I did not see BO’s comment but it sounds like if you said,
something like: well it was like, a million years ago. That does not mean it
was exactly “a million years ago today..”For example, I don’t think my mother
in law is a “million years old”... If that is all he has to complain about then
he is one pathetic a$$ hole “today and as far back as a million years ago.”

Let- me- go- slow- for- you- Olbermann.............

I think you call it.. “exaggeration”

ex·ag·ger·ate v

1.       vti
to state that something is better, worse, larger, more common, or more
important than is true or usual

2.       vt
to make something appear more noticeable or prominent than is usual or
desirable

But I guess Olbermann would not know any thing about
that..

He is the perfect example of a liberal, they think they know
“all” for us.., the unwashed, as they blunder themselves..

He is praying that Bill picks up the attack so somebody
will watch his pathetic show.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

I'm a rationalist.

I think this site --- is pushing a religious agenda.

 Well by all means let us be rational.  Perhaps you can survey the blog posts here for the last week.  I believe you will find that 10% or less have a direct connection to the religious community.  Many others will have comments based in relious affiliations but that is the personal views of the commentors not NB.  So where rationally is the agenda?  How about an example, in this article it is the inconsistancy of the Olberdoof being exposed.  Now you may say it is a piffle and not worth the time to report Olberdoofs bias but that is a different issue.  Rationally where is the agenda?

 What the hell has Christianity --- to do with conservative politics?

Well since (A) defense of traditional moral values is a Conserative issue and (B) the religious community is the prime supporter of traditional moral values therefore (C) the religious community is directly linked to Conservative politics.  Let us take a recent article as an example:  it was reported here that the LAT was telling the Pope what he should do (in this case support pro-abortion politicians).  How is this appropriate for a website dedicated to "exposing liberal media bias"?  The liberal media (LAT) was biased against a traditional moral advocate (the Pope) in a politically connected issue (abortion and politicians).  Again, rationally, where is the agenda?  I suspect the problem is not with your rational brain but rather an emotional response by your irrational heart as exposed by your What the hell. 

Finally lumpy the masthead says "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias" how from that do you rationally conclude it to mean  "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Political Bias".  Sometimes what we see in others exposes more about us than them (classic projection).  I believe you rationally need consider that it is more likely your bias and a personal issue of yours to deal with rather than a legitimate complaint against Newsbusters 

You asked what the significance of religion is with respect to matters of secular libertarianism and fiscal conservatism.

If you want the serious answer, it's this. Without religion, there is no foundation, at least no credible foundation, for the axioms of secular libertarianism and fiscal conservatism. To the extent you could try to produce an ultimate foundation, it's bound to be wobbly and arbitrary, like the "social contract" narrative which continues to strain credulity.

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm stating a fact. If someone asks why it's good for people to possess their own property, you say "because property strengthens the guarantee of personal integrity, i.e., liberty." Then they ask why people should possess freedom and integrity, and you say "because it's man's nature to be free." They'll ask why is it man's nature to be free, etc. etc.

Pretty soon, you hit bottom. If you don't let religion in the room, you have to say the reason we support fiscal conservatism and secular libertarianism is because these axioms were agreed upon at a Philadelphia convention and that's that. The mundane act of voting on these rights is somehow supposed to constitute an ethereal safeguard. That's no foundation. Indeed, the enemies of liberty we both despise, and you know who they are, will tell you our little tea party was yesterday's news, that the Constitution is a living breathing document. 

IN CONTRAST: you say there is an objective moral law binding the entire Universe. The opposition has not a leg to stand on except to ridicule religion and hope it goes away. Putting aside theology, it seems to me an inherently good thing to fight against anti-religious sentiment because that sentiment itself is a threat to the only credible ontological that is, real foundation of our system of government. 

Give up the binding moral character of objective reality itself, and you give up the whole thing, lumpy.

I think it's unfair to say religion shouldn't play a part in politics. Perhaps it doesn't for you, and that's fine, but it does for a lot of people. And the fact is the GOP could never win the White House without the religious right - which is why Republicans are demanding churches endorse Giuliani.

I really don't like Giuliani and I cringe at voting for him because of social issues. But every time I say that in public, I get three Republicans screaming at me "you better vote for him anyway or we're blaming you for Hillary."

If everyone wants to take religion out of the GOP that's fine. But this Christian will not blindly hand her vote for sake of party loyalty - if I don't like the guy I'm not voting for him. 

card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy

Keith doesn't have to "fact check"....he "knows" everything. 

(8) Likewise also these despicable blowhards appeal to worldly resentments, despise just Christian government, and speak evil of good men.

(9) Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil and disputing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a baseless charge, but said, "The Lord rebuke thee."

(10) But these men like Keith Olberman speak evil of those things which they understand not: but what they know as natural unbiblical men, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

(11) Woe unto them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the evil accusations of Korah.

(12) These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds ... blown about with every wind of liberal doctrine; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

(13) Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

(14) And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his angels,

(15) To execute judgment upon all who persecute Christian men and women, and to convict all that are ungodly among them of all their wicked deeds which they have brazenly committed, and [to convict them] of all their hard speeches which these un-Christian sinners have spoken against Him and His children."

(16) These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts and personal resentments; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having [wicked] men's persons in admiration because of [spiritual and political] advantage.

(17) But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

(18) How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time [eschatos chronos - the lowest, or trying, time ... the time of adversity], who should walk after their own wicked resentments.

(19) These be they who separate themselves, worldly and un-Christian, having not the Spirit.