Keith Olbermann Talks About Closing Republican Car Dealerships? (5/28/09)

[MTWEmperor]

Did anyone notice Rush, starting around 4:13, glancing at his bouncing caricature?

[Suzaku000]

@MTWEmperor

He's on drugs, watching himself... on drugs.

[Perrine234]

Looks like another -20 seats for the Republicans at the next Senate election next year.

[maryambakhshi88]

egrimnes,

I would like to thank you for showing us that Keith Olbermann is a liar.

[sparkyboy1959]

Olberfagtard doesn't believe his degenerate,marxist,Islamofacis­t traitor-in-chief Obamagayboy would have a hand in closing down dealerships that gave hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions to patriotpublicans and 450 dollars total to traitorcrats. That means it is definitly a fact .We all need to send Olberqueerbait a years supply of condoms for his extra marital gay activities to protect his wife and children from his many STD's. What a worthless piece of human excrement!

[CommonSenseJoe]

The question remains how many of the dealerships remaining open contributed to Democrats. I still do not understand why they are closing any dealership. They are independent of the actual car company. Chrysler does not pay their people. The dealer does.

[FitzgeraldAutoMall]

Jack Fitzgerald is actually a democrat...it's not republican dealerships.

[truthforamerica]

If these were "Democrat" closings old Keith Overbite would be all over this saying Bush is targeting them!

[therrydicule]

Something is not normal. Why so much car/auto (whatever you call it, it's still a damn car) dealer give to the Republican? This is anormal; this is the kind of stats I wait for an election in country some country where a dictator want to hide himself behind a democracy... A bit like Russia or Mozambique.

Normally, it is a sign of a bigger trouble.

[waltermh111]

I dont get something.

Why were the republican dealerships sticking so far to party lines that they would vote in a party that was going to allow 100% of dealerships to be shut down, but then complains when the dems are in office and enact measures to save the large majority of these repubs?

All because a few repubs got their wish and in no part because of politics anyway as the dems have no control over day to day operations such as what dealerships to close down?

Whos asking the CEOs though?

[mostecri]

who gives a shit about ratings? what do they even mean? that a couple million more moron republicans tune in to fox than msnbc. BIG WHOOP.

bill O and the spin machine still got owned by Obama on election day

suck it.

[maryambakhshi88]

Olbermann cares about ratings. Nobody talks more about them than he does.

[mostecri]

nobody? i think you do.

still meaningless!

[yoadrie]

"...'The basic issue raised here is this,' concludes the Washington Examiner, 'How do we account for the fact millions of dollars were contributed to GOP candidates by Chrysler who are being closed by the government, but only one has been found so far that is being closed that contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008?'

Of course, actual journalists would try to answer that question BEFORE posting their rage-inducing, conspiracy theory feeding, paranoia producing tattle...and not afterwards."

[maryambakhshi88]

Hey Keith,

Intellectually honest viewers don't like invertebrate commentators. If you would find the courage to have people on your show who disagree with you, you might be able to enjoy Bill O'Reilly's ratings. (You don't talk about ratings as much as you used to.)

You have a credibility problem.

Most of us understand that we can trust people who criticize others in their presence, rather than in their absence.

Too many people don't trust you because you do only the latter.

[curexians]

Hey Dipshit. This isn't Keith's website nor is it his posting. It is someone else's posting of his content, so he isn't reading your comments or watching any of this.

Name one incident where his "credibility" is in question! Name ONE thing he got wrong that wasn't corrected later. Want to play that game with O'Reilly!!!! I fucking doubt it.

[187MlKESLAPSOREALLY]

Hey Dipshit.  88 wasn't addressing you. She was addressing Olbermann.

[yoadrie]

Intellectual viewers want the truth and the facts. Yes, you're entitled to your opinion, but disagreeing with reality because it doesn't support your opinion doesn't make you intellectually honest--and it certainly doesn't make you an intellectual.

[egrimnes]

The credibility issue is on anyone that puts ratings above fact. You cannot dispute Keith's fact to O'Reilly's fiction. People like you always like to talk a big game but when it comes down to it, you have no logic only rhetoric and insult. When you can come back and find something he has not been factual on then you have something to complain about. And Keith HAS had people with opposing view points on many times.

[maryambakhshi88]

egrimnes,

I have no insults for you, and your third and fourth sentences are for Mr. Olbermann, not me.

[maryambakhshi88]

egrimnes,

You wrote:

"The credibility issue is on anyone that puts ratings above facts."

Keith Olbermann disagrees.

He has said many times that he makes ratings gains (in certain demographic categories) on O'Reilly because O'Reilly has been exposed as a fraud.

Olbermann has made it clear that there's link between credibility and ratings.

I never miss Olbermann.

I don't recall a segment where he sparred with anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

[egrimnes]

You are again factually incorrect. He has RARELY brought up ratings and that has only happened in response to O'reillys braggart attempts to link ratings and credibility by bashing MSNBC. Your arguments are slowly losing steam here.

[maryambakhshi88]

No, you are factually incorrect. When he does bring them up in response to O'Reilly's bragging, he mentions O'Reilly's name, as he would have to do in ANY response to O'Reilly. (That makes sense.)

However, I have heard Olbermann mention ratings WITHOUT mention of Bill-O--several times.

Sorry pal, you can't fool those who actually watch Olbermann.

Denial much, egrimnes?

[egrimnes]

You apparently don't watch Keith otherwise A: you wouldn't be bitching about him and B: you would post a link to where any of what you said is fact. Thing is is that you can't. I unlike you DO watch Keith and know you are full of shit. Stay on the O'Reilly channel... nobody here is buying your lies.

[michaeIfrancismoore]

egrimnes,

If you're stupid to think that you know what other people watch more than they do, especially when they are total strangers to you, then your words aren't worth reading.

More to the point, maryambakhshi88's observations about Keith's bragging are correct, and yours are not.

Keith has begun taking the road of all bullshit artists. His irrelevance will be complete within eighteen months.

It's a shame too. He had a lot of promise.

Winner: maryambakhshi88 by default.

[egrimnes]

Again you are factually wrong. And just as arrogant as O'Reilly. Stick to his channel Where your BS is praised.

[caronenator]

Do you trust Bill O?

[maryambakhshi88]

caronenator,

As a rule of thumb, I trust people who would criticize me in my presence (Bill O'Reilly) than in my absence (Keith Olbermann).

Who doesn't?  Do you trust people when they complain about you to your face (O'Reilly) or behind your back (Olbermann)?

Now, to answer your question. I don't know if I trust Bill O'Reilly. In fact, I don't even know him at all.

[caronenator]

I'm tired of people who are like 'I TRUST people on TV'. That just isn't the point. Olbermann and O'Reilly are both PUNDITS, they don't really care about the truth.

Now, even though Olbermann is just as 'biased' as O'Reilly, he is also systematically more FACTUALLY correct than his Fox News counterpart. And that is something people should appreciate, in the absence of any capacity to simply 'trust' these people.

[garrocks]

Nobody does it like Keith.

[michaelzda]

Wee, new video already, thanks : )