Gibson Exposes Partisan Hackery of Olbermann and Fineman!

[healdlane]

Hey! Where did John Gibson go? Is he reading Ag reports at 5:30 am at some radio station in Nebraska?

[trencher7]

I think NBC is handing out bonuses per Obama suck up. GE needs those Gov'

t contracts!!!

[rapfan228]

hahha you gotta be kidding me... gibson got fired from fixed news, he got demoted to fixed news radio

[Superplatanoman]

Gibson exposes hackery? Did the failed tv personality exposed himself as one too?

[ReptileRanger719]

Its hilarious when a liberal politician makes a joke and keith has no problem with it. When a republican or a conservative makes a joke, they end up on his world's worst segment. Hmmmm....can you say biased?

[Ruby1978]

If Gibson is just going to play the Olbermann show, why not just watch the Olbermann show?

[GstateBALLER925]

why is gibby aka bathtub head so obsessed with olbermann? maybe he should actually get a show ON television that is successful and then he can try and talk shit.

[klrdotorg]

Hey BALL-Licker,

That's a real good one. You really showed "bathtub head"! Wow, lmao, you sure are clever.

And BTW, Licker, Gibby spends a fraction of the time attacking KeithO as you do attacking anyone and everyone on Fox.

Anyway, Licker, you sure are funny.......... yawn......

[GstateBALLER925]

hey asswipe,

yeah i know, it is a good one. hes a bathtub head because that big chunk of hair on his fat head looks like a big loofah, you know the stuff that billo orally likes to use to sexually harass his co-workers? you should know about that since you like to suck oreilly's dick.

lmao, a fraction of the time? did you actually do the calculations yourself and stalk me reading all my video comments? i doubt your dumbass can even count to 10 without going retarded, so you shouldnt even try.

[klrdotorg]

Hey BALL-LICKER,

"i doubt your dumbass can even count to 10 without going retarded." Really got me there.

Licker, you gone from an angry 12 year-old to a mean 9 year-old. Licker, you don't sound too smart, Licker.

[klrdotorg]

Licker, you've gone...............Licker.

Licker, do you like thinking about O'reilly and loofahs? Bet you do, Licker.

[GstateBALLER925]

no thats what you like to think about because you fantasize about it everyday. it haunts your dreams and you cant get over it. maybe you need medical help. good luck with that.

[GstateBALLER925]

lmao so i became 3 years younger and im "mean"? are your feelings hurt, little man? go cry me a river you pussy ass bitch.

[klrdotorg]

BALL-Licker quote from 3 days ago: "yea don't waste your time, and MORE importantly, don't waste my time. I have better shit to do than deal with your irrelevant ass."

Now you're responding to a post I wrote over 2 weeks ago.

BALL-Licker, I see you're still working on your first clever post..... keep working at it, and it may happen one day. And you continue to prove how important your time is to you, BALL-Licker. Thought you said you had "better shit to do."?

[GstateBALLER925]

yea i said it, but your the one who said YOU dont want to waste your time with me FIRST, so why are you still here replying? and i only responded to you because im busy talking to your boy dave the jackass over here who ended up running off like a scared rat. keep working on your pathetic comebacks. im always up for a laugh from a clown. i gotta tell you, you and bill oreilly give me a lot of comedic relief.

[zzx2847]

Wow. Olbermann was giving Obama a BJ on air.

[GstateBALLER925]

hey douche... a tip for you: go talk about your faggot fantasies in private... we dont really give a shit.

[GuidenDini]

det sjovere er at dette bare er en test men hva fanden

[PatricksTime]

is olbermann still on the air?

[GstateBALLER925]

yes... is gibson?

oh... thats right.

[InvestigatorDave]

Yes, Gibson is still on the air. Perhaps you were confused, but the sound you were hearing was from Gibson's radio show. A daily radio show, I believe.

[GstateBALLER925]

im talking about still being on the air on fox news, dave... you know his show that got canceled. so i think youre the confused one here... you must have forgot he even had a show. failures like that are usually forgotten.

[InvestigatorDave]

So in the world of Gstate, "on the air" ONLY means "television" and "FNC". So, by your defn, Olbermann is not "on the air?"

I'm not confused, but you are, at least as regards details. Gibson's TV show was replaced by FNC's "Election HQ". This seemed logical as we were entering an election cycle. While "EHQ" was on air, Gibson left the network. Then, "EHQ" was replaced by "America's New HQ" because the election was over.

