As NewsBusters readers are fully aware, MSNBC's David Shuster has apologized and been suspended for asking a guest on Thursday's "Tucker," "[D]oesn't it seem like Chelsea [Clinton's] sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
As if that wasn't enough, on Friday evening's "Countdown," host Keith Olbermann also apologized (video available here):
David has been suspended and remains only for me to apologize without limit to President Clinton and to Ms. Clinton on behalf of MSNBC. We are literally, dreadfully sorry.
If MSNBC is so sorry for Shuster's use of this phrase, shouldn't they be suspending Olbermann for a similar comment he made about President Bush and Gen. David Petraeus on September 20 (video available here courtesy of our friend Johnny Dollar, relevant section begins 55 seconds in, although readers are strongly encouraged to watch the entire delicious piece):
Mr. Bush, you had no right to order General Petraeus to become your front man. And he obviously should have refused that order, and resigned rather than ruin his military career. The upshot is, and contrary it is to the MoveOn advertisement, he betrayed himself more than he did us. But there has been in his action a sort of reflective courage, some twisted vision of duty at a time much crisis.
The man does not understand that serving officers cannot double as serving political ops is not so much his fault as it is your good exploitable fortune. Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the general`s skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of the planted last question at a news conference to indicate, once again, that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party, in terms of character assassination, and changing the fabric of our nation, and no right for your opponents or critics to as much as respond.
That, sir, is not only un-American, it is dictatorial. And in pimping General David Petraeus, sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it.
With this in mind, I humbly ask the good folks at MSNBC: if it was so disgraceful of Shuster to pose this "pimped out" question to Bill Press, wasn't it just as disgraceful for Olbermann to claim that President Bush was pimping Gen. Petraeus?
Should we who hold the office of the President with the utmost of esteem be expecting an apology from Olbermann, as well as his suspension?
No, I'm not holding my breath.
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel, the link goes to a
February 9, 2008 - 20:58 ET by motherbeltNoel, the Petraeus link goes to a video that is "no longer available."
and of course he doesn't have to apologize....he was just "speaking truth to power" like the brave, patriotic liberal he is!
That's Different ....
February 9, 2008 - 21:04 ET by allanfOlbermann's comments are different. He was criticizing a Republican.
NBC is just trying to show the Clintons that it is not in the tank for Obama.
Olbermann is a hypocritical dumb ass
February 10, 2008 - 11:23 ET by kgOlbermann is a hypocritical dumb ass. After hearing his slobering apology about pimping Chealsa does he think people will not notice he has, himself, used the very words he detests so much? This guy needs a clue.
MB
February 9, 2008 - 21:04 ET by Noel SheppardMB,
Works for me. Try it again. It should go to "Olbermann Watch." ns
Got it, Noel. I don't know
February 9, 2008 - 22:49 ET by motherbeltGot it, Noel. I don't know what you did, but your magic worked!
Really, Noel ...
February 9, 2008 - 21:13 ET by drillanwrIt's not as if Gen. Petraeus is anybody's son/husband/father/C.O. of millions of troops ...
I mean, Keith was hinting at the General being a "war whore" ... but, what the heck, eh? (REMEMBER...my sarc button is always on auto-pilot)
After 24+ hours, the MSNBC falling all over themselves on this is getting like the sloppy drunk staggering around the party spilling everyone's drinks on their costly clothing while apologizing profusely between belches and mumbles about how he's going to puke ...
I mean, for cripes sakes! I'm wondering when MSNBHILLARY starts playing Timbaland/One Republic's song "Apologize" behind these things!
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
One word
February 9, 2008 - 21:07 ET by bigtimerOne word Noel...
Glorious!
Oh yea, aint this rich???
February 9, 2008 - 21:28 ET by GregEOh yea, aint this rich??? Olbermann dare to reprimand Schuster? WOW. Perhaps Olbermann will "Worst Person in the World" himself? Ha! Let O'Reilly do that and see who's Worst for that day, according to Olbermump.
