You know, it's one thing when liberal bloggers and folks with absolutely no understanding of civics claim that George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election from Nobel Laureate Al Gore.
And, of course, one expects this type of drivel from leftist publications like The Nation, and clueless shills such as Keith Olbermann.
But, one really isn't prepared to see such nonsense at the nation's leading sports website, ESPN.com (emphasis added, h/t NBer AggieSpirit):
On Saturday night, the Atlanta Hawks and Miami Heat will replay the final 51.9 seconds of their Dec. 19 overtime game.
The Hawks believed they won that game 117-111, but commissioner David Stern overturned the result because Atlanta's stat crew incorrectly disqualified Miami's Shaquille O'Neal after his fifth foul.
[...]
Nevertheless, this got us to thinking that as long as we're fixing one injustice, we might just want to keep rewriting various moments in history.
Sandwiched between a number of disappointing moments in mostly sporting events was the following (emphasis theirs):
The 2000 U.S. presidential election: The former owner of the Texas Rangers won, courtesy of the Supreme Court, and then was re-elected. If you need to ask why we need a do-over on this one, you've just returned from being abducted by aliens. Welcome home.
Comments Policy
I demand an apology...also
March 8, 2008 - 17:06 ET by bigtimerI demand an apology...also persons fired for this immediately!
That is what you would hear if this were reversed in any way shape or form...include not just the reverse of the party affiliation they are talking about, but say it was FOX that this was said on.
Oh hypocrisy and lunacy at it best.
"Hypocrisy and Lunacy"
March 8, 2008 - 17:27 ET by UpwayI was hoping that the fact that Bush is NOT RUNNING would start to clear up some of these cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome. It is becoming clear that many will simply spend the rest of their lives in recovery.
Up... ROFL! In recovery
March 8, 2008 - 17:30 ET by bigtimerUp...
ROFL!
In recovery or in an insane asylum.
recounts - always worth remembering that,
March 8, 2008 - 18:23 ET by Gary HallRecounts - always worth remembering that had the SC not ruled in favor of Bush, or had Bush not taken the issue to the SC in the first place, that Bush would have won the election regardless. Why? The recounts were conducted by the media, and Bush remained the victor.
Bush won. Gore sued. Gore lost. Bush won. Had Gore prevailed in court and somehow won, then one could confidently stat that the SC had handed Gore the presidency.
And Let's Not Forget
March 8, 2008 - 19:04 ET by Del DolemonteIf Gore's argument had prevailed in SCOTUS, he would have been "appointed" by TWO Supreme Courts-the one in DC and the one in Florida.
Of course, he would be lauded as the "legitimate" President by his water carriers in the MSM.
Newsweak's Eleanor Rodham Clift is still whining about this stuff, nearly a decade later. She wrote this week:
"Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party. After all, he already won the popular vote for the presidency. It was only because of a fluke at the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel."
Ms. Clift is guilty of several counts of blatant intellectual dishonesty here. Let's look at them one by one:
1. "he already won the popular vote for the presidency"
A. In the history of the United States, the "popular vote" has never determined who becomes President. That's why the Electoral College exists.
B. In the one state in which Gore contested the electoral results, Florida, he didn't win the "popular vote" to begin with, and subsequent media recounts of the results proved that he never would have. In fact, some of those media recounts increased the "popular vote total" of Bush to more than was originally recorded.
C. The numerical margin of "popular votes" in Florida that triggered that state's automatic vote recount was 1/2 of 1 percent. In other words, since Bush's margin of victory in Florida was 1/2 of 1 percent different than Gore's the state's "automatic recount law" kicked in.
D. Nationwide, Gore's "popular vote" total was only slightly greater than Bush's. It turned out, in fact, to be only 1/2 of 1% more votes than Bush got. If Florida's recount standard therefore was applied nationwide, Gore's "popular vote victory" was subject to an automatic recount.
E. Gore lost the popular vote, and hence the Electoral College votes, in his OWN home state of Tennessee. If he had won his own home state (not to mention his boss' home state of Arkansas and/or the longtime blue state of West Virginia) he would never have needed to win Florida to win the election.
