• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

Hi god, it’s us. Thanks a heap, you’re having a great week and it’s only Thursday!

Stop using mental illness to avoid talking about armed white supremacy.

I really should read my own blog.

You know it’s bad when the Project 2025 people have to create training videos on “How To Be Normal”.

I’m starting to think Jesus may have made a mistake saving people with no questions asked.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Just because you believe it, that does not make it true.

This really is a full service blog.

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

Petty moves from a petty man.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

We will not go quietly into the night; we will not vanish without a fight.

Text STOP to opt out of updates on war plans.

Wake up. Grow up. Get in the fight.

The revolution will be supervised.

You passed on an opportunity to be offended? What are you even doing here?

Live so that if you miss a day of work people aren’t hoping you’re dead.

Tide comes in. Tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / The Problem With Trolls (War on Common Sense Edition)

The Problem With Trolls (War on Common Sense Edition)

by John Cole|  September 13, 200610:59 am| 154 Comments

This post is in: Blogospheric Navel-Gazing, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Is that you have to waste your time responding to them, such as the the Poorman. Of course it is a metaphor, you jackass. And to spare you the time, I recognize that Jonathon Swift really didn’t want to eat babies, and that John Donne really wasn’t concerned with fleas at all.

Olbermann used the hole in the ground ( a graveyard, mind you), as an oppportunistic metaphor to attack Bush- the hole in the ground represents the psychic wounds caused by Bush’s fierce partisanship (and alternately, to read Olbermann, his inaction), and the country will not be whole again until (to read Olbermann), something is in the 16 acres.

Sure, it is a powerful metaphor, especially if you are the teary, choking up type. But it was opportunistic and hacktacular (just as Bush’s use of his 9/11 speech to justify the War in Iraq was) to use the site of several thousand dead to launch into a political harangue talking about Bush- particularly when the two are unrelated. Bush has nothing to do with the still empty site in NYC, as I noted, and Olbermann knows it, as does the Poorman.

And if you can’t figure out why using the space where thousands of Americans died as the vehicle for nationally televised partisan attacks is inappropriate, then I just give up. It is wrong when the Bush administration and Republicans use 9/11 as an excuse to push through all their ill-conceived policies, and it iswrong when their opponents use it to advance their political agenda- even when the weepy types like the Poorman think it is eloquent. And since the Poorman thinks he needs to educate us all, let’s quote him some more:

I should also add that, in addition to being shrill, I also got a little choked up at Olbermann’s retelling of 9/11. I honestly thought that all the opportunistic bullshit that’s been piled on over the last half-decade had made my too cynical to feel any pure sadness. So thanks for that, too, Keith. Seriously.

In a post praising Olbermann’s opportunistic attack on Bush, the Poorman decries the opportunism of the Bush administration.

That is called irony.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Good News
Next Post: Resurrecting Terri Schiavo »

Reader Interactions

154Comments

  1. 1.

    Richard Bottoms

    September 13, 2006 at 11:03 am

    No, it’s called kicking these assholes in the nuts. Something we should have been doing for six years.

    Our opponents are ruthless slime and we aren’t going to beat them by being nice. We are through bringing knives to a gunfight.

    There are no bad Democrats.
    There are no good Republicnas.
    Victory 2006

  2. 2.

    Mr Furious

    September 13, 2006 at 11:06 am

    This just in: The role of Cindy sheehan will now be played by Keith Olbermann.

  3. 3.

    John Cole

    September 13, 2006 at 11:08 am

    Cindy who?

  4. 4.

    Mr Furious

    September 13, 2006 at 11:11 am

    Apparently gross politicization and misuse of the tragedy of 9/11 by the Administration and the Republican party every fucking day for five years for everything from invading Iraq to ANWAR is equivelent to Keith Olbermann standing in front of Ground Zero and calling them on it.

    I gotta take one of your classes, John.

  5. 5.

    ShanNYC

    September 13, 2006 at 11:13 am

    I don’t think Bush and Olbermann are analgous. Bush, for one, obviously reaches a much wider audience, and his use of 9/11 for political purposes is designed, if one is cynical, to win elections for his party.

    Olbermann is a commentator with neither the audience nor political motive to affect anything, much less an election. You brought up Jonathon Swift; according to your logic, Swift would be accused of using the tragedy of the Irish famine “opportunistically.” That’s nonsense. Olbermann, as a commentator, should not be held to the same standards of a politician.

  6. 6.

    matt

    September 13, 2006 at 11:20 am

    I didn’t see this as a “partisan” attack, which might be where the difference lies. I’m sure Keith is a Democrat and maybe even a liberal, but if you’ve watched his show or any of his other special comments, they’re not political in a Democrat vs Republican sense, I think they’re inspired by American values. I think what Keith said doesn’t fall into the category of being exploitive or partisan. I don’t see it as “using” 911 in the typical way we would talk about.

    Although it could be my partisan blinders that make me feel that way.

  7. 7.

    John Cole

    September 13, 2006 at 11:22 am

    If you did, we would start with where I said the two are equivalent.

    Then we would discuss how two wrongs don’t make a right (but two Wright’s make an airplane!).

  8. 8.

    matt

    September 13, 2006 at 11:23 am

    but two Wright’s make an airplane!).

    I can’t believe I’ve never heard that.

  9. 9.

    VidaLoca

    September 13, 2006 at 11:26 am

    John,

    What matt said. It’s partisan in the same sense that “at long last, sir, have you no shame?” is partisan.

  10. 10.

    Keith

    September 13, 2006 at 11:34 am

    Cindy who?

    Cindy Sheen, sister of Martin Sheen and aunt to Hollywood Liberal Elitists Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez.

    It fits a narrative, so why not?

  11. 11.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 11:35 am

    The Problem With Trolls […] Is that you have to waste your time responding to them

    Well, I did respond to scs yesterday, but ideally trolls and troll posts probably shouldn’t be responded to at all. However, it is often hard to distinguish middling trolls from earnest idiots, and sometimes it is worth debunking blatant misinformation or fallacies. So, here goes…

    Of course it is a metaphor

    Well, that’s an improvement over yesterday’s post, anyhow.

    Bush has nothing to do with the still empty site

    Oh well, nevermind, I take it back. Yeah, I’m sure there was nothing he could have done differently there–he’s only been the President for the past 5 years, and talked about 9/11 incessantly (no matter what the topic), so why would anyone listen to him about 9/11? Actually wait… wasn’t I already making this point the other day? And wasn’t it not addressed then either? And why am I wasting my time responding to this?

    If you honestly can’t tell the difference between righteous and justified outrage after five years of this idiocy versus callous midterm campaigning using 9/11 and terror as a blunt instrument, then I can’t help you–but I suspect that you can.

    And really, where’s your outrage really directed here? Seems like all the real outrage is reserved for Olbermann, and the rest is there for ‘balance’. How shameful, he ‘attacked’ Bush for politicizing 9/11. How dare a New Yorker who actually reported from Ground Zero for 40 days after the attacks be outraged about that. He’s also touchy about being rhetorically assaulted (along with hundreds of millions of other Americans) by his own government. That bastard! How dare he respond!

    In the meantime… you wouldn’t want to really attack Bush, oh no, that’d be politicizing things! Much better to go after Olbermann! Which, of course, wouldn’t be politicizing things? Wait… is that also irony? Or is ‘politicizing’ just the new word for ‘criticizing’ now?

    Next time, find another sucker to drive your pageviews, John. You’re just plain wrong on this one. Still. Woefully. And I honestly find it hard to believe that you’re really too obtuse to know that.

    But who knows, maybe you’ll surprise me again.

  12. 12.

    Punchy

    September 13, 2006 at 11:41 am

    Bush has nothing to do with the still empty site in NYC, as I noted, and Olbermann knows it, as does the Poorman.

    Of course he doesn’t, Mr. Cole. Even though:

    Despite $20 billion in federal money and $4.6 billion anticipated in insurance proceeds, however, the site’s two central projects, the Freedom Tower and the memorial, have stumbled financially, as in every other way.

    $20 Bill in gov’t money, and Bush has “nothing to do with” it. $20 BILLION of money from Bush’s gov’t, and he has no control over it’s development. Sure. Uh huh.

    I’ve seen spin, and I’ve seen crappy editorials, but this one is Page One material in both catagories. I bet when Mr. Cole buys a car, he has NO CONTROL over the model he gets. I bet he throws $5 at the McDonald’s lady and just GUESSES what they’ll serve him, and when they may want to. I’m sure he expects no control over the life insurance policy he pays for.

    Stupid, ridiculous comment, Mr. C. Sorry for the tone, Big Man, but I gotta call ya on this–big time.

  13. 13.

    matt

    September 13, 2006 at 11:44 am

    way, way off topic, but John, did you ever finish Buffy? What did you think?

  14. 14.

    Andrew

    September 13, 2006 at 11:47 am

    Just like Roosevelt had no direct control over the industrial infrastructure of America and the fucking liberty ships just popped out like magic?

    Break me a fucking give, Cole.

  15. 15.

    p.lukasiak

    September 13, 2006 at 11:49 am

    In a post praising Olbermann’s opportunistic attack on Bush, the Poorman decries the opportunism of the Bush administration.

    I call “bullshit”.