Let's go see if Media Mutters has jumped on Olbermann for this. LOL
Oh yea, aint this rich???
February 10, 2008 - 07:30 ET by motherbeltOh yea, aint this rich??? Olbermann dare to reprimand Schuster?
That's only because he was disrespectful to a Clinton. Had he said similar about, say, one of the Bush daughters, KO would have done a "Special Comment" on how DARE "Mr. Bush" make this fascist attempt to censor the press; Shuster was "speaking truth to power."
Olbeman should not apologize
February 9, 2008 - 21:24 ET by Lame CherryOlberman should not apologize, but MSNBC should suspend Keeter to the Pashtun frontier in Pakistan where he will broadcast for a few weeks replacing all he says about George Bush and the GOP with two simple words:
bin Laden and Islam.
Let us see how well the uncivilized Olberman does breaking news about Muslims.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Lame ...that's a really funny image
February 9, 2008 - 23:18 ET by JayTeeThe world of Islam would not welcome ANY critique or "breaking news" commentary as you suggest....But I DO like your suggestion, and would try and pay for a Cable connect to see that broadcast.... Olberman and Company doing an Osama critique or two live from Pakistan....I don't think they would survive beyond the 2nd broadcast.
Funny how freedom of speech doesn't really travel that well.
They could definitely go at 'em on torture
Ya know..
February 10, 2008 - 08:57 ET by sentforth5His head would get chopped off in about 1 hour.
If I had the chance to shake his hand, I would do that pinky-squash thingy and drop him to his knees.
thanks Noel
February 9, 2008 - 21:30 ET by botgjust got back from e-mailing msnbc asking when we can expect olbermanns suspension.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Keep us posted
February 10, 2008 - 08:38 ET by Tom1969caIn the words of Dr. Phil, "Yeah, let us know how that works out for ya!"
~~~
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe liberals are wrong, while liberals believe conservatives are evil.
First, I don't think Shuster
February 9, 2008 - 21:34 ET by balboaFirst, I don't think Shuster should have been suspended. Second, you can't go back in time to suspend Olbermann.
Here's the ONLY catch: Chelsea is someone's daughter, which in a corporate PC world makes it supposedly hurrendous. If Olbie had made/makes a comment about someone else's daughter, then blammo, he should be nailed.
Balboa
February 9, 2008 - 21:40 ET by Noel SheppardB,
I would agree with you whole-heartedly if she wasn't out on the stump. However, Chelsea now is indeed an adult campaigning for her mother. Whether you like it or not, that mitigates her innocence, and makes her fair game.
Everybody is somebody's son or daughter, B. After all, I have both!
If Chelsea is going to actively campaign for her mother AS AN ADULT, she should be treated JUST LIKE ANY OTHER adult working for Hillary.
If she can't stand the heat, she should get the heck out of the kitchen! ns
Noel... Amen! She's a big
February 9, 2008 - 21:44 ET by Clear thinkerNoel...
Amen! She's a big girl now and should take any heat she creates.
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
Noel
February 9, 2008 - 21:47 ET by balboaLike I said, I agree. I think MSNBC should grow a pair. Shuster's comment wasn't that big a deal.
uuummmm..... consider how
February 9, 2008 - 21:48 ET by MidAmericauuummmm..... consider how Chelsea's dad treated the Lewinsky's daughter. He ruined her life.
Depends on definition of pimped-out
February 10, 2008 - 16:38 ET by acumenExactly what I was thinking Mid -- perhaps if Shuster had used the words john, horndog, consort or gigolo the demedia would have been more understanding.
Regardless, Noel is spot on. This is a perfect example of the double standard employed by the demedia.
I don't think the Lewinskys
February 10, 2008 - 17:05 ET by fitzfongI don't think the Lewinskys cared. If memory serves, I believe one of Monica's parents asked her if they were about to meet their future son-in-law. That's West LA for you.