2. " It was only because of a fluke at the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel."
A. Gore originally conceded the election to Bush, then reneged, which was unprecedented in US history. He was the one who initiated the lawsuits to try and overturn an election.
B. Gore's legal challenges in Florida were laughed out of court by several US Federal Judges. All of them were appointed by Democrats. The law is the law.
C. After Gore's Florida legal challenges were rejected by several Democrat Florida Federal Judges, the Florida Supreme Court injected itself, unsolicited, into the equation. All of the Justices on that Court at the time were Democrats, so their bias was undeniable. They first tried to change Florida State election laws after the election, for which the US Supreme Court shot them down by a 9-0 vote, and respectfully asked them to try again.
When they tried again, they did even worse-so much worse, in fact, that their own Chief Justice Charles Wells dissented, and accurately predicted that their partisan attempt to re-write state laws after the fact to steal an election would be laughed out of the highest court in the land. He was right.
D. SCOTUS threw this final Florida Supreme Court "ruling" into the trash by a 7-2 vote, which ended Gore's appeal. But that initial 7-2 ruling was ignored by the pro-Gore mainstream media, which only reported the second 5-4 ruling from the same session. That second 5-4 ruling had nothing to do with the merits of Gore's case, only with the remedy. The 7-2 SCOTUS vote was on the actual legal merits of Gore's attempt to steal an election. They got it right.
Mr. Goebbels would be proud of you, Eleanor.
Nice instant replay. Looks
March 8, 2008 - 22:30 ET by lotrNice instant replay. Looks like the call stands; that'll cost ESPN one time out.
APTLY PUT &
March 8, 2008 - 23:04 ET by timzankWell said!
Gore was the thief
March 9, 2008 - 21:25 ET by Tom1969caJust a reminder...
When Al Gore lost Florida he demanded a recount in three counties only. He did not want a statewide recount. In fact, Bush offered him a compromise - the Bush campaign would not contest or otherwise attempt to block a statewide recount. Gore said "thanks but no thanks."
Question: despite Florida being a red state, the counties of Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade are heavily Democrat; Gore won these counties by 70-80% margins. Typically, doesn't one request a recount where the vote is close? Why was Gore requesting recounts in those three counties only?
Answer: Gore knew that the machines routinely missed counting a predictable percentage of ballots. By demanding recounts in counties he had won by large margins, he could be confident that 4 out of 5 uncounted ballots would have his name on them. If there were just 500 missed ballots in each of the three counties, those ballots would've added 300 votes to Bush's total ... but 1,200 to Gore's, for a net gain of 900 votes - just enough to throw the election to Gore. As for those voters whose ballots were missed in other counties? Why didn't they need to be counted? Could it be because the majority of them were marked for Bush?
Tell me again, who tried to steal the 2000 election?
~~~
I admire FDR for not insisting on getting the approval of France and Germany before going to war.
--Anne Coulter
So...
March 8, 2008 - 17:14 ET by NofPerhaps we should also shred the Constitution and The DOI, and go back to British rule by that same crooked string of logic. They have the best green taxes and multiculturism do they not? Wow
DEM/REP= No difference. Time to Start Wasting my vote on Libertarians.
The Democrat media will never get over this
March 8, 2008 - 17:16 ET by kgThe Democrat media will never get over this LOSS. They feel they were cheated, twice. Look at the rigged primary process the Democrats think is fair. Not to mention the fact that most voter fraud convictions are Democrats. Add too this the push got the convict vote and illegal alien vote they want so badly.
The Democrats do not want a democracy. They want to be in charge. They want the power. They want socialism with the politicians and the media as the elites and screw the rest of the country.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Good grief indeed,
March 8, 2008 - 17:17 ET by motherbeltGood grief indeed, Noel!
And: Sheesh!
Is it a coincidence that
March 8, 2008 - 17:20 ET by Chris NormanIs it a coincidence that liberal bias in sports news became apparent at about the same time sports reporters - er - "journalists" became so pretentiously "cerebral"?