Not a "failure", but a programming decision that made sense.

[GstateBALLER925]

ok now your just being a complete idiot. i clearly stated "on the air on fox news", which he used to be, now hes not, and he has relied on talk radio to spew his conservative opinion. nobody said anything about what is considered on the air and what isnt. so idk why you veered off assuming that. so in the world of "investigator dave", you have done your investigation to figure this out? obviously you didnt do a good job because if gibby was actually good at his job, they would bring him back.

[InvestigatorDave]

Let's recap:

1 wk ago PatricksTime wrote: "is olbermann still on the air? " to which you replied (one day ago) "yes... is gibson? oh... thats right." So I corrected you by pointing out that he was on the radio (aka "on the air"). It was not until after being corrected (embarrassed?) that you specified FNC.

Be careful about throwing that "idiot" tag around.

If Gibson wanted to come back, and if FNC had an opening, I believe they'd have a match. I don't know -- and neither do you!

[InvestigatorDave]

Gstate:

Yes I am doing recaps, because you seem to get lost between what was actually written and what you imagined.

The question was "Is olbermann still on the air?" You IMAGINED that the author also wrote, or you DEVINED (clairvoyance?) the author meant on TV. Neither of you specified TV, so I corrected you (yes, "corrected") when you neglected Gibson's radio show. What you claim to know and what you write seem to be different.

Re: believe: "I don't know -- and neither do you!"

[GstateBALLER925]

well your obviously terrible at doing recaps, dave, because you seem to get lost somewhere between thinking of steroid analogies and defending far right hacks. so your whole rebuttal attempt here (and a bad one, at that) was to point out that gibson has a radio show? what did you think i thought i was listening to when i clicked on this video? there is no picture that shows his mouth moving, its just sound, so clearly the conclusion to reach is he has a radio show, which i already knew anyway.

[GstateBALLER925]

and no, unlike you, i dont imagine someone says something. he said "is olbermann still on the air", so i answered him and stated that gibson is not b/c he used to have a show on tv, and now he doesnt. you can reach w/e conclusion you want, but any normal person would be able to connect the dots and realize what is being said. it seems like your goal is to waste time pointing out something people most likely figured out. but go ahead, dave, knock yourself out being a youtube moderator. enjoy.

[GoogleSlave]

olbermann sounds like he's GAY

[JonMGilbertson]

Oooh...good one. Evidently, you're an expert about this.

[busherbee]

not an olbermanhater.... uhuh

[thomaserossi]

They're comparing NOBAMA do Lincoln?!

This is just wrong. The only way we could compare NOBAMA and Lincoln except for the Civil War. Lincoln engaged in a Civil War to save the Union; NOBAMA is driving a wedge into the heart of America forcing the nation into a Civil War.

[hoganfader]

"What a tool". Fit perfectly.

Olby and Fineman shined up their Obama Kneepads.

Among Lincolns unconstitutional acts were launching an invasion without the consent of Congress, blockading Southern ports before formally declaring war, unilaterally suspending the writ of habeas corpus and arresting and imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens without a warrant, censoring telegraph communications, confiscating private property, including firearms, & gutting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments

[JonMGilbertson]

So you're saying he was sort of a pre-Dubya?

[hoganfader]

If you were educated, you would know his actions were 100 times as radical as the actions Liberals like you whined about.

Look up Clement Vallandigham, and see if Bush did the same to any other Gov, or member of Congress.

[klrdotorg]

Fineman seems to mold himself into whatever the host on a particular show is looking for him to be. But, he seems to evolve into a complete parrot - when on Countdown.

Olbyhack's regular guests/hacks have no shame anyway, let's add Fineman to that list.

"A Slobbering Love Affair" could not be more appropriate.

[InvestigatorDave]

Bernie Goldberg is right. It is "A Slobbering Love Affair".

[GstateBALLER925]

bernard goldberg is a partisan hack with an anti-obama rhetoric... thats why his book was known to have many errors and mistakes just like jerome corsi's anti-obama book did.

[InvestigatorDave]

Gstate:

1. "partisan hack" -- please provide evidence.

2. "book known to have many errors adn mistakes" -- please provide evidence. Only aware of one complaint Olbermann had with it.

3. Who is talking about Corsi?

4. Point remains valid whether it was the title of Goldberg's book or not: Olbermann and Fineman demonstrate the Slobbering Love Affair with Obama in this clip.

