Well, since they're both paranoid dweebs and asses, I'd probably have have to go with the rich one, John (though, no, I'm not exactly selecting between Ava Gardner and Gene Tierney here) .
Rusty said: "Ya gotta give the belt to O'Rielly,been the top rated show on cable news for 10 years...while Olbermann is now broadcasting on short wave radio."
And soon to move on up to "string tied between two tin cans"
WD said: "Wrong. Most people don't use the dmarks' definition."
Excuse me for using 'corporate' as an adjective meaning "having to do with corporations".
GE is a corporation that got a lot of bailout money and which also (in close proximity of time) gave Mr. Olbermann a big, fat, juicy bonus check. No, maybe he isn't as "corporate" as Mr. O'Reilly is but he did in fact profit from HIS corporation.
No, wd, it's a fact. Mr. Olbermann took a shitload of money from a corporation that received a fair amount bailout money.......I mean, it doesn't really bother me personally any more than it does that that Prince Fielder is making what the market will bear to him, either. But, from your more jaundiced perspective, I'm saying.
Will: Mr. Olbermann took a shitload of money from a corporation that received a fair amount bailout money.
He didn't "take" the money, he earned it. Certainly that's the way I'd have been certain that you would view it. But I guess it's "taking" when it's someone you don't like.
Also, you're talking about a parent company. Olbermann did not directly receive any bailout money. The government did not earmark any bailout money for Olbermann. This line of discussion is utter nonsense. Are you saying he should have turned it down?
This "fact checking" of Will and dmarks often comes in the form of falsehoods presented as facts.
dmarks: Except when it comes to making his living.
Corporatism and working for a corporation are totally different things. You acting confused and pretending to not know the difference just makes you look stupid.
You didn't read the totality of what I said, wd. I said that it didn't bother me personally what he OR Prince Fielder made. It's none of my business.......But what if the corporation was evil, wd? Would it then be a bad thing to accept money from them (the fact that GE ships a lot of jobs overseas)?......Please, state one falsehood that I have stated as fact.
dmarks: I call your bluff. Name one. From each of us.
I am not bluffing. I am telling the truth. There is no link from GE bailout money to Keith Olbermann. I call YOUR bluff. PROVE IT. Show me exactly how (and when) bailout money went to GE, then to MSNBC, then to Keith Olbermann. Prove that MSNBC giving Keith a bonus was contingent on GE receiving bailout money. One statment from one executive. You can't do it.
I said, "prove that MSNBC giving Keith a bonus was contingent on GE receiving bailout money. One statment from one executive".
That information isn't contained in the opinion piece you linked to.
MSNBC isn't GE. GE's banking operation got bailout money. MSNBC and Keith Olbermann aren't involved in banking. Keith didn't get any bailout money. Sorry if you don't like the facts.
Which one? The rich one or the other rich one?
ReplyDeleteWell, since they're both paranoid dweebs and asses, I'd probably have have to go with the rich one, John (though, no, I'm not exactly selecting between Ava Gardner and Gene Tierney here) .
ReplyDeleteOne is a corporate Democrat. The other is a corporate Republican who claims he is an independent.
ReplyDeleteYa gotta give the belt to O'Rielly,been the top rated show on cable news for 10 years...while Olbermann is now broadcasting on short wave radio.
ReplyDeletedmarks: One is a corporate Democrat. The other is a corporate Republican who claims he is an independent.
ReplyDeleteWrong. Most people don't use the dmarks' definition. Of course, given how arrogant dmarks is, he will argue otherwise.
Rusty said: "Ya gotta give the belt to O'Rielly,been the top rated show on cable news for 10 years...while Olbermann is now broadcasting on short wave radio."
ReplyDeleteAnd soon to move on up to "string tied between two tin cans"
WD said: "Wrong. Most people don't use the dmarks' definition."
Excuse me for using 'corporate' as an adjective meaning "having to do with corporations".
When people refer to either "corporate Democrat" or "corporate Republican" they're talking about how each views corporate matters politically. duh.
ReplyDeleteGE is a corporation that got a lot of bailout money and which also (in close proximity of time) gave Mr. Olbermann a big, fat, juicy bonus check. No, maybe he isn't as "corporate" as Mr. O'Reilly is but he did in fact profit from HIS corporation.
ReplyDeleteWe know how Olbermann views corporate matters, by who he takes his checks from.
ReplyDeletedmarks: We know how Olbermann views corporate matters, by who he takes his checks from.
ReplyDeleteNo, we know how he views corporate matters based on his own words on his program. He is opposed to corporatism.
This attempt of your's to link Olbermann to bailout money is utter nonsense.
No, wd, it's a fact. Mr. Olbermann took a shitload of money from a corporation that received a fair amount bailout money.......I mean, it doesn't really bother me personally any more than it does that that Prince Fielder is making what the market will bear to him, either. But, from your more jaundiced perspective, I'm saying.
ReplyDelete"No, we know how he views corporate matters based on his own words on his program. He is opposed to corporatism."
ReplyDeleteExcept when it comes to making his living.
Will said: "No, wd, it's a fact"
This guy needs fact-checking a lot doesn't he?
Will: Mr. Olbermann took a shitload of money from a corporation that received a fair amount bailout money.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't "take" the money, he earned it. Certainly that's the way I'd have been certain that you would view it. But I guess it's "taking" when it's someone you don't like.
Also, you're talking about a parent company. Olbermann did not directly receive any bailout money. The government did not earmark any bailout money for Olbermann. This line of discussion is utter nonsense. Are you saying he should have turned it down?
This "fact checking" of Will and dmarks often comes in the form of falsehoods presented as facts.
dmarks: Except when it comes to making his living.
Corporatism and working for a corporation are totally different things. You acting confused and pretending to not know the difference just makes you look stupid.
You didn't read the totality of what I said, wd. I said that it didn't bother me personally what he OR Prince Fielder made. It's none of my business.......But what if the corporation was evil, wd? Would it then be a bad thing to accept money from them (the fact that GE ships a lot of jobs overseas)?......Please, state one falsehood that I have stated as fact.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWD said: "This "fact checking" of Will and dmarks often comes in the form of falsehoods presented as facts."
ReplyDeleteI call your bluff. Name one. From each of us.
dmarks: I call your bluff. Name one. From each of us.
ReplyDeleteI am not bluffing. I am telling the truth. There is no link from GE bailout money to Keith Olbermann. I call YOUR bluff. PROVE IT. Show me exactly how (and when) bailout money went to GE, then to MSNBC, then to Keith Olbermann. Prove that MSNBC giving Keith a bonus was contingent on GE receiving bailout money. One statment from one executive. You can't do it.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2009/04/24/ge-bailout-piles-rocks-outside-keith-olbermanns-glass-house
ReplyDeleteI said, "prove that MSNBC giving Keith a bonus was contingent on GE receiving bailout money. One statment from one executive".
ReplyDeleteThat information isn't contained in the opinion piece you linked to.
MSNBC isn't GE. GE's banking operation got bailout money. MSNBC and Keith Olbermann aren't involved in banking. Keith didn't get any bailout money. Sorry if you don't like the facts.