ESPN has effectively ruined
March 8, 2008 - 17:40 ET by fitzfongESPN has effectively ruined sports for me. The network has become such a self-important hype machine with smug empty suits spewing out tortured catchphrases ad nauseum. Their coverage of anything from Yankees-Red Sox, Duke-North Carolina and "steroid abuse" has become so overblown and repetitive that it makes all of those storylines trivial. The unbridled hero worship the network heaped on that overrated ball hog Michael Jordan was just nauseating and everything that originates from ESPN now is corporate promotional crap. The "personalities'" increased involvement in political discussion is an effort to make ESPN appear more serious and intelligent than E!, Entertainment Tonight or the TV Guide Channel...which it clearly is not. And don't get me started on the farces "Who's more now?" and "The ESPYs".
ESPN has definitely gotten
March 8, 2008 - 17:41 ET by balboaESPN has definitely gotten too big for their britches. Deadspin.com is a great source for ESPN deflating.
I only heard about
March 8, 2008 - 17:50 ET by fitzfongI only heard about Deadspin.com last week when I was at my local Border's. Will Leitch of Deadspin.com has written a book about sports where he appears to put the boot in on ESPN and some ancillary blowhards like SI's Peter King. Might have to pick that one up. :-)
They have pretty good stuff
March 8, 2008 - 18:10 ET by balboaThey have pretty good stuff on there, well worth it. They pull no punches.
Hereby favorited. Thanks,
March 8, 2008 - 18:18 ET by fitzfongHereby favorited. Thanks, bal.
fitz... I agree with your
March 8, 2008 - 17:46 ET by bigtimerfitz...
I agree with your post.
I just wanted to add since it is a slow day you reminded me of why and about the time I quit watching Pro basketball...Jordan and the coverage, Scotty Pippin was way under-rated with the msm and Jordan liked it just like that...ball hog indeed, it made me yell at the screen.
Wonder whatever happended to Spud too?
Sure hope I have the names right after all this time...lol.
And I'm or was back then a Laker fan.
Growing up in Southern
March 8, 2008 - 18:06 ET by fitzfongGrowing up in Southern California, I was a bit of a Laker fan in the 1980s...probably more because I couldn't stand that pro-Celtic windbag Tommy Heinsohn. But I stopped watching the NBA when Stern came in and started focusing the league on individual players rather than on teams. Pretty soon, the league stopped enforcing the rules because Nike had a few more Air Jordans to flog to suburban posers. Eventually the mantra was "never let the laws of the game get in the way of a perfectly good dunk". To me, pro basketball in the '90s had all the crediblity of professional wrestling. Now we're blessed with Ballhog, Jr. (Kobe Bryant) and the incessant hype his theatrics produce. I detest the Lakers and the ESPN-type spin they're given.
fitz... Same here.
March 8, 2008 - 18:12 ET by bigtimerfitz...
Same here.
Heinsohn
March 8, 2008 - 19:13 ET by Del DolemonteLOL, the only reason Heinsohn's a "pro-Celtic windbag" is because he used to play for the team, and also coached them.
He's still doing color on Celtics broadcasts here in New England, sometimes joined by his Holy Cross/Celtics team mate Bob Cousy. They're pretty entertaining, especially now that the Celts have their best team since the Bird-Parrish-McHale glory days.
Speaking of windbags, Digger
March 8, 2008 - 19:17 ET by balboaSpeaking of windbags, Digger Phelps on ESPN right now. That guy is full of hot air. And I hate that whole "Look! My pen color matches my tie color!" bit. He's a sever Bobby Knight apologist.
I met Digger Phelps when I
March 8, 2008 - 21:57 ET by fitzfongI met Digger Phelps when I was a kid. He was the next door neighbor of some family friends. He used to wind up the UCLA fans but good. He does seem to enjoy the sound of his own voice, but he is a decent contrast to the caricature that Dick Vitale has become. But Jay Bilas is easily the best basketball commentator on ESPN...at least in my opinion.
Jay Bilas and Clark Kellogg,
March 8, 2008 - 22:18 ET by balboaJay Bilas and Clark Kellogg, my favs.
