann's production company owns the show. RT is his customer.
Also, he did it because he wanted to retain editorial control (which he has. They can't tell him what to do).
This shows he has integrity. That means far more to him than a large paycheck. I have a lot of respect for him.
This "miserable failure" BS is you trying to annoy me. It isn't working because I do not care about your twisted views that have no basis in reality.
In regards to your slander of Keith Olbermann... Those are lies from bitter backbiters. I doubt this unnamed source will testify when Keith sues Current.
And Keith NEVER named a driver who "talked to him" or "smelled" as the worst person in the world. So you lie when you say it's "exactly" what happened. Show me the YouTube video. I'm sure if that really did happen someone MUST have posted it.
"In regards to your slander of Keith Olbermann... Those are lies from bitter backbiters. I doubt this unnamed source will testify when Keith sues Current."
Perhaps, if Keith's frivolous lawsuit gets laughed out of court.
As for "slander", you have made very false and outrageous claims against George W. Bush, which the apporpriate court has rejected. I guess the courts only matter if they go your way.
I support Mr. Gore's right to fire whoever the hell he wants. That's what I have to say.
Will: Exactly. It's his company, and no one has the "right" to work there if the owner does not want them.
If that makes Gore the worst person in the world, so be it.
In a Gore versus Olbermann battle, I'll take Mr. Gore any day. I don't even have to think hard on that one.
Will: In a Gore versus Olbermann battle, I'll take Mr. Gore any day. I don't even have to think hard on that one.
It isn't Gore versus Olbermann. Joel Hyatt is the one responsible. He's Gore's partner at Current and the source of the problem.
As for him having the right to fire anyone he wants... there is the matter of a contract. Or do you both think contracts are meaningless?
My guess would be that you think it's OK if MANAGEMENT wants to tear up a contract. But when it's the employee then it's a different matter.
For dmarks to call Keith's lawsuit "frivolous", well, he must have redefined what "frivolous" means.
And I still don't know who this "Jeff Greenfield" character is. I read his Wikipedia page and it didn't say anything about him having left-leaning views.
No it is frivolous alright.
dmarks = armchair attorney
I'd have to see the contract, wd. Football coaches and baseball managers with contracts get fired all the time. Just because you have a contract doesn't necessarily mean that you can't get fired (yes, sometimes there's also a payoff involved).
"dmarks = armchair attorney"
Sure, but unlike you, I defer to the experts, and unlike you I don't slander qualified jurists/judges/etc who make proper decisions I happen to disagree with.
dmarks: Sure, but unlike you, I defer to the experts...
Caught you in a lie dmarks. You can not have deferred to the experts, because the experts haven't spoken yet. No judge has heard arguments from either side in the case of Olbermann V Current TV.
dmarks: unlike you I don't slander qualified jurists/judges/etc who make proper decisions I happen to disagree with.
Caught you in another lie. I've never done this. Although I do recall that Will did. And that you did not criticize him for it. Will voiced disapproval regarding the decision of the jury in the Casey Anthony trial.
Yeah, I thought that that was kind of a bad decision.
The "qualified experts" cannot be questioned. You've just admitted to being an armchair attorney, Will. But I guess it's OK if it's a Conservative doing it (according to dmarks).
It's just my opinion, wd. Nothing else magical about it. Also, I think that we need to differentiate between respect and agreement. I respect the verdict in that it was the verdict. Nowhere, though, is it written that I HAVE TO agree with it. I mean, the same thing goes with O.J., no?
Will: Actually, you have slandered the Supreme Court justices who properly ruled to let the duly elected Presidential candidate in 2008 proceed and get inaugurated. You lied about them, and the case.
dmarks: this is EXACTLY what happened: ...a source at Current TV said [Keith] went through eight different car services... complaining that the drivers "smelled" and "talked to him."
Keith Olbermann via Twitter: "I presume you know there were never limos, and the 'smelly' incident was fabricated".
dmarks: Will: Actually, you have slandered the Supreme Court justices who properly ruled to let the duly elected Presidential candidate in 2008 proceed and get inaugurated. You lied about them, and the case.
I don't recall Will ever lying about this case. I recall dmarks lying about it though. They stopped the count and anointed George bush. dmarks lies when he says it didn't happen.
Yeah, it was WD who slandered the Supreme Court. My mistake.
I never lied about it. There were already a few counts by the time they stopped Gore's attempt to overthrow the real results. And when they counted the votes afterwards, Bush still won.
It is a flat-out lie and a slander of them that they "annointed" anyone. Bush won based on the results from election day.
"dmarks lies when he says it didn't happen."
No, just referring to real events.
Yeah, I was referring to the Casey Anthony verdict.......The 2008 recount situation? - I am MORE THAN HAPPY to let you 2 guys battle that one out.
dmarks: And when they counted the votes afterwards, Bush still won.
When a complete recount was done it was found that Gore won.
Here's a book on the topic:
The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President by Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence.
Bugliosi says, "On December 12th, 2000, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court put an end to the recounting of presidential votes in Florida, thus assuring that George W. Bush would win the election. This action by the Court's majority ... was a "judicial coup d'‚tat" that stole the election from U.S. citizens and simply handed the presidency over to the Court's guy, a conservative Republican like themselves. It was also treasonous, asserts Bugliosi... the five justices are "criminals in the very truest sense of the word"...
This description of what occurred is one I agree with completely.
Robert Parry, writing for Consortium News says, "Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes".
Post a Comment