Noel...she is fair game for
February 9, 2008 - 21:56 ET by JerNoel...she is fair game for criticism--vigorous criticism--for the reasons you cite. But no one's daughter should be subjected to the particular terminology used by Shuster, a television journalist/analyst/commentator.
[Nor do I agree with Olbermann's over-the-top ranting. Or that of the Limbaughs, Coulters, Rhodes, et al for that matter.]
Jer
But there wasn't anything
February 9, 2008 - 22:02 ET by balboaBut there wasn't anything salacious meant by it. Perhaps it's an unfortunate word choice, but Shuster didn't mean that the Clintons were actually having Chelsea out turning tricks for their campaign.
bal...I would place the
February 9, 2008 - 22:32 ET by Jerbal...I would place the term "pimped out" just between "whored out" and "prostituted" as far as its level of offensiveness.
Would you defend Shuster's use of those words--since he likewise wouldn't mean Chelsea was actually turning tricks for the campaign?
Jer
Yeah, I wouldn't put those
February 9, 2008 - 23:14 ET by balboaYeah, I wouldn't put those on the same level. That's just me.
Well, now, bal ...
February 9, 2008 - 22:34 ET by drillanwrIt waaaas during that patch a few days back where word of Hillary's campaign needing money was in the news ... [sarc button on auto-pilot]
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
Three comments
February 10, 2008 - 00:01 ET by KC MulvilleThere ain't a guy I'd rather have it happen to than Shuster, but fair is fair. He just tripped out on the situation, and there aren't many other ways to describe this.
I guess we can expect this
February 9, 2008 - 22:26 ET by Scout FinchI guess we can expect this sort of occurance when we mine the "street" or prostitute culture for everyday jargon. I'm old enough to know better, but I've used the "pimp" terminology myself. I'm not really shocked by Olbermann's use of the word (nothing he says shocks me anymore).
Chelsea is way past 21, and is actively working to campaign for her candidate of choice. She's put herself out there publicly, and she should "take it" like any other public figure.
This whole ordeal smells of "selective outrage".
Scout... You hit the nail
February 9, 2008 - 22:34 ET by bigtimerScout...
You hit the nail right dead center on the head...selective outrage indeed.
Unfortunately, bigtimer,
February 10, 2008 - 00:14 ET by Scout FinchIf it wasn't for "selective outrage" there would be no need for "Newsbusters", would there? Selective outrage is the currency for the MSM.
Big difference between Limbaugh, Coulter, and Shuster, Jer
February 9, 2008 - 22:50 ET by timotheShuster is a journalist/analyst as is Olbermann. He works for a specific network and thus, needs to be held to a different standard than the others.
Limbaugh is an entertainer. Coulter is a free-lance commentator. Both of these people are known conservatives and they don't pretend to be something else. They can say what they want just like Colbert and Mahar and Stewart can say what they want.
Noel's article is a fantastic illustration of the bias shown by MSNBC toward liberals. Shuster could have said the same things about Bush's daughter and there wouldn't have been the outrage that there has been over the Chelsea comment. That's the point of Noel's article and it is right on.
timothe...some good points;
February 9, 2008 - 23:07 ET by Jertimothe...some good points; will respond more fully when computer stops shutting down...losing posts. Thanks.
Jer
Noel: If Chelsea is going
February 9, 2008 - 22:27 ET by SMGalbraithNoel: If Chelsea is going to actively campaign for her mother AS AN ADULT, she should be treated JUST LIKE ANY OTHER adult working for Hillary.
Whoa, just when did news correspondents start to characterize candidate's family members as "pimping" for their parents? We've had family members helping their relatives for decades in elections. I can't recall another correspondent ever describing it as "pimping."
Shuster could have chosen a less inflammatory term or phrase.
It's gross, rude and unnecessary.
Second, as to the substance: What evidence does Shuster have that Chelsea was forced (I'm assuming by "pimping" he meant some sort or coercion was involved) into helping Senator Clinton? It's conceivable that she volunteered on her own.
No. This is unacceptable language for a news program.
I can't believe you're (partially) defending the use of the word, Noel.