Digger lost me when he totally belittled and condescended to Neil Reed from IU on ESPN radio, just to suck up to Bobby.
Tommy Heinsohn went
March 8, 2008 - 21:52 ET by fitzfongTommy Heinsohn went to Holy Cross? Was he on the national championship side with Bob Cousy? Heinsohn was too much of a homer for a national broadcast, but he must have sounded pretty balanced in comparison to Johnny Most!
We had Chicky Baby out here, and he was largely fair...and really funny at times. He used to do the simulcast on radio and television, but after he died they replaced him with one team for radio and another for television. The radio broadcast features ex-Laker Mychal Thompson who makes Tommy Heinsohn sound like Vin Scully.
ESPN...
March 9, 2008 - 00:43 ET by danybhoyfitzfong,
You hit the nail on head, ESPN has been ruining sports for a while. Yankee nation vs. RedSox nation is one example you mention. Duke vs UNC is another. While I disagree with you on steroids, I don't believe we have evn scratched the surface of that story.
But I will add "Bracketology", whoever came up with that term should die. Stuart Scott is doing his best to destroy ESPN, I can do with out Dicky V. ylling at me even when I'm not watching.
Where ESPN has really ruined sports is the fact that so many people want to get a highlight real play on SportsCenter to get face time, basketball has been hardest hit by this. Get your dunk on the "Big Show", who cares if you can really hit a jumper, or play defence.
The only things I tune into ESPN for anymore is their NFL coverage( they do have games) & their soccer coverage. You can nuke the rest of it.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
I actually enjoy
March 9, 2008 - 00:50 ET by balboaI actually enjoy bracketology, but I love college bball, too. I'm not a huge Stuart Scott fan at all, but I feel bad that he's battling cancer right now.
I hadn't heard about Stuart
March 9, 2008 - 02:07 ET by fitzfongI hadn't heard about Stuart Scott's cancer. Do you know what type it is? That's really heartbreaking. As someone who was lucky enough to survive a small bout myself, I really wish him well. To be honest, I thought his work had gotten much better over the years...and he's still a young man.
danybhoy, I believe the
March 9, 2008 - 02:31 ET by fitzfongdanybhoy,
I believe the turn of the milennium had a lot to do with ESPN's turn for the worst. All of a sudden, the network got obsessed with list programming (best of this, worst of that...) and endless cross-promotion. The awards shows, the "competitive" punditry and the mountain-out-of-molehill stories followed. Soon, we were subjected to Skip Bayliss, Woody Paige, Jay Mariotti, Jim Rome, Stephen A. Smith, Tony Kornheiser on Monday Night Football, Cold Pizza, the Nappy-headed hos "controversy" and a bunch of self-righteous hand-wringing related to an English journeyman (and that's an insult to journeymen) basketball player who came out of the closet to promote a book. As far as the steroids controversy goes, I'm sorry, but this is much ado about nothing. Baseball (and, by extension, ESPN) profited greatly following the home run chases of 1998, 2001 and 2007. They were passengers on a great ride. Then they all started to get self-righteous and condescending simply because they didn't like Barry Bonds and they wanted to make his record illegitimate. Sorry, can't have it both ways. And the government has no business getting involved in this issue (despite constantly going to the antitrust exemption well).
Will "Onion Bag" Tommy Smyth be calling your Champions League match next week?
FITZFONG...
March 9, 2008 - 08:53 ET by danybhoyFair points on the big part of your post. The baseball "revival" because of Sosa & McGuire was a fraud, but I figured that much at the time. I was one of the very few fans who have been on that beat long before people picked up on Barry Bonds. I quit watching baseball 10 years ago (1997 was my last game) & I don't give a damn about the Olympics, why? Drug cheats, & it's still a problem. Track & Field are still fighting it beyond BALCO, & cycling is still infested so badly that T-Mobile has pulled all of their sponsership money from the sport. That made me feel better about having T-Mobile cell sevice.
As for ESPN's making mountains out of molehills, they only do with sports stories what cablenews does with non-stories untill there is a real story.