[GstateBALLER925]

1 - every time he goes on oreilly's show he agrees with whatever he has to say when smearing liberals, and never goes after any conservatives.

2 - and his doesnt count? that was the one where he claimed tom brokaw said something that he never did in an interview with charlie rose. goldberg was also trying to prove a point of media bias when he claimed that the early show ran a segment called "5 things about obama", but didnt mention that there was also a "5 things about mccain" segment as well.

[GstateBALLER925]

3 - I just felt the need to bring up that idiot corsi to prove the point of conservative authors lying when trying to smear liberals. he claimed many times that obama is a muslim, and born in kenya, or something of the sort.

4 - so from one segment of olbermann and fineman talking, that proves the media to be in love with obama? wow... i didnt know it could be solved with such ease. i suggest you, and robert cox try to come up with better examples to prove this baseless claim.

[InvestigatorDave]

3. Alex Rodriguez hit less HRs in the years he used steroids than in the years he didn't. I know we're not talking about A-Rod, but "I just felt the need to bring up" the point as we're introducing unrelated people/topics.

4. It is an example -- one of MANY. There is no doubt there is a Slobbering Love Affair. (Add Chris Matthews' tingling leg, and all the other examples.)

[GstateBALLER925]

3 - um, alex rodriguez has nothing remotely to do with this subject. corsi is a political author, so is goldberg, they both just happen to be conservatives, and they also both happen to have errors in their books that they have been cited and proven by critics... its not exactly a coincidence, therefore mentioning corsi in this makes more sense than a baseball player that did steroids. nice try.

4 - ok then, is it possible to cite the other "many" examples without the spin that robert cox adds?

[InvestigatorDave]

3. Corsi has nothing to do with this conversation either. Let it (him) go.

4. Several examples: Matthews' tingling leg; Olbermann and Fineman in this clip; all of NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NYTimes, Time magazine coverage of the campaign. NBC and especially MSNBC continue to embarrass themselves within Obama's first 100 days. Just turn on one of these stations and listen some day. You'll hear it.

[GstateBALLER925]

3 - neither does alex rodriguez... yet you still brought it up trying to make a stupid analogy that didnt make any sense.

4 - matthews' tingling about obama is just like hannity's wet dreams about george bush. did you ever complain about the pro george bush bias from fox news? but one year of obama getting fair treatment from other media outlets, and you and other whiny people like you have complained relentlessly. god for bid the democrats get fawned over, but its ok w/ george bush. nice job.

[InvestigatorDave]

3. You mentioned Corsi (not in this vid) so to show you how ridiculous that was, I mentioned A-Rod (also not in the vid). Somehow, in Gstate-land, one makes not sense and one does.

4. Matthews' tingling is a direct quote from Matthews ON THE AIR (in this case, on TV on MSNBC). Hannity said something about wet dreams on the air (TV or radio? When? Verbatim quote, please.)

Obama challenged by MSM on rare occassion. In fact there's a Slobbering Love Affair between the two.

[GstateBALLER925]

3. once again, because you cant get it through your thick skull, jerome corsi is a politically conservative author, and so is goldberg. they both have factual errors in their books, so they are related. a-rod and a political author have absolutely no relation, so once again, your analogy is idiotic. why you continue to act like it makes sense in relation to what i stated is odd. yes, in normal people land, mine makes sense and yours doesnt.

4. matthews said a furrow up his leg, not a tingle.

[GstateBALLER925]

nice job of getting the "direct quote", dave. and i never stated hannity said "wet dreams" on tv... just because you are talking about direct quotes (even though you dont get them right) doesnt mean i am. my point is hannity has shown how in love (more or less) he is with george bush by praising him constantly as a great president a patriot of some sort. lmao the MSM didnt challenge him? how about all the questions about wright, ayers, rezko, his birth certificate? did you forget about those?

[InvestigatorDave]

I find it odd that every time you are challenged in a way that you have to produce evidence for your outlandish statements, all of a sudden you change the story. This is why I do recaps for you. Your reading (and writing!) comprehension are awful.

You: "matthews' tingling about obama is just like hannity's wet dreams about george bush."

See, Matthews actually said the tingling comment, so naturally a comparison to Hannity would mean SH actually said wet dream. Try to keep up.

[GstateBALLER925]

whatever helps you sleep at night, sweetheart.