    Olberman was “opportunistic” only in the sense that every blogger and columnist and pundit in America used the anniversary as an “opportunity” to say something. 9-11 is an appropriate time to reflect back, and comment on the past five years, and the fact that Olberman chose to tell the truth rather than simply spew pablum and platitudes is admirable.

    You obviously don’t see the difference in a commentator doing his job in a manner that is wholly appropriate, and a President who spent the last two weeks attempting to exploit the anniversary of 9-11 to enhance his poll numbers and gain support for his policies.

    Its not “opportunitist” to use an opportunity in an appropriate fashion. “Opportunism” if it is to have any meaning at all, requires the opportunity be exploited in an inappropriate fashion.

  16. 16.

    VidaLoca

    September 13, 2006 at 11:56 am

    Slightly tangential to the main topic, but it occurred to me last night, in considering a comment by t.j. parnell, that Bush actually has quite a bit of direct power and authority over what happens at the WTC site: he has the authority as President to declare it a National Monument, w/o Congressional authorization. He could essentially federalize it.

    It also occurred to me that maybe it’s best that he doesn’t, and not only because it could turn easily into another Halliburton no-bid boondoggle. I think it’s maybe more important that the people who lost their loved ones, their friends; who have to look at it every day, decide (via whatever arcane means these things get decided in NYC politics and economics) what gets built there. If it takes a few years well, maybe it’s worth taking the time to get it right.

    However, that does nothing to undercut the essential justice of Olbermann’s point, which was: Bush really doesn’t care.

  17. 17.

    Larry

    September 13, 2006 at 11:58 am

    Are we complaining about the effective use of a metaphor by a guy with a communications degree?

    Are we concerned that poor Mr. Bush can’t compete with the all-powerful Mr. Olbermann, who speaks to a tiny sliver of one percent of the people through his cable tv show?

    I apologize for being slow on the uptake, I am just trying to figure out what the subject is.

  18. 18.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 11:58 am

    John is just doing what Mac was doing yesterday. Attacking Keith Olberman. KO isn’t serious, serious thinkers need to know he shouldn’t be listened to and John is here to let us know that. I don’t think John even disgrees with what Keith said, if someone else had said it he’d be nodding along. Just like with Katrina the problem isn’t so much the criticism its the timing of the criticism (or the location) and the fact that he’s not being balanced in his criticism (there’s plenty of blame to go around) or whatever stupid ass excuse is being used to get us to just ignore a voice.

    Republican does something wrong:
    JC: They shouoldn’t do that
    Democrat does something wrong:
    JC: Those fuckers, they have no class, no shame, this is why I can’t vote democrat.

  19. 19.

    slickdpdx

    September 13, 2006 at 11:59 am

    It seems there’s a netroots push for Olbermann. I guess if you’re looking to a television broadcaster for salvation, you could do worse.

    The “partisan” speechmaking complaint is something that doesn’t resonate with me (regardless of who’s complaining or who’s speechifying). That’s what partisans do.

  20. 20.

    Larry

    September 13, 2006 at 11:59 am

    That is called irony.

    I was under the impression that irony has been dead since January 2001.

  21. 21.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    p.lukasiak,

    “Opportunism” if it is to have any meaning at all, requires the opportunity be exploited in an inappropriate fashion.

    Well, if you listen to the Bush administration and his party, they’ll tell you that criticizing them is inappropriate! He’s the President in the time of war, you’ll weaken our resolve and embolden the terrorists, you appeaser, you! We’d all be speaking German or Japanese…

    [97 paragraphs deleted]

    Socialist liberal commie pinko traitors want to raise our taxes and take away our guns and put us into camps…. blah blah blah blah blah… oh, and, stop politicizing things with your ‘legitimate criticisms’! What do you think this is, a Democracy?

  22. 22.

    John S.

    September 13, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    Cindy Sheehan/Juan Cole: Part Deux

    Attack of the Olbermann

    Wherein John Cole makes some ludicrous criticism of someone he despises, numerous commenters call bullshit and rather than let it go John makes another post reinforcing the error genius of his original post.

    It all feels like theater.

  23. 23.

    p.lukasiak

    September 13, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    ….and another thing (can you tell that Cole has pissed me off again?)

    What do you think Olberman should have said? Should he have just STFU because it was 9-11? Or perhaps you would have preferred the “we all must come together as a nation” crap — with its implicit message of the necessity of having a leader to tell us what we are “coming together” for.

    By spending five years exploiting 9-11 for political purposes, Bush has made it impossible for Americans to “paper over” their differences for one day — THAT is why Olberman spoke out on 9-11, and slammed Bush. You prefer that we hide the ugly fact of how the memory of the victims of 9-11 has been desecrated by Bush for five long years — and only by speaking out against that desecration on 9-11 can we honor those who fell that day. THAT is how you honor the victims of 9-11 in an appropriate fashion — by refusing to ignore how those victims’ memory has been abused by Bush.

  24. 24.

    Larry

    September 13, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    In view of the fact that the entire Iraq war and the political reality that falls from it appears to be the result of rank opportunism on the part of Mr. Bush, I am not clear on how it is a concern that an obscure commentator on cable tv made what might be unkindly referred to as an “opportunistic” attack on that opportunism.

    I must say, this is a very confusing topic.

  25. 25.

    p.lukasiak

    September 13, 2006 at 12:07 pm

    Shorter John Cole:

    Its 9-11. STFU.

  26. 26.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 12:17 pm

    You know, we can test this. There’s was the chance that Olbermann could have been completely wrong about Bush. After all, Bush was giving a speech on 9/11 right after Olbermann concluded his special comment. Bush could have maderead a beautiful non-partisan speech about 9/11 and the need to come together, unite the country, find common ground, etc., etc. And Olbermann would have looked like a fool, like a partisan, like someone trying to politicize 9/11, because he would have gotten Bush all wrong (especially if we assumed that Bush was sincere and the past five years didn’t happen). But none of that happened because a minute later, Bush opened his mouth, made his speech, and removed all doubt. Olbermann was right. That bastard.

  27. 27.

    Mike

    September 13, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    The problem with trolls . . .

    . . . is that they give lazy writers an excuse to call someone they disagree with . . . a Troll.

    John, I can’t say I’ve read much of you before the past day or two, but your screed against Olbermann seems profoundly misguided and odd. You say you’re against Bush’s shameless opportunism. Ok. So why you so up-in-arms against a guy who actually called him on it?

    And John, your “defense” against Poorman’s “attack” strikes me as especially mean-spirited and ugly.

    And that’s even without noting that you called him a troll.

    What’s up with all this?

  28. 28.

    capelza

    September 13, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    Sorry John. I look ar KO and then I look at the phoney memorial in the center of Ground Zero made for Bush’s photo op.

    A fake pool of water with black plastic (at least it looks like black plastic. Slap a Marine in there for good measure and then get the hell out before ANYONE shows up.

    I think they should have left that tiny tacky peice of theatre there and called it good. Hell, it was good enough for Bush.

    That really pissed me off. Why????? Why put up a fake “memorial”. Isn’t the grounf itself sacred enough?

  29. 29.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    There are no bad Democrats.
    There are no good Republicnas.

    You usually don’t find intelligent nuance like thisoutside a a high-school football game. “My school rocks! Your school sucks!”

  30. 30.

    Larry

    September 13, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    This thread reminds me of a gentleman who would throw a drowning man both ends of the same rope, and then laugh at how much splashing is going on.

  31. 31.

    elfranko

    September 13, 2006 at 12:26 pm

    also, do not malign the poor man, or he may dedicate a rush song to you. and we cannot stand another rush song. really.

  32. 32.

    John Cole

    September 13, 2006 at 12:26 pm

    John is just doing what Mac was doing yesterday. Attacking Keith Olberman.

    I really give up. I thought his use of the hole in the ground as a vehicle to attack Bush was distasteful I only commented on it because a popular left-leaning site that I read pretty regularly posted about it.

    But to listen to you all, I launched a vicious atatck on Keith Olbermann, I am cherry-picking ‘obscure’ tv commmenters, and this is just proof that I will never vote for Democrats because they are worse.

    Fuck you all.

    I thought his comments were stupid and inappropriate, just like I feel Bush was wrong using his speech to justify the war in Iraq. So I said something. I didn’t claim they are equivalent, I didn’t claim Olbermann is the root of all evil, and I don’t think it is up to me to tell Olbermann what he ‘should say.’

    Additionally, I am sick and tired of you all attacking me as if I was Rush Limbaugh every time I apparently slight one of your sacred cows (although it is news to me Olbermann is a sacred cow). If you really think I am one and the same with the folks at the Powerline, and you really think that Michelle Malkin and I are blood brothers, just go somewhere else.

    I really am over with defending myself to a motley crew of trolls and hyypersensitive ninnies who, scarred from the past few years of not getting their political way, think that I am Karl Rove. That is right- I am tired of being served up a shit sandwich and being the whipping boy for you all.

    You have some real grievances- there are many in the GOP who have called you traitors, the are many in the GOP who have attacked you and been unfair. I wasn’t one of them, am still not, and although having been wrong about a number of things in the past (including some votes I regret) and said a lot of unfair things in the past, I don’t deserve the crap from you all. I have owned up to my mistakes and tried to deal with them. In fact, I have spent a fair amount of times defending Democrats when I think they are getting a bum rap (Dorgan and Kos spring immediately to mind), so you are choosing to attack one of the few people who actually takes the time and energy to defend you.