As for your question about the bald Irishman calling my club's Champions League match, I would bet on it. It's the only CL match going since everyone else played last week. Smyth will be calling it with Derek Rae, as normal. So I'm expecting Torres to "bulge the old onion bag" at least once in Milan. He had back-to-back hat tricks going into their game yesterday vs Newcastle(who I believe are going to be religated) & he scored another 1 in that game. 7 in 3 games is good form, & Inter have struggled since their loss at Liverpool, although they did beat Reggina 2-0 Saturday. My Reds should advance though, they should only need 1 goal Tuesday, that would force Inter to post 4 to advance, because of the "away goals rule".
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
I don't know, danybhoy,
March 9, 2008 - 19:53 ET by fitzfongI don't know, danybhoy, perhaps I wasn't too bothered about whether or not they were "juicing" because I've always believed too much emphasis was put on meaningless individual records. And any time an individual record is about to be set, agenda-driven media types scramble to diminish it.
Ford Frick was a friend of Babe Ruth...so he demanded that an asterisk be attached to Roger Maris' record because Maris' 61 Home Runs in 1961 were hit over a 162 game season...as opposed to Babe Ruth's 60 in 154. The media largely agreed. Fair enough, but Babe Ruth apparently played in an era when a ball bouncing once and clearing the fence (today's ground rule double) counted as a home run.
When Hank Aaron approached Ruth's career mark, much was made of the fact that league expansion led to more teams, more pitchers (thus more "bad" pitchers) and smaller ballparks in Aaron's era...not to mention that Aaron wasn't known for hitting "tape measure" home runs. Of course, the anti-Aaron mob conveniently ignored that Aaron played much of his career in what was known as the "dead ball" era, facing power pitchers like Don Drysdale, Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson on elevated mounds. Aaron's record was borne of consistent excellence rather than of super-humanity...and that was one of the factors in the diminishment of his achievement by the press.
Over the years, there have been dozens of changes to the game that have affected the output of home runs...lowered mound, live ball, expansion, new smaller ballparks, and so on. Steroids may have played a factor in the achievement of these records by Sosa, McGwire and Bonds...but the union refused to allow the restriction of steroids to be part of the collective bargaining agreement and the owners and administrators (not to mention the fans) benefitted from the increased home run totals, so they looked the other way on the issue. It was only when Jose Canseco had a book to flog that the sanctimonious media (who had previously profited from the stories related to the home run chases) and Congress got involved. And I believe the press dishonestly took the opportunity Canseco's book gave them to stick the knife in Bonds...a guy whom most in the media disliked but of whom they were afraid to express their true feelings lest they be accused of racism. The steroid high horse gave them all the perfect chance to unload on the man...and they abused that chance. And if you look at the list of "cheaters", there certainly were a lot of .200 hitters and bus league standard pitchers among the accused. Can we really say that Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, Petitte and Canseco were the only ones taking steroids or that they were the only ones who benefitted from the use?
But, ultimately my problem with individual statistics and records is that they're not accurate indicators of who the best players are. Dave Kingman hit 442 home runs when that actually meant something...and he was an awful player. Agents use these red herrings to negotiate the contracts of their clients. And each year, baseball comes up with some bogus new stat like "quality starts" to give agents and owners more numbers to fight over and more hairs to split. And the way I figure it, Barry Bonds has never been on a World Series winning team, so not one of his home runs meant anything. By the way, why don't postseason stats count towards a player's total? Seems to me that home runs hit in the LCS or World Series are even more valuable than ones hit in May.
Overall, danybhoy, I'm with you on baseball. My interest in the game ended after the 1994 strike. I had a late summer and early fall without baseball, and I learned I could live without it. Then the whining, self-righteous fans began throwing tantrums because "they took away our World Series, sniff". Opening Day 1995 in Detroit when the individual drunks kept running on to the field to interrupt the game did it for me. I believe baseball scrambled after that to get people to forget about the lost season...enter the endless, nauseating Cal Ripken tributes and the single season home run chase. But this self-indulgent hand-wringing after the fact by Congress and the likes of ESPN is just annoying. As for the Olympics, I always found them unwatchable. :-)
Good luck this week against Inter. That second goal in the first leg was crucial...if the Reds score once, the home side will have to score at least four. I think you're safe.