SMG
February 10, 2008 - 00:32 ET by Noel SheppardSMG,
Good points all. I'm not sure I agree, but, as a parent, I need to think this through a bit further. Thanks for the smack in the face. ns
Thanks for the smack in the
February 10, 2008 - 13:11 ET by SMGalbraithThanks for the smack in the face. ns
Just a light one.
My argument was that Shuster could have made the same point with a less, let us say, provocative metaphor.
This is what can happen when a network allows its reporters to be talk show hosts where being provocative and outrageous is rewarded and celebrated (see Olbermann, Keith).
MSNBC has no one to blame but themselves.
SM...Thanks for stating my
February 10, 2008 - 01:00 ET by JerSM...Thanks for stating my position, but much more articulately and convincingly.
Jer
SMG, there are two issues
February 10, 2008 - 01:31 ET by CortillaenSMG, there are two issues at hand, here. First, the blatent double-standard: Accuse the Republican President of "pimping" out general who is simply reporting on progress or lack thereof in a theater and there's not so much as a peep about it. Accuse a Democratic candidate of "pimping" out her daughter by having the her make calls for her mother and you get to apologise profusely and "take some time off" while the network looks for your replacement. I'm of the opinion that the word was equally ill-used in both cases, but you can't deny that the reactions were totally different. It's also worth noting that in both of these instances, it's the "pimp" who is actually being targetted rather than the one believed to be exploited. I'd venture a guess that the real reason for the faux-outrage is that this incident makes Hillary look like a less-than-loving mother.
Second, as noted above, the Clintons put their daughter in the spotlight (yes, I believe that her situation was not her idea) believing that she was above reproach, a common tactic. Now they're faux-furious that she wasn't treated like royalty, the second part of said common tactic. This sort of thing needs to stop. Anyone you put in the media spotlight carrying your water is fair game. I think this is what Noel meant, rather than condoning the actual word used.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
I thoroughly agree, SMG,
February 10, 2008 - 12:28 ET by motherbeltI thoroughly agree, SMG, and said as much in yesterday's thread on this subject. Here it is:
This is what happens when supposed adults adopt the language of the "streets" in an attempt to look cool. And it's also the result of this kind of vulgar talk becoming too accpetable, which results in it being used in situations that should have more decorum.
This AM Mika Brzezsinski asked Shuster if he was going to CPAC to hang out with "his peeps." Another one who wants to look "young and cool" and show that she knows the jargon. While certainly not on the same level as Shuster's vulgar and distasteful comment, it shows a similar mindset: the desire to use the jargon of the young, and of the streets, to show that they're part of the culture. Ditto Imus.... imitating thug talk.
If adults would just talk like the adults they're supposed to be, this wouldn't be a problem.
And I still believe that.
I also said that Shuster would never have said that Chelsea was "whoring" for her parents, but by using street slang, it just sounded kind of "edgy."
The network execs need to have a meeting and tell the "talent":
"No more. You're newscasters, journalists, not insult comics. From now on, act like adults. Talk like educated adults, not street thugs."
This is what happens when
February 10, 2008 - 13:01 ET by SMGalbraithThis is what happens when supposed adults adopt the language of the "streets" in an attempt to look cool. And it's also the result of this kind of vulgar talk becoming too accpetable, which results in it being used in situations that should have more decorum.
Well put and spot on.
I also think it's a bit of the "Jon-Stewartization" of cable news/hosts. They try to be, as you point out, hip or cool or witty or cutting edge/provocative.
A critical factor for me in this is that Shuster is (or supposed to be) the national news correspondent for MSNBC. If this had been Carlson or Scarborough or one of the commentator/hosts, I'd be less critical.
In any event, Shuster could have made the same point without using "pimping."
This pimped-up faux
February 10, 2008 - 00:16 ET by MidAmericaThis pimped-up faux outrage of the clinton's is just another 'grab' for sympathies from her female voters base. She gets to be the grief stricken 'mom' who is outraged at the 'abuse' of her daughter. She needs to hold a news conference where she sobs uncontrollably.