    I am not sure what else I can do. I have given you all a forum to debate/discuss/flame, I have defended you when I think it is appropriate, and yet, whenever we disagree, I get served up nothing but personal attacks, strawmen, and downright trolling. I am sick of it.

    And one final thing- I like Keith Olbermann. I haven’t checked, but I guarantee that if he is mentioned in other posts, they will be positive. I think the Countdown is an excellent show. But I disagreed with him the other dayh- and if you think that means John Cole = Karl Rove, just tell me so so I can add you to my firefox ban add-on.

  33. 33.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    By the way, John, you’re pretty close to right on target. Just expect a vigorous (if nonsensical) defense of The Sports Mustache, as his is the ladle that rations out the nightly Kool-Aid to the Donks.

  34. 34.

    Richard 23

    September 13, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    Way to speak truth for power.

  35. 35.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    capelza,

    I take it you saw all the pictures of it? Just more sad, sorry fake photo op stuff. He truly is the photo-op President.

  36. 36.

    Andrew

    September 13, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    Need I mention, once again, that the first tower at the WTC was open for tenants within five years of the original ground breaking? And that Republicans head all levels of government with authority over the WTC site?

    Yeah, let’s criticize Olbermann and his spot on analysis.

  37. 37.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    I really am over with defending myself to a motley crew of trolls and hyypersensitive ninnies who, scarred from the past few years of not getting their political way, think that I am Karl Rove.

    Well, had I known you had this gem up your sleeve, I wouldn’t have bothered with mine. Good on ya.

  38. 38.

    capelza

    September 13, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    Pb, yes I did…someone here? (somewhere) posted a link and I followed it.

    I guess what I don’t understand about the criticism of KO’s comments (and John, I am NOT attacking you..though I am confused by your post :( and the Poorman does like to give you grief) about the lack of a memorial, metaphors aside is that the said lack of a memorial was glaring enough that even Bush’s PR people felt compelled to create one for a picture.

    I really wish this was one time the MSM would pick up on that specific KOS article and show those pictures. I wish I could get angrier, but I’m just too tired of it all.

  39. 39.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 12:36 pm

    Fuck you all.

    Likewise. Or am I politicizing things by responding to that, too?

    You have some real grievances- there are many in the GOP who have called you traitors, the are many in the GOP who have attacked you and been unfair.

    Yes, including some high officials in the Bush administration. Are you outraged about that? If not, why not? I look forward to your post righteously attacking that instead of Olbermann’s criticism of it.

    I wasn’t one of them

    Oh, ok. So you’re one of the good guys… Just don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

    I really am over with defending myself to a motley crew of trolls and hyypersensitive ninnies

    This has got to be projection. John, you can dish it out, but you just can’t take it. Take a chill pill and try to respond rationally next time. Unless your goal here is just to fly off the handle and rant, as if that somehow makes your point more valid.

    whenever we disagree, I get served up nothing but personal attacks, strawmen, and downright trolling

    You get what you put in.

  40. 40.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    Sorry John. You don’t sound much different than Mac with his Sports Mustache comments. Maybe if you told him to shut the fuck up we wouldn’t think you were speaking the same language. You enable trolls with these posts.

    The more pissed you get at KO for using the 9/11 hole in the groundas a backdrop the more right he was in using it. You’re just getting pissed at the wrong thing and if you think its caused by anything but your memembership in the reopublican party you’re nuts.

    I haven’t been to church in years, have basically no use for erligion but I go crazy when people take shots at teh catholic church because I was born catholic. You’re the same except its with the republican party.

  41. 41.

    John S.

    September 13, 2006 at 12:39 pm

    Well, had I known you had this gem up your sleeve, I wouldn’t have bothered with mine. Good on ya.

    Mac lovingly approves of one of John’s famous “I’ve had it up to HERE” screeds.

    How sweet.

  42. 42.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    Mac, as usual, picking apart what other people support and believe without offering any opinions of his own. I guess all those months of wading in Darrells bullshit kept us from seeing how much of a worthless hackish poster you are. But I bet you think you’re ‘serious’.

  43. 43.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    Mac, as usual, picking apart what other people support and believe

    Only when it’s wrong, jg. Only when it’s wrong.

  44. 44.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    Mac Buckets Says:

    Mac, as usual, picking apart what other people support and believe

    Only when it’s wrong, jg. Only when it’s wrong.

    But you don’t show that its wrong, you just say it is. And since you don’t tell us what’s rigth who fucking cares what you think? You’re a troll. You can’t even quote my whole sentence, just the part you can ‘defend’. You’re not serious, go away.

  45. 45.

    Par R

    September 13, 2006 at 12:57 pm

    Mr. Cole, when one lies down with dogs and other vermin infested lice-bearing thugs, such as a majority of the regular commenters here, it would appear very likely that one may come away from such an experience bearing some of that shit smeared on themselves. What else could one reasonable expect? Reasonableness? Fairness? Logical thought? Some semblance of maturity in words? Hardly.

    Most of these fools are posting their brain farts here because some form of internal ego leads them to think their words have a greater chance of being read on this site than, say, Eschaton where the number of regular imbeciles commenting there can be measured in the hundreds.

    Learn to live with this situation or just stop reading the comment threads. My job forces me to read this crap.

  46. 46.

    The Other Steve

    September 13, 2006 at 12:59 pm

    Vote Republican or DIE!

    Aren’t you worried that you lose credibility by choosing to attack Keith Olbermann when their are so many more rich examples out there?

  47. 47.

    Larry

    September 13, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    I think it’s time we faced the possibility that John Cole is going to have to be banned.

  48. 48.

    Nikki

    September 13, 2006 at 1:00 pm

    My job forces me to read this crap.

    You have a job that requires you to read the comments of a political blog? Do tell!

  49. 49.

    p.lukasiak

    September 13, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    Fuck you all.

    John, you screwed up in your first post on the subject royally — taking part of Olberman’s comments out of context, and then accusing him of holding Bush personally responsible for the failure to rebuild at the WTC site — and you were called on it.

    Rather than accept the fact that the critics were right, that Olberman was using the hole as a metaphor, a symbol of Bush’s failure over the past five years, you compounded the error in this post by accusing Olberman of “opportunism” in criticizing Bush on 9-11.

    I continue to read this blog because you are a thoughtful conservative — albeit one who has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth. You get criticized for stuff like this because we expect far better from you — if we wanted to read reactionary crap, we’d be over at Powerline or Hewitt or Red State.

  50. 50.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 1:04 pm

    Nikki,

    Par R. is a professional troll?

  51. 51.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 1:06 pm

    If the knee jerk defenses offered up by the resident right wing nutjobs doesn’t tell you something John we may need to do an intervention.

  52. 52.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    Par R. is a professional troll?

    Every lefty blog has at least one of these (strangely this balanced blog has several). All they do is jump into posts and tell the lefty commenters they are wrong. I’m sure its just a coincidence.

  53. 53.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    But you don’t show that its wrong, you just say it is. And since you don’t tell us what’s rigth who fucking cares what you think?

    Funny, that’s exactly what the Republicans (and the majority of voters) have been telling the Democrats for 5 years now. Just marinate in the irony, as a lefty troll tells me that it’s not enough to say how the Other is wrong, but to explain also what I would do to make things right.

    Mmmmmmm…Delicious!

  54. 54.

    Par R

    September 13, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    Par R. is a professional troll?

    Really? Although I was perfectly aware that Pb is in reality an Andalusian hermaphrodite, I had no idea that “it” knew anything about me….and it is clear that “it” doesn’t.

  55. 55.

    capelza

    September 13, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    Par R Says:

    Mr. Cole, when one lies down with dogs and other vermin infested lice-bearing thugs

    Some semblance of maturity in words?

  56. 56.

    Kathleen

    September 13, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    I think that Mr. Cole’s comment would inspire a little more empathy had he not based his post about The Poorman around “look, he cries, what a fag/baby.”

  57. 57.

    Larry

    September 13, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    My job forces me to read this crap.

    Mr. R works for NSA?

  58. 58.

    Punchy

    September 13, 2006 at 1:17 pm

    I continue to read this blog because you are a thoughtful conservative—albeit one who has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth never consider he may be wrong.

    Fixed.

    As for this:

    I am not sure what else I can do. I have given you all a forum to debate/discuss/flame, I have defended you when I think it is appropriate, and yet, whenever we disagree, I get served up nothing but personal attacks, strawmen, and downright trolling. I am sick of it.

    Let’s see…you host a blog that is proudly bipartisan, during a phase in history when this country is largely partisan, split, angry, and defensive, and you’re SURPRISED by the attacks??

    Wow, and he calls US hypersensitive!!! Don’t fret–in 28 hours or so, your Mountaineers are about to lay waste to a crappy UM team. So you got THAT going fer ya…

  59. 59.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    Just marinate in the irony, as a lefty troll tells me that it’s not enough to say how the Other is wrong, but to explain also what I would do to make things right.

    I’m a troll? You’re dodging by throwing insults?

    I never said make things right. Strawman? I said tell us what is wrong with our opinions, don’t just say they are wrong. You think the left has been critical of Bush without offereing alternatives, fine, I disagree, but its irrelevant. We’re talking about you, not political discourse, just you.

    Don’t just tell me KO isn’t serious, or isn’t knowledgable, show it or shut the fuck up.