Olbermann
March 8, 2008 - 17:41 ET by ahusserOlbermann came from ESPN. (I actually liked him as a sportscaster before his politics were known, to me that is and he became a raving liberal lunatic.)
Good Grief, NS!
March 8, 2008 - 17:42 ET by BlondeHmmm.....
ESPN?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
What's that Cheer when the Refs make a lousy Call ?
March 8, 2008 - 17:42 ET by JayTeeBULL SHIT ! BULL SHIT ! BULL SHIT !
BULL SHIT ! BULL SHIT ! BULL SHIT !
Good Grief x2.......
March 8, 2008 - 17:54 ET by connmanwhat do we expect from the network that brought us Keith Olbermann? One of the columnist that I never miss is Phil Mushnick of the NYP, he is always spot right on with his almost weekly critique of ESPN. I read their website only to see what's up with daily sports. I rarely watch their daily crap on the tube. I made the mistake of signing up for their insider thinking I would actually get some inside info. Yea right, but the worst part is that they send me their hidious magazine LOADED with Liberal Tripe!
So, could you tell what if anything Barack Obama has accomplished to be considered for the office of the POTUS?.......He died for our sins, isn't that enough?
In fairness to KO, he really
March 8, 2008 - 18:16 ET by fitzfongIn fairness to KO, he really was a uniquely talented sports personality. He literally carried that empty suit Dan Patrick, and turned him into an undeserving "straight man" star. KO was knowledgeable and extremely funny at times (if "over the head" of some of ESPN's audience). Now every ESPN anchor is simply a weak clone of Olbermann, Patrick or Craig Kilborn.
Really? I think KO was great
March 8, 2008 - 18:22 ET by balboaReally? I think KO was great on SC, but Dan Patrick had his own understated charm. I loved Patrick's radio show.
But you're so right about the current ESPN anchors. They try waay too hard. Van Pelt's probably my fav.
Loved when Kilborn would do a Pooh Richardson highlight: "Pooh-Pooh-ca-choo!"
We used to have KO on local
March 8, 2008 - 18:45 ET by fitzfongWe used to have KO on local sports news in the mid-'80s (KTLA Channel 5 and KCBS Channel 2) and he was really good on his own. I think he irritated some suits at the local CBS station and he moved to ESPN because they wouldn't renew his contract at KCBS. At that point, there were 3 Patricks at ESPN...Dan Patrick, Mike Patrick and Bill Patrick. The only thing that distinguished one from the others was that Mike Patrick used to announce football games.
I suppose some credit is due to Dan Patrick for making the relationship with KO work so well. He definitely picked up the smooth Dean Martin persona to Olbermann's Jerry Lewis. I liked his radio show at times, but much of the credit has to go to the producers for allowing him access to some great guests. But he used to irritate me quite often...I'll never forget how clueless he seemed when he failed to distinguish the difference between a "conspiracy theory" and a "conspiracy" (it had to do with Mychal Thompson whining about the referees in the Pistons-Lakers series a couple of years back...probably more information than you need). I may have been a little harsh on the guy, but I have a tough time respecting someone who can't get his head around that difference. I have a soft spot for Kilborn, who I thought was quite underrated on both ESPN and on the Daily Show. When Kilborn left the Daily Show, so did I.
And I agree, Scott Van Pelt is by far the best of a bad bunch.
I really liked Kilborn on
March 8, 2008 - 18:48 ET by balboaI really liked Kilborn on that show. His 5 Questions were great. What is that guy doing now? He shows up for 5 minutes in an "Old School" cameo, and then *poof*.
Best 5 questions segment
March 8, 2008 - 19:01 ET by fitzfongBest 5 questions segment ever: John Cleese. Kilborn asks him "Why does English food suck". After laughing for about 30 seconds, Cleese responds, "we had an Empire to run".
I think Kilborn burned out on the talk show gig and decided to pursue acting. Perhaps not a wise move.
YES! That was hilarious, and
March 8, 2008 - 19:07 ET by balboaYES! That was hilarious, and just shows you the genius of Cleese. How great was that.