I'll tell you who should be offended
February 9, 2008 - 22:14 ET by Kuso Jiji...Pimps!
Pimps at least recognize the law of supply and demand. All the Clintons do is steal from american taxpayers.
He should be made to
February 9, 2008 - 22:24 ET by mlongHe should be made to apologize and then get suspended for all the racist and sexist things he done and said for 4 years...from the Nazi salute to his recent "Guacamole" remark about Bill Richardson..ol'KO has had plenty of "Imus" moments that would have gotten anyone else thrown off the air a long time ago.
"I want my Mommy!!!!"
Hillary Clinton'08
K.O. Punch
February 9, 2008 - 22:33 ET by BeresfordIt is incredible how much bile and vitriol that Olbermann can generate when he is pissing on a Republican, conservative, or, it appears, a military hero.
The wackiest right wing commentators can't match him for hate speech.
And exactly where did him come by his expertise to comment on political matters? Sure, all citizens have a right to an opinion, but K.O.'s opinions are no more valid than the views of the dumb athletes whose jocks he got rich sniffing.
The shame is that Olbermann can be a funny and engaging social observer. Unfortunately his sense of fairness, balance and propriety make him something close to The Worst Person in the World.
Pimp
February 9, 2008 - 23:00 ET by Emma GrumpMSNBC is really fond of that word, aren't they. Sort of a generic slur to be used on anyone they choose, but this time it backfired. If I were Shuster, I would be worried - the Clintons will ALWAYS exact retribution for perceived insults as I think Ol' Davy boy will find out.
Wrong Analogy
February 9, 2008 - 23:19 ET by CaringwhiteguyThe correct comparison here is the quickness and aggressiveness with which the Clinton machine struck at David Shuster versus the non-action taken by the Bush Administration when Olbermann made his comments. Clinton played Charles Bronson and Bush played Rodney King.
However
February 9, 2008 - 23:23 ET by drillanwrHad Bush played Charles Bronson the MSM (MSNBC) would have been screaming "Big Brother", "State-Run TV", "Dictator In Chief" ... etc.
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
From Day One
February 9, 2008 - 23:50 ET by CaringwhiteguySo let them scream! Had Bush played Charles Bronson from day one of his administration he might not have earned anything other than what he got from the press. HOWEVER, he would have provided a basis from which the public could decide who they wanted to believe. Rolling over and playing dead was interpreted as an admission of guilt or incompetence by many in the public. It was also extremely disappointing to those who kept waiting for him to show strength and leadership. By the time of the Petraeus incident he had lost the public and many in his party. He'd also gone quite a way toward paving the way for a successful McCain candidacy.
Cwg -
February 9, 2008 - 23:56 ET by drillanwrHey, I'm with you ... I'm just stating the obvious.
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
Veddy In-te-rest-ink!
February 9, 2008 - 23:22 ET by Wildcatter1980But, I ain't holdin' my breath either.
What IS veddy in-te-rest-ink is what some people will do for money and attention. Gives a whole new meaning to greedy. Right, Olbie?
Just my $0.02
Olbermann is all about
February 9, 2008 - 23:29 ET by rbosqueOlbermann is all about being a leftist-apologist.
"It is a tale told by
an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Macbeth, act 5, scene 5
Olbermann should apologize for having been born.
February 9, 2008 - 23:33 ET by R D HelmOr should I have said hatched?
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Olberman should apologize...
February 9, 2008 - 23:36 ET by derbal...for wasting human flesh and breathing our air.
I think this waste of space
February 10, 2008 - 01:58 ET by DCC1I think this waste of space should do us all a favor and cease from breathing from here on, I'm sure he wouldn't mind leading by example in the fight against CO2 anyway right?
"We are literally,
February 10, 2008 - 00:53 ET by fitzfong"We are literally, dreadfully sorry."
Yes, you are, KO. Yes, you are. It's about time you came to the correct conclusion.