  60. 60.

    Zifnab

    September 13, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    I really give up. I thought his use of the hole in the ground as a vehicle to attack Bush was distasteful I only commented on it because a popular left-leaning site that I read pretty regularly posted about it.

    Hey hey, John, you’ve got a point. Olbermann used the hole in the ground to illustrate Bush’s hole in the economy/politics/Medicare Plan D/mental accuity/whatever and when you point to ground zero and launch into a torrent of criticism about a political figure, you are – almost by definition – playing politics. And you are playing it with ground zero.

    Of course, what people need to understand is that nothing is sacred. Let me repeat that for the faint of hearing. Nothing. Is. Sacred. In the War on Terror, a war waged specifically because of the hole in the ground in New York, it is ridiculous and stupid to assume that said hole in the ground will develop a halo and an untouchable mystic. Right now, the only thing in this country that gets more political play than 9/11 is Jesus. Who, last I checked, was also supposed to be sacred. Surprise, they’re both not.

    So you guys on the left, stop crying at Bush for using the Twin Towers as a political stump. No shit he’s using it as a political stump. You would too if you were the President – that or you’d be a political retard (see: old school Democrat) – so drop the crocodile tears. You guys on the right, stop shitting on Olbermann for saying what well over 60% of the country was thinking – that Bush is a hypocritical jackass who’s spent the past 5 years pissing off the billion-odd Muslims who didn’t hate us before 9/11 rather than, you know, fixing the giant hole in the ground.

    Cole, you’re right on this in so far as Olbermann has no right to call foul when he’s using the exact same damn play out of the exact same damn playbook. But rather than hating on Olbermann for being such a hypocrite, I, personally, would be giving him props for finally finding the balls to fight right-wing bullshit propoganda with firey left-wing rhetoric propoganda. He’s doing the job Pelosi and Daschele and Clinton and Kerry should have been doing 5 years ago.

  61. 61.

    Mr Furious

    September 13, 2006 at 1:21 pm

    Good grief, John. Fucking relax. You’re acting like a damn baby.

    First. You have to know you are outnumbered by liberals on your own blog by like 10 to 1. And you have to know that if you post one of your “stick in the eye” posts, you’re gonna hear it.

    Second. If you didn’t know Keith Olbermann was one of the “sacred cows” you haven’t been paying attention. That’s bad on you.

    Third. “I thought his comments were stupid and inappropriate, just like I feel Bush was wrong using his speech to justify the war in Iraq. So I said something. I didn’t claim they are equivalent” That’s horseshit and you know it. You didn’t tack your comments on Olbermann at the end of of a post taking the President to task for making a political speech. You wrote a post solely about Olbermann. Two, in fact. I must have missed the post on Bush. Was it part of the Steelers thread?

    I know it’s not news or even noteworthy anymore when Bush takes a fucking dump on 9/11, but when you go out of your way to go after the one guy with the balls to point that fact out, you are being disengenuous if you try to back down now. Not equivelent? If anything your implication is that Olbermann’s worse.

    You called Olbermann out. Deal with the fucking consequences. Stop blaming your customers (we’re always right).

  62. 62.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    He’s doing the job Pelosi and Daschele and Clinton and Kerry should have been doing 5 years ago.

    He’s doing what the press should be doing.

  63. 63.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    So you guys on the left, stop crying at Bush for using the Twin Towers as a political stump.

    Well I wouldn’t cry over it, but it is despicable.

    No shit he’s using it as a political stump.

    The fact that he has been certainly doesn’t surprise or shock me anymore.

    You would too if you were the President

    Nope.

    that or you’d be a political retard

    Probably, but often taking the high road is actually the better approach, politically and for the country. However, when the people taking the low road spend their time trying to undermine you and drag down the level of discourse to the lowest common denominator instead of trying to get from point A to point B on the merits, taking the high road can become a political disadvantage, as some Democrats have found out. However, that still doesn’t mean that you’d then have to ‘[use] the Twin Towers as a political stump’.

    Also, I disagree with the apparent assumption that all political criticism necessarily has a partisan agenda. There actually are a few core American values, firmly established in the 1700’s, that some Americans do take very seriously, and when it comes to voicing those values or defending them, I don’t think that there really is an inappropriate time or place in America for that.

  64. 64.

    HyperIon

    September 13, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    John Cole (in the midst of yet another one of his angry “how dare you criticize me” reactions) says

    I really am over with defending myself to a motley crew of trolls and hyypersensitive ninnies who, scarred from the past few years of not getting their political way,

    Right. i’m a hypersensitive ninny because i haven’t been getting my political way. it has nothing to do with the state of affairs my country finds itself in.

    that is just absurd. and Mac, i fail to see the gem like qualities of Cole’s statement.

    we are now in a truly ridiculous situation: somebody screwed the pooch. but those that observe that “somebody screwed the pooch” are now characterized as either

    1. the REAL pooch screwers (the bad new from Iraq is causing the bad situation in Iraq)

    or

    2. hypersensitive ninnies who can’t deal with not getting their political way

    as JUAN Cole (heh) sometimes writes: it is to weep.

  65. 65.

    p.lukasiak

    September 13, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    I continue to read this blog because you are a thoughtful conservative—albeit one who has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth never consider he may be wrong.

    Fixed.

    Dammit Punchy, don’t go putting the words that I’m thinking in place of the words I use when I’m trying to be nice!

  66. 66.

    Davebo

    September 13, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    Fuck you all.

    Banned from commenting on his own site. Sad indeed.

    really am over with defending myself to a motley crew of trolls and hyypersensitive ninnies who, scarred from the past few years of not getting their political way, think that I am Karl Rove. That is right- I am tired of being served up a shit sandwich and being the whipping boy for you all.

    And unable to make a coherent defense of an irrational blog post as well.

    Geez John, I hope you’re using a screen saver (the plastic kind) to keep the spittle off your monitor.

  67. 67.

    Pooh

    September 13, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    FWIW, I think John has a reasonable point on the narrow issue of the “hole in the ground” but the prblem is that he goes full on WATB whenever someone takes a shot at him.

    John, this is NFL football, dude, pack a lunch, wear a cup, and stop fucking crying already.

  68. 68.

    chopper

    September 13, 2006 at 1:45 pm

    Olbermann used the hole in the ground ( a graveyard, mind you), as an oppportunistic metaphor to attack Bush- the hole in the ground represents the psychic wounds caused by Bush’s fierce partisanship (and alternately, to read Olbermann, his inaction), and the country will not be whole again until (to read Olbermann), something is in the 16 acres.

    i thought he was blaming the lack of construction at ground zero on bush? you change your mind?

  69. 69.

    Clueless

    September 13, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    If you follow the link Pb provided to the pics, look carefully at the wet gravel around the pseudo-memorial. Clearly, there were at least two photo-ops hours apart.

  70. 70.

    nobody

    September 13, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    Wow. What a smug, self-satisfied prick you are, Mr. (not the smart one named) Cole. You and all your sanctimoniously “non-partisan” commentors. Pfffft!

  71. 71.

    Bombadil

    September 13, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    Fuck you all.

    Tell me, Perfesser, will your communications students be allowed to use that as an argument in their papers or on exams?

    I hope you give them full credit for an appropriate response if they do.

  72. 72.

    Nikki

    September 13, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    Really? Although I was perfectly aware that Pb is in reality an Andalusian hermaphrodite, I had no idea that “it” knew anything about me….and it is clear that “it” doesn’t.

    Why the hostility? You’re the one who brought up that you read this “crap” professionally; you said your job requires you to do so. Hence, you must be a professional troll.

    Now tell us, who did you have to blow to get this job?

  73. 73.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    Don’t just tell me KO isn’t serious, or isn’t knowledgable, show it or shut the fuck up.

    I’m sure he’s as knowledgeable and serious-minded as any lifelong sportscaster who got a network news gig with no news reporting experience would be. I can guarantee you that the news reader at your local third-place TV station has better qualifications for reporting the news that Olbermann did when he got his own gig at MSNBC. If you accept that level of qualification, good for you. Just don’t expect others to do the same.

    Again, Keith gets about the same cred from me as Rush Limbaugh (which is to say, not much), because their qualifications and schtick are about the same, just from different ends.

  74. 74.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    Nikki,

    I won’t blame you for getting sucked in–after all, he *is* a professional!

  75. 75.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    Mac Buckets,

    Yet again, you can’t back it up. You couldn’t before, and you aren’t about to now. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t even cut it as a sportscaster!

  76. 76.

    chopper

    September 13, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    Funny, that’s exactly what the Republicans (and the majority of voters) have been telling the Democrats for 5 years now. Just marinate in the irony, as a lefty troll tells me that it’s not enough to say how the Other is wrong, but to explain also what I would do to make things right.

    Mmmmmmm…Delicious!

    clinton got a blow job.

  77. 77.

    Blue Neponset

    September 13, 2006 at 2:25 pm

    John,

    First, thank you for taking the time and making the effort to make B-J a blog where actual political debate can take place.

    Second, chill out man and re-read Mr. Furious’s comment above. How is it that you are the only person surprised by the reaction you get from your way lefty commentariat after you poke Keith Olberman in the eye?