I just checked Kilborn's page on IMDB.com, and he's been in a few movies, but nothing that suits him (other than "Old School").
Not too surprising from a
March 8, 2008 - 18:03 ET by DarasenNot too surprising from a Disney owned company.
You can always tell how amazingly uninformed people are when they state the supreme court ruled who would be president. They rightly clarified it is a state's right to run thier own elections.
Darasen
March 8, 2008 - 18:08 ET by Noel SheppardDarasen,
To me, there's even a more dishonest element in this delusion: once the ballots were released for public viewing, no press outlet was able to conclude that Gore would have won if the counting continued.
As such, the SCOTUS didn't determine the outcome of this election, THE VOTERS did.
Sadly, many on the left and their media minions refuse to accept this inconvenient truth. In my view, that makes them all liars. ns
Noel, Liars, yes. But their
March 8, 2008 - 18:12 ET by Chris NormanNoel, Liars, yes. But their lie has been repeated so much, that for many, it's an accepted "fact" now. It's really discouraging.
Chris... Repeat a lie
March 8, 2008 - 18:17 ET by bigtimerChris...
Repeat a lie often enough....
The leftist everywhere from all walks of life hope this is what will be written in history books.
Just my two cents real quick.
What's discouraging, BT, is
March 8, 2008 - 18:28 ET by Chris NormanWhat's discouraging, BT, is that one can present the facts, in detail, over and over again, and it still isn't enough to overcome the simple line: "Bush stole the election". It's the same with "Global Warming". It's the same as the lie that the Bush Administration declared there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. It's even the same as the thread here today regarding Glenn Beck and John Hagee. Noel provided the whole interview question, and Syrius simply repeats the Olbermann - Media Matters deliberate misinterpretation - out of context - lie. We see it over and over again.
Facts mean zilch to the
March 8, 2008 - 18:32 ET by bigtimerFacts mean zilch to the leftist Chris.
Simple as that.
More than discouraging Chris...
Hopeless to me.
I always thought Disney was
March 8, 2008 - 18:10 ET by balboaI always thought Disney was very conservative..?
Well, for what it's worth,
March 8, 2008 - 18:15 ET by Chris NormanWell, for what it's worth, Michael Eisner, who led Disney for years, is a liberal.
Walt Disney was conservative
March 8, 2008 - 21:35 ET by KC MulvilleThe corporation was a different matter. After a while, "family values" was simply the corporate product and brand. It wasn't a philosophy or conviction. It's merely what they sold to make money. They do make good vacation parks, though.
DVR
March 8, 2008 - 18:12 ET by m1xramI have noticed when using the DVR to watch events later, that the annoucers can't be heard in FF mode. I sure do miss the pregame, halftime, posgame show, and the commercials.
The mute button can be your friend too. When commentators start talking about some other game than the one your watching just mute them. Sometimes they even think it the same game after they've had too many 7&7s in the booth.
m1xram
So whats next for ESPN?
March 8, 2008 - 18:31 ET by chessplayerSo whats next for ESPN? Rants about global warming?
chessplayer...
March 9, 2008 - 00:47 ET by danybhoyI'm seeing some eco-propaganda stuff of the new NHL Network-HD in the form of a PSA type spot.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
You are Right -- NHL Network pushing 'Green' political agenda.
March 9, 2008 - 14:43 ET by AggieSpiritHockey is my favorite sport to watch, and I am an avid Stars fan....
The NHL launched the NHL Network, and I was highly enthused about 24 hour hockey coverage and hockey related programming.....but apparently Commisioner Gary Bettman and the NHL overlords believe it is wise to push a "Green" agenda on it's viewers -- with claims that the playing ice in North America and Canada is melting ... etc etc..
I wrote the NHL Network on this, and of course got no response.
Liberal agendas have pushed themselves into virtually every corner of life now ---- very frustrating. The misinformation and damn lies are getting to be a beatdown, especially when those pushing the eco-manifesto don't care to even listen to reason.
AGGIE SPIRIT...