A COUPLE THINGS...
February 10, 2008 - 12:16 ET by danybhoyfitzfong,
1st, BathTubBoy is not sorry. He does'nt understand the concept of remorse.
2nd, Coming to the correct conclusion is NOT what BathTubBoy is paid to do. He is the best(ratings wise) of a poorly rated 3rd rate cable news operation. He is a carnival barker whose bark is worse then his bite, & holy crap, does he ever bite.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
danybhoy, Think of this
February 10, 2008 - 16:25 ET by fitzfongdanybhoy,
Think of this one like you'd think of one of John Kerry's infamous "botched jokes"...I was playing on Olberdouche's use of the word "sorry". He meant "sorry" in the apologetic sense of the word...I meant sorry in the pathetic sense of the word. But you know the old comedian's saying...if you have to explain the joke, it probably wasn't very good to begin with.
I GET IT...
February 10, 2008 - 22:35 ET by danybhoyfitzfong,
I understand what you are saying & how you said it. It is EXACTLY like one of Kerry's "botched" jokes. I suppose we both agree that BathTubBoy is a sorry excuse for a "journalist".
As for joke explanations, that's not always true. Sometimes the joke is very good & the one telling it, not so much. I'm not good at "set piece" jokes, but I am good with "on the fly" wise @$$ jokes during a conversation.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
Just wondering
February 11, 2008 - 00:35 ET by fitzfongHey, danybhoy. Would you by chance be a supporter of Glasgow Celtic? Usually when I see the term "bhoy", it is in relation to the club or its supporters.
FITZFONG...
February 11, 2008 - 18:14 ET by danybhoyYour almost right, the word "bhoy" is almost always connected to Celtic. It is supposed to spell out the pronouciation the way they say boy. That is where I picked that up.
I am a bit of a Celtic fan, but my real support goes to Liverpool, that is my club, & they can't figure out how to win the EPL, the do fine in Europe, but they have not won the league since 1990. Too long for us Reds fans.
Liverpool & Celtic do share their club anthems though, "You'll Never Walk Alone". Sounds awsome when some 45,000 are singing it at once.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
"When you walk, through a
February 12, 2008 - 16:16 ET by fitzfong"When you walk, through a storm...hold you head up high, and don't be afraid...of the dark..."
I wouldn't know, I support Spurs. My wife and I actually saw Liverpool play at Tottenham's ground a couple of years ago. Liverpool's supporters were in the corner at the other end of the ground from where we were sitting. They were a noisy bunch, I tell you.
SCOUSERS...
February 12, 2008 - 19:25 ET by danybhoyI don't mind Spurs, but their fans are a hardy lot, not much in the way of success in terms of trophies in recent years. Not as bad as Newcastle, but there is a dry spell at White Hart Lane. The fans are loyal as hell, there are some great players in place, they need to find a way to get the rest of the pieces in place.
Liverpool fans are maybe the loudest fans going, does'nt matter where they play, you hear them. I do want to get to Anfield before they open the new stadium. Anfield is one of the special places to see any sporting event, & I'll be sad to see it go. But they need to do exactly what Arsenal did & build a bigger ballpark to get bigger ticket sales which = more money. Spurs could use a new ground as well, 37,000 seats don't cut it in todays EPL.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
They'll be hearing our lot
February 13, 2008 - 00:58 ET by fitzfongThey'll be hearing our lot at Wem-ber-ly on the 24th. I know it's only the Mickey Mouse Cup, but when your side hasn't won anything since the 1999 Mickey Mouse Cup (even scored the winner when down to 10 men...Robbie Savage got one of our players, Justin Edinburgh sent off), you'll take what you can get.
I think you'll have some time to get over to Anfield before the new ground is open. Word has it that they've had to scale back the plans a few times due to cost issues. Besides, Liverpool has bigger hurdles to get over than did the Arsenal. The Arsenal was able to build a new stadium without having to work a Kop End into the architecture...and I don't think they had to use debt, either. In the meantime, you'll be able to take in some of the atmosphere at Anfield. As for the plans at Spurs, last I heard, they were going to redevelop at the current site...meaning they'll probably have to ground share for a couple of years with...ewww, West Ham.