  78. 78.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    And The Big Dig isn’t completed yet, either! Mr. President, have you no shame? And there’s an under-construction freeway that I take every morning that still hasn’t been completed in like three years! I guess you just doesn’t care about people who drive cars, Mr. Bush! What about your promise to be the “Bob the Builder” President?

  79. 79.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    Yet again, you can’t back it up.

    Back what up? That Olbermann is as qualified as Rush? I’ve admitted as much — but that’s damning both of them with faint praise. If you want to make Mustache out to be a foreign policy expert with years of Washington reporting experience, go for it. It will be a tough sell, and you’ll have to rewrite a lot of history, but I await the result.

    Rush Limbaugh couldn’t even cut it as a sportscaster!

    No, he was awful, but I’m pretty sure you don’t want to compare Mustache’s career success against Rush’s. It would be a huge rout, and you wouldn’t like the result.

  80. 80.

    slickdpdx

    September 13, 2006 at 2:35 pm

    Olbermann is a sacred cow, with everything that goes along with it. My only question is who anointed him.

    Anyhow, congratulations Keith, you’ve got your own army of dittoheads!

  81. 81.

    Punchy

    September 13, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    And The Big Dig isn’t completed yet, either! Mr. President, have you no shame?

    Really? So this is just bullshit?

    The Project reached substantial completion on January 13, 2006. Finish work on the Big Dig and surface restoration will continue through spring 2006

  82. 82.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    Really? So this is just bullshit?

    The Project reached substantial completion on January 13, 2006. Finish work on the Big Dig and surface restoration will continue through spring 2006

    A big chunk of it fell on some poor woman a couple months ago — a portion of the BD was closed when I was in Boston last month. So Bush had better get on his coveralls!

  83. 83.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    If you want to make Mustache out to be a foreign policy expert with years of Washington reporting experience, go for it.

    Compared to Rush’s ‘reporting’, he might as well be Walter Cronkite.

  84. 84.

    Mike

    September 13, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    Day-ummm. Is this the usual around here? WTF?

    John – I agree there’s a little bit of piling on here, but whattaya’ expect? What’s that they say about the heat in the kitchen? Or the bull’s horns?

    Sheeeeeet man, I wish my site counter had as many hits as yours. I can roll with the consequences of my provocative posts, but I get fractions of your traffic.

    Jeez, what a friggin pussy.

  85. 85.

    Blue Neponset

    September 13, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    A big chunk of it fell on some poor woman a couple months ago—a portion of the BD was closed when I was in Boston last month.

    Don’t worry Mitt Romney is all over this, and if he weren’t I would hope that Bush would get on Mitt’s case about not being all over it. What is so hard to understand about that? Just because Bush doesn’t have direct control over something doesn’t mean he has no say over it. He is the President after all.

  86. 86.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    A big chunk fell back that did occur after the construction was finished right?

    Again, Keith gets about the same cred from me as Rush Limbaugh (which is to say, not much), because their qualifications and schtick are about the same, just from different ends.

    Well I certainly disagree about the schtick but since you just want reasons to be dismissive of Olberman there doesn’t seem to be a point in arguing that maybe he actually does a little research on teh subjects he’s talking about and not just reading copy like he did in his sportscaster days. I guess the fact that he once had a job as a sportscaster is the end all be all of his existence and he should go away because that job carries such a stigma that he shuld be ashamed of himself and just die. Whatever.

    Where do serious people get their information?

  87. 87.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    A big chunk fell back that did occur after the construction was finished right?

    A big chunk fell *but* …..

  88. 88.

    Larry

    September 13, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    Where do serious people get their information?

    From multiple sources.

  89. 89.

    Larry

    September 13, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    A big chunk fell

    A large concrete ceiling panel, held in place by an epoxied bolt, fell when the bolt worked loose. The failure of the attachment had been predicted a few years ago when it was built, IIRC. I also recall seeing that recent inspection had revealed a general problem with the epoxied bolts and that these were being repaired or replaced or possibly removed altogether, in order to make the tunnel safe now. I haven’t Googled this in the last month or two so I am not up to speed on the latest developments.

  90. 90.

    VidaLoca

    September 13, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Where do serious people get their information?

    Studies done at the University of Malmo.

  91. 91.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 3:41 pm

    Where do serious people get their information?

    From multiple sources.

    And those sources would be……? Clearly KO isn’t one of them, or Rush Limburger. So if I want to be able to have an intelligent conversation with Mac where do I get the info for my side of the discussion?

  92. 92.

    ats

    September 13, 2006 at 3:44 pm

    John said, “this is just proof that I will never vote for Democrats because they are worse.”

    He does trust, I hope, teach political science.

  93. 93.

    Larry

    September 13, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    So if I want to be able to have an intelligent conversation with Mac

    I’m sorry, I can’t answer a hypthetical.

  94. 94.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 3:58 pm

    Serious people get their information from people who cite primary sources. *Really* serious people check those sources, and/or get their information directly from primary sources. Otherwise, the question is, what was your source’s source? And it doesn’t take much source checking at all to reveal the huge difference between Rush Limbaugh’s sources (?) and Keith Olbermann’s sources.

  95. 95.

    Mr Furious

    September 13, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    I subjected myself to about fifteen minutes of Rush this afternoon. If Mac wants to pretend that Rush and KO are flip sides of the same coin, he is fucking high.

    Literally NOTHING that came out of Limbaugh’s mouth today was accurate or true. He spends three hours a day doing what ABC spent three minutes doing the other night.

    You want to start with KO nemesis O’Reilly as the alter-Olbermann, we can talk.

  96. 96.

    The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me

    September 13, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    John Cole likes pie, too!

    When do the pie threads come out?

  97. 97.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    If Mac wants to pretend that Rush and KO are flip sides of the same coin, he is fucking high.

    He’s just being dismissive like a good little wingnut should be.

    Sometimes I think conservatism is based on principles that are the opposite of what I learned in school. Ends DO justify the means, DO judge a book by its cover, Do unto others as they have done unto you.

  98. 98.

    whetstone

    September 13, 2006 at 4:31 pm

    “Fuck you all.

    I thought his comments were stupid and inappropriate”

    Fighting irony with irony! I like that! Unless it’s supposed to me metaphor. I’m so confused.

    You know, maybe you’d have less “trolls” if you didn’t snap anytime the number of people disagreeing with you got big enough that you need two hands to count them. They come here and make fun of you for the same reason people made fun of unstable kids in middle school, because it’s fun to watch you curse and throw things.

  99. 99.

    The Other Steve

    September 13, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    Anyhow, congratulations Keith, you’ve got your own army of dittoheads!

    You say that as if it’s an insult.

  100. 100.

    Tom in Texas

    September 13, 2006 at 4:51 pm

    You want to start with KO nemesis O’Reilly as the alter-Olbermann, we can talk.

    This seems a much more apt parrallel than the Limbaugh connection. Limbaugh is a pure partisan shill — a man who worked for the Bush reelection campaign. Olbermann’s partisanship is not nearly as blatant — and his sources are undeniably more accurate than Rush’s, as mentioned upthread.
    But if KO’s background as a sports journalist disqualifies him from consideration as a real journalist, doesn’t BO or Geraldo’s background as a tabloid journalist merit at least the same amount of skepticism? Or Fred Barnes et al on Fox and Chris Matthews at MSNBC, who have undeniable partisan connections? In short, most all commentators seem to come from either a partisan background or from a realm of television journalism considered inferior to cable news (there is such a thing, believe it or not). Criticism of their commentary, and not their background, is the most effective way to prove your point.

  101. 101.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 5:00 pm

    Criticism of their commentary, and not their background, is the most effective way to prove your point.

    Not if your only point was to be dismissive.

  102. 102.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 5:35 pm

    Criticism of their commentary, and not their background, is the most effective way to prove your point.

    Well, I did both, but all the Mustache-heads seem to be able to do is assert that Olbermann’s paucity of serious journalistic credentials is irrelevant. I’m sure the fact that he parrots the moonbat line is purely coincidental, and that if Kenny Mayne or Bob Costas would run off neo-con rants, they’d be taken just as seriously (cough, cough). But let’s not pretend that I haven’t criticized that wheel of Swiss cheese that passed for some semblance of an argument on Monday.

  103. 103.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    But let’s not pretend that I haven’t criticized that wheel of Swiss cheese that passed for some semblance of an argument on Monday.

    No need to pretend, you could show us where it happened, on what blog and in what post you performed this criticism of the merits of his argument. I remember you saying KO wasn’t serious and that he wasn’t knowledgable but never why you felt this way other than the fact of his previous occupation. I’m still waiting to hear what was wrong with his argument.

  104. 104.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 5:54 pm

    Well, I did both, but all the Mustache-heads seem to be able to do is assert that Olbermann’s paucity of serious journalistic credentials is irrelevant.

    Why is it relevant? Do you have anything beyond ,’my God he once read sports copy on the air’ (not a direct quote so don’t try to turn it into a jackalope) as a reason to dismiss what he’s saying? Even if what he says is complete claptrap do you really think your reasons are the reasons people should tune him out? Shouldn’t you actually find faults with his statements and point them out to us rather than just declare that since he was once in the sports industry he shouldn’t be taken seriously? Isn’t that what you would do if you were serious?

  105. 105.

    The Other Steve

    September 13, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    Well, I did both, but all the Mustache-heads seem to be able to do is assert that Olbermann’s paucity of serious journalistic credentials is irrelevant.