[InvestigatorDave]

Gstate:

3. Don't you get dizzy when you spin like that? Regardless, if you want to discuss Corsi -- go find someone who wants to discuss Corsi with you. I'm not that guy.

4. Furrow? That doesn't even make sense. Besides, the recording reveals that he clearly said tingle. In no context would furrow make sense.

[GstateBALLER925]

3. im not trying to discuss corsi... i just mentioned him.

4. if you go to the youtube search bar at the top and type in "matthews tingle", the very FIRST video that comes up is called

"Matthews Feels a 'Furrowing Up His Leg'??" maybe he did say tingle, but i dont see a video of it anywhere, and you would think if the tingle that he said was so famous, there would be a video of it, not another one saying furrowing up his leg. so what video did you see that he said tingle?

[InvestigatorDave]

3. Yeah, you just mentioned him . . . over, and over, and over again. Let it go!

4. OK, then. Suppose he did say "furrow".  What do you suppose he meant by that statement? Think something through for change.

[GstateBALLER925]

3. no i think ill keep mentioning him just to annoy you so you can freak out on me like oreilly did on inside edition back in the day.

4. first of all, there is no supposing if he said "furrow:... he did say it because the video shows him saying it. how the hell am i supposed to know what he meant? he is the one who said it... why are you asking me? the definition of furrow doesnt even match what he meant, but he said it. maybe he just chose the wrong word and really meant tingle.

[InvestigatorDave]

3. OK, keep mentioning him for the immature reasons you cite. Just know it is irrelevant.

4. OK, so "tingle" it is.

[GstateBALLER925]

3. how are my reasons immature? because you dont agree with the context? or maybe you like to rationalize it to better support your point? you failed regardless.

4. check the video that i cited... he says furrow. there is no video that shows him saying tingle. its not my fault.

[InvestigatorDave]

3. Again with the recap for you: "I think i'll keep mentioning him just to annoy you". You don't find that immature? Maybe not, and maybe because you are immature. I failed at what, exactly?

4. I checked the video you cited (one of your only pieces of supporting evidence for anything you've said). He did say furrow. All I know is he is the only broadcaster to admit to have anything run up or down his leg when a candidate (Obama in this case of course) spoke. Shows clear bias.

[InvestigatorDave]

1. You're wrong. In fact a popular vid on YouTube is Goldberg going after Coulter.

2. So you have the one Olbermann pointed out. The other is neither a "error" or "mistake". One could even argue the one, but if I stipulate the one, then you thing the book is completely wrong? Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, aren't you Gstate?

[GstateBALLER925]

1 - ohh wow... ONE time of going after a far right ultra conservative that nobody takes seriously. bravo coming from a partisan hack like himself. got anything else? or is that the only conservative he can call out without wetting himself?

2 - what is wrong with the one olbermann pointed out? is it wrong? is it not legitimate? just because he said it, it doesnt count? stop giving excuses. and the other one i mentioned is misleading and, obviously, he chose to ignore it.

[InvestigatorDave]

You: "every time he goes on oreilly's show he agrees with whatever he has to say when smearing liberals, and never goes after any conservatives." So I provided an example that proved you wrong -- again. Perhaps you should avoid words like "never".

2. Olbermann is likely right. I'll stipulate. I guess this is where I say "ohh wow.. ONE time, blah, blah, blah". Truth is the book is well researched and makes valid supported points.

[GstateBALLER925]

going after ann coulter ONE time doesnt mean he goes after conservatives. ONE time doesnt make up for all the times he has gone after liberals. and if you take the word "never" that literally, you are pretty stupid. just like the morons that claim olbermann "never" debates anyone, even though he has. and unfortunately for you, that is the only time you could find him go after a conservative and you cant even cite what he said about her. and i doubt it is a "popular video".

[GstateBALLER925]

2 - likely right? he is right because it has been pointed out by many sources. and actually, if you look back on my last comments, i cited 2 times where he has been criticized for errors and misleading. lmao, "truth is"... in what world is a far right conservatives book researched with valid supported points? bill oreilly has written 5 books, and ill wager that dozens of errors can be found in each one. he already does it enough on his show and on the radio, so why wouldnt he do it in a book?

[InvestigatorDave]

2. Oh, you now believe you have two examples from an entire book. Guess we should burn the book. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

In what world are conservative books researched w/valid supported points? This world. Where do you live?

I'll take you up on that wager. Find dozens of errors in each of O'Reilly's five books. What shall we wager, your credibility? Think you can prove it by end of day? End of week? Provide citations too, BTW.