Olbermann
February 10, 2008 - 01:11 ET by jefflebowskiHe has always reminded me of the obnoxious guy you meet in a bar who has an opinion on everything. After listening to him for a few minutes you either leave or knock his teeth down his throat. I'd most likely prefer the latter to the former for this loudmouth jerk.
This is somebodys daughter
February 10, 2008 - 03:36 ET by shawn228If someone said one of the Bushes daughters was pimped out, I would expect the msm to be just as harsh.
Olbermann was talking about a military person. This person is responsible for much of our military. Unfortunately once an important figure, you are up to scrutiny and name calling from the press.
Nobody messes with Superman
"If someone said one of the
February 10, 2008 - 03:56 ET by fitzfong"If someone said one of the Bushes daughters was pimped out, I would expect the msm to be just as harsh."
Well, Shawn, it seems to me that you typically give the media the benefit of the doubt rather than buying into anti-media conspiracy theories...which is fair enough. However, if you were to expect the media to be just as harsh on David Shuster if he had made the same comment about Jenna Bush, I think you'd be expecting too much.
fitz
February 10, 2008 - 04:09 ET by shawn228Fitz, I will not deny there is a liberal bias. Lot of good information here. I have also seen articles on this site that make me think wtf?
Lots of those are from Warner Todd Houston, he can associate pretty much anything with obsenity and liberal bias. Any way did not mean to make this post about Warner. I truly think in this case "when it come to somebodys daughter" the press would make a somewhat big deal out of it. I do not know if Shuster would actually apologize, but i would have generated lots of Press.
Nobody messes with Superman
Do you remember...?
February 10, 2008 - 09:51 ET by Tom1969caDoes anyone remember when Jenna got engaged? Someone in the MSM dug up a video of Laura saying she didn't think her daughter's relationship would lead anywhere, and then - whammo! - she shows up engaged to the man. This of course led to the MSM asking
~~~
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe liberals are wrong, while liberals believe conservatives are evil.
180 Degreee Turn
February 10, 2008 - 08:15 ET by planetrepublicanOlberman's role is about to chance 180 degrees if the Dems take the White House. He will change from rude attack dog to rude defender of all that is Democrat. This will become especially so if O gets in there; then he will add a religious fevor to his defense strategy. This guy, like Chris Matthews, is an empty suit.
apology
February 10, 2008 - 10:55 ET by wjsmom01Olbermann just needs to apologize for being Olbermann.
Whoops
February 10, 2008 - 20:26 ET by celatorShudda read your comment before posting mine below ;+}
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
Olbermann
February 10, 2008 - 17:47 ET by lhbarnesOlbermann has no respect for anyone. When on ESPN, all he does is make snide comments about anyone in sports that he happens to be talking about. When on MSNBC, it is the same thing, only it's about President Bush or any of the people in his administration. And he has no respect for the military people that are fighting the dangerous nations who threaten us. He contributes nothing constructive about anything. If you could buy him for what he's worth, and sell him for what he thinks he's worth, you could make a nice profit.
Ihb... If you could buy
February 10, 2008 - 17:58 ET by bigtimerIhb...
If you could buy him for what he's worth, and sell him for what he thinks he's worth, you could make a nice profit.
ROFLMAO...and then some!
You made my day!
Olbermann should
February 10, 2008 - 18:41 ET by IamTinmanApologize for consuming oxygen that a human being or other mammal could have used.
Its not the use of the word
February 10, 2008 - 19:15 ET by ckc1227Its not the use of the word that is the problem, it is the target. Had the target been a non-liberal(hint:Republican), Shuster would be in line for a promotion.
Should appologise for...
February 10, 2008 - 20:24 ET by celatorHerr Olbermann should apologise for being Olbermann
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.