    It’d be nice if you could show us where you attacked the argument and not the messenger.

    Thanks.

  106. 106.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 6:13 pm

    Olbermann’s background and past articles are certainly worth looking into, though. In fact, for a lot of insight into him, read this speech he gave, I’m sure that there’s something in there for everyone, even Mac Buckets.

  107. 107.

    AkaDad

    September 13, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    John Cole at 12:26 pm

    The reason I read this blog, is becasue John isn’t like the Malkins, Hewitts, and Hindrockets of the world.

    I wouldn’t put up with all the unfair stuff that John gets, day after day either. I would have went off a long time ago.

  108. 108.

    chopper

    September 13, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    why even try to argue the point with mac? if olbermann had 50 years of journalism experience, mac would be complaining that he’s some ivory-tower type with an inflated ego.

    his point is to dismiss what is said w/o addressing it. the excuse for dismissal is secondary.

  109. 109.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    Why is it relevant?

    You’re right. Who needs credentials? Darrell should get his own show right after Olbermann. Then Mel Gibson can have a show with his self-styled analysis of current events. Everyone’s opinions should be accpeted equally. What does Jessica Alba think about Iraq? Give her a network show! I’ll bet her opinions are smokin’ hot.

    I can’t believe I have to explain why that is dumb to an adult (presumably). Your doctor, your lawyer, actors on TV, network execs — they all have some level of credentials. Why do you think that is? Because credentials and experience are the prime indicators of what separates someone who knows what they are doing from someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing. A podiatrist should probably lay off of performing bypass surgery.

    As I said before, Mustache has the right like any American to offer his opinion (he does, curiously, have the loudspeaker of a national cable show), but to be taken seriously, he must be able to research and ask questions (if he doesn’t know his history), know how to construct an argument, when assertions are OK and when he needs to offer substantiation, what a logical fallacy is. I’ve seen little evidence that he knows these things. I’ve seen a lot of evidence that he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t know about these things.

    Take, for an counterexample to KO, Christopher Hitchens — 50% of the time I think he’s right, 50% of the time I think he’s wrong, but every article (even his opinion pieces) is a textbook on how to make an argument. Because he’s an experienced news journalist.

    Again, if you don’t need credentials in your media, then good for you — why’d some make such a big deal about Jeff Gannon, anyway? — but don’t expect me to seek out Al Michaels to get his take on Iran.

    ’my God he once read sports copy on the air’ (not a direct quote so don’t try to turn it into a jackalope)

    That would be you guys’ “hilarious” pile of wackiness, not mine. And he “once” read the sports for 21 years, before MSNBC made the curious decision that he was qualified to have a news show.

    Even if what he says is complete claptrap do you really think your reasons are the reasons people should tune him out?

    As I’ve said many times, “people” can accept whatever they want. If they want to accept qualifications like KO’s or Rush Limbaugh’s, good for them. I just have this “thing” for wanting to get my news from, you know, people who have a prayer of knowing what they are talking about. Journalism is a thin enough field as it is, rife with hacks and shills — but I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to junk the idea of a credentialed, experienced media.

    Shouldn’t you actually find faults with his statements and point them out to us

    Come on, you guys aren’t prepared for that conversation. I offered a sneak preview on the other thread, and you guys didn’t argue a single point of it.

    He just asserts, in a flurry that could be the Final Exam in Spot the Logical Fallacy 101, that the reason there is no memorial is because of Bush — because Bush was so busy squandering this and photo-opping that and (most ludicrously) spending the 9/11 memorial money on paying journalists to write nice things (???). Mustache, ever the gloryhound, even vaguely sets himself up as a poor victim of GOP rhetoric (Saying that I have “forgotten?” Well, you’re an idiot, Mr. President! —Ummm, hate to break it to you, KO, but I’ve never heard the president even cough your name by accident).

  110. 110.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    why even try to argue the point with mac?

    Becuase you might learn something, chop! Like the other day, when you learned that some idiot thinks you and I were raised by serial killers. I’ll bet you had no idea!

    if olbermann had 50 years of journalism experience, mac would be complaining that he’s some ivory-tower type with an inflated ego.

    That’s a mighty big “if,” isn’t it? We’ll never know, I guess. I mean, I’d be right about Keith’s ego if I did say that, but I still wouldn’t dismiss him simply because he’s a prick or whatever (that’s a logical fallacy, and Mac Buckets doesn’t do fallacy). I never dismissed Dan Rather for it.

  111. 111.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    I offered a sneak preview on the other thread, and you guys didn’t argue a single point of it.

    I would have if you could have made an honest comparison to something more relevant, somewhere, somehow, as I had requested. But I wasn’t surprised when you couldn’t.

  112. 112.

    jg

    September 13, 2006 at 8:04 pm

    I’ve seen little evidence that he knows these things. I’ve seen a lot of evidence that he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t know about these things.

    Where’s this evidence? I want to know why you think that because he once read sports (once as in used to, not one time, you idiot) it means that he couldn’t be doing research on the subjects he speaks about or that he’s not intelligent enough to have an understanding of events or issues and be able to relate them to others. From everything you’ve written so far KO isn’t qualified because you don’t think he’s qualified. That’s a fine opinion, produce some facts to support and I might be inclined to agree with it but its not enough to tell me he’s wrong about the things he says or that he’s not serious or whatever. Its just your opinion. One we had to fucking drag out of you when all you wanted to do was trash KO and people who liked what he said.

    Do you troll right wing sites trashing people for listening to Rush Limbaugh?

  113. 113.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    I would have if you could have made an honest comparison to something more relevant, somewhere, somehow, as I had requested.

    A “comparison?” To what? I was responding directly to KO’s little speech. Why was there any need for any comparison to anything? I thought you wanted a rebuttal. Get your act together.

    This sounds like a very weak non-response to me.

    I’ll give you one last try: What kind of “comparison” were you asking for?

  114. 114.

    Kimmitt

    September 13, 2006 at 8:19 pm

    Christopher Hitchens—50% of the time I think he’s right, 50% of the time I think he’s wrong, but every article (even his opinion pieces) is a textbook on how to make an argument.

    Ye gods.

  115. 115.

    Zifnab

    September 13, 2006 at 8:28 pm

    What does Jessica Alba think about Iraq? Give her a network show! I’ll bet her opinions are smokin’ hot.

    I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  116. 116.

    John S.

    September 13, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    Becuase you might learn something

    Wow.

    There’s no ego left in here for anyone – not even Cole.

    (that’s a logical fallacy, and Mac Buckets doesn’t do fallacy)

    Now that is funny. A statement that in it of itself is little more than the negative form of an appeal to consequences fallacy.

    Arrogance. Ego. MacBuckets.

  117. 117.

    Pb

    September 13, 2006 at 9:04 pm

    Mac Buckets,

    Re-read the thread–you’re (still) embarrassing yourself.

    I was responding directly to KO’s little speech.

    Which, indeed, wasn’t what I asked for, or what you would have had to do to prove your point.

    I thought you wanted a rebuttal.

    You thought wrong.

    I’ll give you one last try

    That’s one last try than I’m giving you, but I will give you a hint nonetheless–it has to do with the difference between Keith Olbermann and another media figure to which you were improperly comparing him.

  118. 118.

    Pinko Punko

    September 13, 2006 at 9:42 pm

    The genius of this thread is Mac opened up a can o’ worms with his “credentialism.” Chertoff? Brownie? Anyone in the admin? Bushwad?

  119. 119.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 10:03 pm

    From everything you’ve written so far KO isn’t qualified because you don’t think he’s qualified.

    As I’ve said before, if you accept his level of journalistic qualifications or Rush’s or Jim Lampley’s or Jessica Simpson’s, then you just go right ahead. I will not, however, because I prefer to get my news from people who have better news credentials than my third-place local anchor.

    That’s a fine opinion, produce some facts to support and I might be inclined to agree with it

    No, as I said yesterday, it’s actually a fact — not an opinion — that Mustache’s schtick on Monday was comprised almost entirely of unsubstantiated, vaguely-asserted pablum for the moonbat True Believers who make up the mini-audience that has somehow kept KO on the air.

    He didn’t need to attribute (journalistic term) to the President or Cheney that self-glorifying quote where someone claimed that “I and people like me” have “forgotten” the lessons of 9/11. He got to suggest that they said it, and then he got to call them “idiots,” as if they had any idea who The Mustache is! The droolers loved it, no doubt.

    He doesn’t need to prove that they spend 9/11 rebuilding money on “buying off columnists to write how good a job they’re doing instead of doing any job at all.” The Kool-Aid drinkers accept bizarro facts because The Mustache told them it was so.

    Well, he made all that up. Of the three columnists involved in getting federal funds, two got them from Health and Human Services programs and one got it from a Department of Education program. Sorry to disappoint you, Keith, but nothing was diverted from the Lower Manhattan development funds to help Bush politically. I know, KO, I know…drat! It made such a good fantasy!

    He doesn’t need to prove that Bush was the one who stomped on the equally-asserted “Bi-partisan America” — the mythical fairyland where Keith pretends that Democrats forgot all about regaining their political power and stood behind the President — by the Administration’s questioning of the patriotism of those who dissented, and invading Iraq… 18 months later (???).