[GstateBALLER925]

2 - i never said anything about burning the book... all i did was point out mistakes and misinformation in the book. conservative books with researched and valid points are hard to come by these days. im not speaking literally here, but lets be frank... majority of them have so many errors that they are always criticized for their lies and errors to fit their agendas. and i didnt actually mean dozens literally... i dont have time to look for 12 errors each in 5 books... its called exaggerating.

[GstateBALLER925]

but still, i will do that and point out errors in oreilly's books, and we'll see what you have to say afterwards. it'll be great to see your reaction when you squirm and get a tingle when you are proven wrong.

[InvestigatorDave]

Gstate:

As I've explained to you before, (and apparently you did not understand): "I don't know what you mean, I only know what you write."

If you write dozens of errors in each of 5 books, guess what the reader thinks you mean? Yep, that there are dozens of errors in each of the 5 books. Heck, to emphasize your assuredness on the topic, you were willing to wager on it. Well .... until your wager was accepted. Then it was just exaggeration (or as some of us like to call it: "a lie".)

[GstateBALLER925]

sorry, not everybody thinks literally like you do. dont give yourself so much credit for being an example of everyone else out there. and an exaggeration is not a lie... look up the definition and it is not considered a lie... maybe in your logic it is.

[InvestigatorDave]

Some of us deal in the world of facts. The others, like you, just like to make stuff up. When you make a definitive statement, and emphasize it with the willingness to wager on its veracity, there is an expectation that there is evidence behind the statement. At least for most people. In this case, you can try to call it an exaggeration, but the logical ones in the audience here recognize it for what it really was: a lie.

[GstateBALLER925]

show me an example of how i "made stuff up". you think youre such an expert on telling facts from lies, yet you cant even accept the facts i prove to you. you just brush them off as "oh you only found 2 mistakes in goldberg's book. thats not enough." last time i checked, it doesnt matter how many mistakes i find, the main thing is i researched and found them. you did not, and if you knew about these, you would ignore them because they counter your own argument when defending goldberg's deceit.

[InvestigatorDave]

I did show you examples of you making stuff up. Check the recaps that flummoxed you so. Also, when attempting recaps of your own, try to get the entire quote correct. The one you just wrote above is another example of you making stuff up as I never said "that's not enough".

I'm beginning to think you don't really enjoy the exchange of ideas on these posts, but enjoy the embarrassment you bring down upon yourself.

[GstateBALLER925]

no you didnt, and when you attempted that ploy, i rebutted you. so now we need to get ENTIRE quotes perfect? do you realize that we have a limit on how much we can type? so if i did that, i probably wouldnt have enough room to fit my own opinion plus your ENTIRE quote unless i fill up the whole page with my posts. relax, were not having an official debate here. and you know what you said, so why do you need me to get it perfect? by the way, what i did is called paraphrasing.

[InvestigatorDave]

Let me help you (you desparately need it): direct quotations go in quotation marks such as " ". When paraphrasing, one says they are paraphrasing. (Paraphrase has only 9 characters, btw, so would fit in 500 character postings).

When paraphrasing, one does not indicate the text is a direct quote (as you did) or it is dishonest. And if you were interested in saving characters, why ADD words to my quote that weren't there in the original quote. (More dishonesty, I guess).

[GstateBALLER925]

if i needed help, your fallacious rationalization would be the last thing i would use. yea you should learn more about direct quotes because you claimed matthews said tingle, when video proof shows he said furrow. so obviously you need to learn. as far as your rule of paraphrasing, i dont need to point it out... you know what you said, i dont need to spell it out for you. and we're not writing an essay here... its youtube. get a grip. by the way, i never said what you said was a direct quote.

[InvestigatorDave]

And yet there it was, in quotation marks, without any qualifiers such as "And I'm paraphrasing here".

No, you're not writing an essay here. Yes, you are on YouTube. Regardless, there are some basic and simple rules that apply to the English language and sentence composition which should be used in both arenas.

[GstateBALLER925]

thanks for the "basic and simple rules" lesson, haas. now go take your picky quote referencing regulations elsewhere and chew someone else out with pointless conversation. no wonder you cant win a debate... youre too focused on your precious rules, while the rest of us on this planet try not to spaz out because we dont do what you say.