March 10, 2008 - 08:02 ET by danybhoyI've been thinking about writing them too, & I might do so later today. I love the NHL Network, but I'm with you about them pimping the green movement.
As for your love of my old club, the "North"Stars, enjoy them. They have done well their, seemed to have built a damn good fanbase in the Metroplex. But I have cut my emotional ties to the club, when your club splits town & it not the fault of the fans, it's hard to still love the team. We now have the Wild, & it's in St.Paul, rather then in Bloomington, & it's been a win-win for evryone involved. Now the Wild just need to pick it up before they miss the playoffs. It's nuts, you can be in 1st place in your division, & then you lose a couple of games & your in the 8th spot. If the Wild make the playoffs & draw Calgary, they are done. Bet on it.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
My favorite comment
March 8, 2008 - 18:53 ET by Roger the ShrubberMy favorite comment left?
Whip up the whine, O sheeple of Gore;
eight years hence, yet still a loser quite sore.
Bal is SO RIGHT about cool sites like Deadspin, Kissy Suzy Kolber, and Awful Announcing.
I've provided an illustration for those unfamiliar with BDS
March 8, 2008 - 19:00 ET by directorblueThis illustration may help depict the sad syndrome that affects so many "progressives."
ESPN & Losers
March 8, 2008 - 19:03 ET by WoodyMDo-overs are for losers. ESPN just lost me.
1) The Hawks will probably lose
March 8, 2008 - 19:06 ET by R D Helm1) The Hawks will probably lose that 12/19 game now, as they are pretty bad this year (24-36).
2) The Hawks stat people cannot count.
3) David Stern is an idiot.
4) Shaq is no longer with Miami, which is even a worse team than the Hawks (11-48).
5) ESPN's employees should keep their politrical views, whatever they are, to themselves, as I find it more than a little irritating when sports networks try to indoctrinate me.
If you ask me, ESPN has become way too powerfull in the sports broadcasting world, and is beginning to resemble a monopoly that needs busting up. Badly.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Liberal "facts"
March 8, 2008 - 20:25 ET by nkviking75Liberal "facts" which clash with reality:
The Swift Boaters launched a campaign of lies which derailed what should have been an inevitable Kerry presidency.
Ken Starr was a wild-eyed, drooling, sex-obsessed persecutor who hounded the Clintons and nearly pulled off a coup.
George W. Bush really lost the 2000 election even though endless recounts went his way every time, no matter how ridiculous the nitpicking standards set by Democrat appointed judges in Florida who were trying to hand the thing to Gore.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Wait, Ken Starr didn't
March 8, 2008 - 20:55 ET by balboaWait, Ken Starr didn't drool? :-)
Stain
March 9, 2008 - 09:07 ET by ThisnThatNo, that blue dress stain came from another, ahem, source.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I have commented on ESPN
March 8, 2008 - 21:51 ET by ConservativeRexI have commented on ESPN before on this site. They are aligned with ABC and Disney up to their necks. Why wouldn't you think they were ultraliberal? It's not like they haven't given signs of it before now. I quit watching them quite a while ago.
Now, this may sound a bit paranoid, but I watch Jeopardy regularly, and more than once they've acted and stated things that were from the left at the expense of the right. They are tied in with the NYT now, so it is no wonder. If you think I am wrong watch the show and judge for yourself.
So what do you expect?
March 8, 2008 - 23:10 ET by m4ster chiefNoel wrote:
"But, one really isn't prepared to see such nonsense at the nation's leading sports website, ESPN.com..."
Not exactly a gathering of brain surgeons there...or Navy chiefs.
Is BDS a requirement to be
March 9, 2008 - 00:04 ET by rbosqueIs BDS a requirement to be hired as jerk-wad TV personality?
Get Ready
March 10, 2008 - 14:25 ET by Captain KirockNo surprise. Most sports writers are hopelessly liberal, uninformed windbags.
As for the Florida vote in 2000, get ready for the assault on history that will be unleashed later this year when HBO runs its documentary on the subject. Last I heard, no Republicans had been interviewed for it. Think it will be factually accurate? Last I heard, it is set to run in October, about 5 weeks before the Presidential election.