    B-b-b-but KO, a small point, but if everyone was united, then why were Democrats dissenting? And I guess the Democrats were still playing nice at least until the 2002 vote on Iraq, right? Everyone was united, right, Keith? No rhetoric like, well, this, from November 2001, just two months after 9/11:

    Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.) raised the rhetoric several decibels higher on Nov. 29, blaming Bush for the recession and labeling his refusal to spend more on homeland security “unpatriotic.”

    Yeah, folks were calling people “unpatriotic,” all right, Keith. Just not the guys you think it was.

    The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ‘something to do’ with 9/11 is “lying by implication.”

    The impolite phrase is “impeachable offense.”

    An impolite response would be “I’m sorry you’re too stupid to understand, Sports Guy, but it is not our responsibility to explain everything to you in small enough words that you can get it through your five remaining cocaine-riddled braincells. You think you were “duped” because you were dumb, Mustache, not because anyone committed an impeachable offense.”

    That would be “impolite,” though, so I won’t say it.

    I’ll just say: Dude, this loon’s on national TV, and they complain about a miniseries? Keith should run a disclaimer every five seconds:

    Fiction. Not based on reality.

    Who has left this hole in the ground?

    Well, the architect who won the rebuilding contract, for one.

    Just thought Keith should know.

    Because I know.

    Have you no shame, Mustache?

    Have you no sense of decency, at long last?

    (See, I can be overbearingly mawkish, too!)

  120. 120.

    Mac Buckets

    September 13, 2006 at 10:09 pm

    Re-read the thread—you’re (still) embarrassing yourself.

    Your weak rhetoric is useless against my Cobra Style.

    That’s one last try than I’m giving you, but I will give you a hint nonetheless—it has to do with the difference between Keith Olbermann and another media figure to which you were improperly comparing him.

    Then you’re not serious about this discussion, so feel free to stay out of it. No one’s making you post.

  121. 121.

    Richard 23

    September 13, 2006 at 10:15 pm

    Pinko Punko Said:

    The genius of this thread is Mac opened up a can o’ worms with his “credentialism.” Chertoff? Brownie? Anyone in the admin? Bushwad?

    Your opinion is worth two or three bulls. San-J rox! Cobag!

  122. 122.

    Richard 23

    September 13, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    because I prefer to get my news from people who have better news credentials than my third-place local anchor.

    Such as, Bucket Boy? I’d sure like to know who I can trust. Certainly not Jessica Simpson or Rush Limbaugh of course. But who?

  123. 123.

    Richard 23

    September 13, 2006 at 10:18 pm

    I’m sick of this game, who the fuck is Mustache? John Bolton?

  124. 124.

    The Other Steve

    September 13, 2006 at 11:25 pm

    I can’t believe I have to explain why that is dumb to an adult (presumably). Your doctor, your lawyer, actors on TV, network execs—they all have some level of credentials. Why do you think that is? Because credentials and experience are the prime indicators of what separates someone who knows what they are doing from someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing. A podiatrist should probably lay off of performing bypass surgery.

    Interesting comment, rather unAmerican to claim you have to be an expert(I presume you mean Republican) to comment on politics, but interesting nonetheless.

    Take, for an counterexample to KO, Christopher Hitchens—50% of the time I think he’s right, 50% of the time I think he’s wrong, but every article (even his opinion pieces) is a textbook on how to make an argument. Because he’s an experienced news journalist.

    Exactly what credentials does Christopher Hitchens actually have?

    Doesn’t appear to be any more than Olbermann. But I guess since you at least agree with Hitchens half the time, it’s ok for him to comment?

    It seems your argument is well, rather absent of logic.

    I’ve never liked Hitchens, and I found his argumentative style to be rather absent of logic, and large on emotion. So it is not surprising that you find his style to your liking as you are very much the same.

  125. 125.

    The Other Steve

    September 13, 2006 at 11:27 pm

    Honest, Mac, if you reread what you’ve written here it sounds an awful lot like whining.

    If you don’t like Keith Olbermann don’t watch him. I don’t watch your buddy Rush Limbaugh.

  126. 126.

    The Editors

    September 13, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    Your weak rhetoric is useless against my Cobra Style.

    That was so awesome.

  127. 127.

    Pb

    September 14, 2006 at 1:32 am

    Ok Mac, your cobra style wins out over my hamster style, these guys are totally the same:

    “we would have to put out the sun. We would have to find a way to send fire trucks to the sun and put it out” — Rush Limbaugh

    “the nation’s preeminent scientific body has told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that years and years of data on global warming is reliable and accurate” — Keith Olbermann

  128. 128.

    The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me

    September 14, 2006 at 6:18 am

    “we would have to put out the sun. We would have to find a way to send fire trucks to the sun and put it out”—Rush Limbaugh

    I think Rush has a valid argument, actually. If global warming IS happening, cooling down the Sun may be our only chance for survival.

    Is NASA looking into this? There must be some way to deploy hoses against the Sun.

    If NASA’s strapped for cash or whatever, I think we should team up with corporations on this one. Druglords, too, if necessary. Tell Pablo Escobar 2.0 that once the Sun is cooled down enough to save the Earth, he can probably build a floating space farm above it and raise some killer buds. We’ll even let him import them to Peoria if it’s necessary- when the survival of the human race is at stake, what’s a couple million more American druggies matter?

  129. 129.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 8:16 am

    Exactly what credentials does Christopher Hitchens actually have?

    If you want to equate the intellectual rigor of receiving a degree with Honours after reading politics, philosophy and English at the oldest college at the University of Oxford with barely getting out of Cornell with a communications degree, you’re welcome to it. I won’t make that claim.

    But with the advanced credentials came superior experience. Hitchens has worked in political journalism for over 30 years, writing for some legendary political publications.

    Doesn’t appear to be any more than Olbermann.

    I’m sorry, perhaps I was not clear. I said “political journalism,” not “reading hockey scores whilst sitting next to Dan Patrick.”

    If Olbermann had graduated Oxford and had Hitchens-type experience, we’d never be subjected to the kind of schlock discussed above. He’d kill himself before he wrote garbage like that.

  130. 130.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 8:26 am

    Ok Mac, your cobra style wins out over my hamster style, these guys are totally the same:

    I already granted that they come from completely opposite sides of the spectrum, so of course they’d have differing views on certain issues. Rush will say something dumb on an issue, and Mustache will try to trump him with something equally dumb on another subject. They’re both virtually worthless. They’re entertainers whose job it is to say whatever their Dittoheads/Mustacheheads want to bark along to. Like I said earlier, they are the political equivalents of Arsenio Hall. You can join the yelping if you want to.

    Bush spent the 9/11 recovery money on paying journalists. –Olbermann

    That’s retarded. — Limbaugh

    As I’ve said all along, I’ll call it a push.
    Cherrypicking is fun!

  131. 131.

    Mike

    September 14, 2006 at 8:29 am

    For fuck’s sake, MacBucket, stop hiding behind your mountains of bullshit and just come out with it: You don’t like Olbermann because your politics are different than his. And there’s nothing wrong with that!

    But this endless blathering about credentials and moustaches and Cobra style (pretty funny, by the way) is ridiculous. You want to talk about what it takes to create a credible story? A shred of honesty.

    Admit the real reason you don’t like Olbermann and you’ll have regained, if not the high ground, at least a pathway out of this pit you’ve dug yourself into. As it stands you’re doing nothing but weaving some complicated tapestry, failing to notice that the pattern is butt ugly.

    Here, MacBuckets, let me get you started. Just cut & paste this phrase, and begin the rehabilitation: “I, Mac Buckets, don’t like Keith Olbermann because he is a liberal and I a conservative. Because of that basic premise, I believe . . .”

  132. 132.

    Pb

    September 14, 2006 at 9:30 am

    Mac, Mac, Mac, there’s a reason why you have no credibility…

    Bush spent the 9/11 recovery money on paying journalists.—Olbermann

    Not accurate, and not even a quote. Unlike this:

    ‘Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. “We can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.” So we won’t.

    Instead they bicker and buck-pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they’re doing — instead of doing any job at all.’ — Keith Olbermann

    Got that? First paragraph, what they didn’t do, second paragraph, what they did do. For all that you decry Olbermann, his experience and his education, when push comes to shove, you can’t even come close. Rush Limbaugh is much more your speed.

  133. 133.

    chopper

    September 14, 2006 at 9:32 am

    Becuase you might learn something, chop!

    how do i learn something from someone who dismisses an entire speech based solely on his dislike of the man who says it?

    That’s a mighty big “if,” isn’t it? We’ll never know, I guess. I mean, I’d be right about Keith’s ego if I did say that, but I still wouldn’t dismiss him simply because he’s a prick or whatever (that’s a logical fallacy, and Mac Buckets doesn’t do fallacy).

    you don’t think it’s a fallacy to dismiss olbermann’s speech based on him being a former sportscaster with only 5 years experience in the news?

  134. 134.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 9:38 am

    For fuck’s sake, MacBucket, stop hiding behind your mountains of bullshit and just come out with it: You don’t like Olbermann because your politics are different than his.

    Nonsense. He’s an entertainer. I like plenty of entertainers whose politics are different than mine, and I don’t like plenty of entertainers whose politics are close to mine.

    I just have this little thing about having my intelligence deliberately insulted by someone who is underqualified to broadcast his views to me. It doesn’t matter if it’s Limbaugh (who probably votes the same as I do more often than not) or The Sports Mustache (who probably never does).

    All I initially said was that I don’t give any credence to anything Olbermann says because he’s an unqualified career sports highlight reader who only doles out Kool-Aid to a small audience of moonbats. Only after the drinkers of said beverage lept to a particularly weak defense and demanded that I fisk his speech did I do so.

    You want to talk about what it takes to create a credible story? A shred of honesty.

    Of which, as I showed above (to no refutation), Olbermann is almost always void. Can you show otherwise?

    at least a pathway out of this pit you’ve dug yourself into. As it stands you’re doing nothing but weaving some complicated tapestry, failing to notice that the pattern is butt ugly.

    A pit I’ve dug? I’m sorry, was there any refutation of any part the post above where I showed specifically (and I only dealt with about half his little speech — there’s much more idiocy there than I felt the need to mention) how Olbermann is a lying, journalistically-challenged sack of empty moonbat-wind? Can I just not see the defense of KO on my new widescreen LCD (if it’s defective, it’s still under warranty!)? Because honestly, I can’t see any ugly tapestry — I just see loudmouths who can’t defend their choice of cheap wallpaper.

  135. 135.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 9:43 am

    Not accurate, and not even a quote.

    100% accurate, of course. You even quoted it yourself. Perhaps the sentence structure was too unwieldy for you. I’ll ellipse the parts that are unnecessary to our discussion.

    “They spend the money on …buying off columnists to write how good a job they’re doing—instead of doing any job at all.”

    Exactly as I said.

  136. 136.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 9:57 am

    how do i learn something from someone who dismisses an entire speech based solely on his dislike of the man who says it?

    No quote. No link. An assertion. A lie. Ignoring a post mere inches above this one that disproves your point.

    Yep, you’re qualified to be a Mustachehead!

    you don’t think it’s a fallacy to dismiss olbermann’s speech based on him being a former sportscaster with only 5 years experience in the news?

    Well, if by “dismiss” you mean “gainsay,” and if I hadn’t pointed out several times specifically why it’s rubbish, you might have a point. But that’s not the case, is it?

    His sports talking-head background does point to a lack of qualifications to offer his political opinions nationally, though. A true journalist, with real credentials and real experience, would probably not make the obvious mistakes Olbermann made (we should hope). Believe it or not, having an opinion while on TV does not give any credence to that opinion.

    I “dismissed” his speech because I could easily show that it’s a load of poorly-constructed, factually-incorrect, inintentionally-ironic pablum for people who can’t think for themselves.

    But as Rodney Dangerfield said, “It looks good on you, though!”

  137. 137.

    Krista

    September 14, 2006 at 10:45 am

    If Olbermann had graduated from Oxford and had Hitchens-type experience, we’d never be subjected to the kind of schlock discussed above.

    Fixed. It perturbs me to no end when otherwise intelligent people use the phrase “graduated high school” or “graduated college”. Prepositions are not your enemy…learn them, love them, use them.

  138. 138.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 10:50 am

    Fixed. It perturbs me to no end when otherwise intelligent people use the phrase “graduated high school” or “graduated college”.

    Thanks, K. In that case, it was just a typo. That sentence was a hardhat area for quite a while, IIRC.

  139. 139.

    slickdpdx

    September 14, 2006 at 10:53 am

    I’m having a hard time seeing where the argument about credentials goes for either side. So few have them!

  140. 140.

    chopper

    September 14, 2006 at 11:00 am

    No quote. No link. An assertion. A lie.

    aw, quit describing your own line of argument.

    His sports talking-head background does point to a lack of qualifications to offer his political opinions nationally, though.

    so what qualifications does a person require, exactly, before they can offer their opinions nationally then?

    I “dismissed” his speech because I could easily show that it’s a load of poorly-constructed, factually-incorrect, inintentionally-ironic pablum for people who can’t think for themselves.

    oh, you ‘could’. nice.

  141. 141.

    Zifnab

    September 14, 2006 at 11:02 am

    If we’re still talking about Christopher Hitchens, I found this little wiki-bit funny.

    During Mother Teresa’s beatification process, Hitchens was called by the Vatican to argue the case against her. His testimony took place in Washington. This role was previously known as the devil’s advocate, but the position was abolished under John Paul II. Hitchens has satirically referred to his work in the case as “representing the devil pro bono”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Early_career

  142. 142.

    Pb

    September 14, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    Exactly as I said.

    That’d be a first. The sentence structure was fine as it was, but either way, it doesn’t change how wrong you were and still are about its meaning.

  143. 143.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 1:03 pm

    aw, quit describing your own line of argument.

    Clever. What’s next? “I know you are, but what am I?”

    oh, you ‘could’. nice.

    Why all the willful dishonesty? Why be so obtuse? What do you think your winning here by pretending you haven’t read what’s just a few inches up this page? At least I know why you intentionally left off the next sentence of that first blockquote: “Ignoring a post mere inches above this one that disproves your point.” Hate to break it to you, but closing your eyes and pretending your point hasn’t been disproved doesn’t make it so.

    Look, your repeated picking of the nits is only highlighting in bold that none of you seem to have been able to muster the guts/wits necessary to address the substance of my 10:03 pm post describing Olbermann’s Swiss cheese logic, outright lies and willful ignorance. Since that’s the case, the smart thing to do would be to run away, like the rest have. Let the thread die, never speak of it again, and pretend you never found out the truth. That’s the smart play here.

  144. 144.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    The sentence structure was fine as it was, but either way, it doesn’t change how wrong you were and still are about its meaning.

    Yet you never explain how. Curious.

    Hey, I applaud you — at least you had the guts to go after one sentence of my earlier post refuting KO. I mean, what you wrote is complete ignorant bollocks, but at least you tried, in your own limited way.

  145. 145.

    Pb

    September 14, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    Yet you never explain how.

    I already tried before, but you didn’t get it–I’m done explaining the obvious to you, it obviously doesn’t work.

  146. 146.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    I already tried before, but you didn’t get it –I’m done explaining the obvious to you, it obviously doesn’t work.

    That’s just cowardly. You’ve got nothing, and you know it. Run away! Run Away!

  147. 147.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 2:20 pm

    OK, I’ll be more helpful. That was a bit harsh.

    First paragraph, what they didn’t do, second paragraph, what they did do.

    That was your “explaining the obvious” from before, right? I mean, it’s the only thing you’ve posted on the matter.

    Wow. Genius “explanation,” there. Only it doesn’t advance your argument that there is a substantive difference between what I paraphrased (and quoted verbatim in the 10:03 post) and the exact quote.

    To do that, you’d have to state what you think KO meant, and suggest how my paraphrase meant something different. “First paragraph, what they didn’t do, second paragraph, what they did do” is not a cogent argument, much less “explaining the obvious” in that regards.

    And yes, I know that your “I’m done explaining the obvious” spiel was just a rhetorical device so that you could pretend that I’m too stupid to grasp your argument — but that’s such a rudimentary trick. I’m stunned you thought it might work.

    I know you won’t try again here, but next time, on another thread, you’ll have to do much better.

  148. 148.

    Pb

    September 14, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    Mac Buckets,

    Yes, that was it.

    and quoted verbatim

    Or rather, Dowdified, disregarding both the context and the other items mentioned.

    next time, on another thread, you’ll have to do much better

    That’s rich; you still haven’t managed to make your original case from the last thread, which is how all this started in the first place!

  149. 149.

    Mac Buckets

    September 14, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    That’s rich; you still haven’t managed to make your original case from the last thread, which is how all this started in the first place!

    That’s it — close your eyes and change the subject. Now you’re playing it smart.

  150. 150.

    Pb

    September 14, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    close your eyes and change the subject

    Actually, it’s the original subject, which you have continuously and consistently evaded. But hey, why stop now, right?

  151. 151.

    jg

    September 14, 2006 at 4:48 pm

    So Mac is an elitist snob? The type who reads the Boston Globe not the Herald.

  152. 152.

    HH

    September 15, 2006 at 12:00 am

    So the crowd that goes apeshit over “Jane Hamshers of the Left” are suddenly experts at literary devices…

  153. 153.

    HH

    September 15, 2006 at 12:07 am

    “The reason I read this blog, is becasue John isn’t like the Malkins, Hewitts, and Hindrockets of the world.”

    But he IS like them in that he doesn’t like KO. Therefore you are a LIAR! Apologize!!! Jane Hamsher, call your office!

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Poor Man Institute » Easy Answers To Unnecessary Questions: special War on Metaphor edition says:
    September 13, 2006 at 11:25 am

    […] Cole widens the War On Metaphor to include any literary devices: In a post praising Olbermann’s opportunistic attack on Bush, the Poorman decries the opportunism of the Bush administration. […]

Primary Sidebar

Image by HinTN (5/22/25)

Recent Comments

  • sab on Update: Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘Keep Him Where He Is’ (May 22, 2025 @ 4:14pm)
  • Ruckus on Update: Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘Keep Him Where He Is’ (May 22, 2025 @ 4:14pm)
  • sab on Proof of Live – Ohio Meetup (May 22, 2025 @ 4:06pm)
  • Ruckus on Update: Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘Keep Him Where He Is’ (May 22, 2025 @ 4:06pm)
  • Belafon on Update: Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘Keep Him Where He Is’ (May 22, 2025 @ 4:03pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!