[GstateBALLER925]

no i enjoy the exchanges that is done here because i like debate, i just find that you tend to get off course on the discussion and have an answer for every point i make. dare i make a comparison, and you say it makes no sense, then you bring a-rod in the mix. quite frankly, your thought process is mind-boggling and i find it insulting that you choose to characterize me as enjoying embarrassment. who do you think you are? stop with the arrogant, elitist attitude and just debate me.

[InvestigatorDave]

If your comparison makes no sense, then it makes no sense. There are no two ways about it. Just calling them as I see them. A-Rod was a way to show you how senseless your use of Corsi was, but you STILL DON'T GET IT.

If my thought process is "mind-boggling" perhaps you have a simple or easily boggled mind. Logic will confuse minds like that.

I'll debate you. Soon as you start making points with evidence.

[GstateBALLER925]

and according to who doesnt it make sense? to your use of spin and distortions? no you dont call anything as you see it, you ignore most things and "call" other things to benefit you. no i do get your comparison of a-rod, but it makes no sense to my point of corsi because a-rod is a baseball player, and goldberg and corsi are almost the same type of people... a-rod is WAY off topic, and YOU still dont get that. no, its mind boggling because you lack any logic in your claims, just plain idiocy.

[InvestigatorDave]

"Debating" (as you like to call it) with you reminds me of an old saying:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and annoy the pig."

In this analogy, YOU are the pig.

I am not getting anywhere with you. I don't know if you are too thick, or if you are too invested in your ideology. Regardless, it is evident that you will never learn to sing. And I am getting annoyed.

[GstateBALLER925]

in addition to your "basic and simple rules" guidelines, this useless quote about pigs is quite a let down for you. and im SO glad you pointed out that i am the pig. what an honor, dave... really, im touched. just as big of an honor for oreilly to put msnbc at the top of the most liberal media outlets. im sure they are choking up about it.

yes clearly you arent, dave. you might want to talk to a horse and maybe you understand that language better. as am i annoyed, but i enjoy picking on you.

[InvestigatorDave]

If you use the word "never" in a post, how should I define it differently from when everyone else uses it? I only know what you write, not what you mean.

Yes, Goldberg goes after libs more than conservatives. He disagrees with libs' use of media. So? I did not cite what he said about her bcse wasn't asked to do so. Are you saying he did not do it? Why do you doubt it was popular video? Please explain?

[GstateBALLER925]

sorry dave, its not my fault that you take things so literally. im not used to talking to squares that are so picky and literal about everything they are told... these days you would assume that people arent like you. i guess i was let down on that one.

yes, he only goes after liberals, which makes him a partisan hack, and not going after conservatives too. im sure he did do it, but i have looked all over youtube for it and i have yet to find it. please find it for me since you chose to cite it.

[GstateBALLER925]

and if your stupid enough to think you are proving me wrong, you can go on believing that, but you have yet to do any of the sort, just continuing to give excuses for fox news and the idiots like bill oreilly and hacks like bernard goldberg. and then you go way off topic bringing up alex rodriguez. try and stay on topic, chief.

[InvestigatorDave]

If you make a valid point that is supportable, rather than just throwing out your opinions and unsubstantiated claims, and if these points refute what I have written -- well then, you will have proven me wrong. (I'll let you know when that happens.)

Until then, just know that you have been proven wrong at nearly every turn in this discussion.

[GstateBALLER925]

i have made several valid points that are supportable about goldberg's lies in his book, gibson not being on the air which you misconstrued as being radio not tv, and that whenever goldberg goes on oreilly's show, he agrees with him, and the evidence of that is easy to find on youtube. you are the one making unsubstantiated claims that you cant back up. no, you wont let me know what happens and when it happens because you have a lack of fair judgment... just as long as it supports your agenda.

[InvestigatorDave]

A. From an entire book you found two possible errors. Wow. There's some overwhelming evidence.

B. You seemed unaware that being on the radio is also "being on the air" so I educated you.

C. Which of my claims is unsubstantiated? Please be specific.

D. I am very fair. And clear. Two qualities you should acquire. And yes, I'll let you know when you make a correct statement. Until then, you're just ranting and making unsubstantiated claims you retract when challenged.

[GstateBALLER925]

d. there you go giving yourself too much credit again. claiming that you are fair when you keep lying about what i said and misrepresenting my statements and saying that the two examples i brought up from goldbergs book arent good enough even though they are legitimate and confirmed. no you wont let me know when im correct... ill let myself know because i know how to do research, and you clearly dont have a brain to do that. ive been ranting? youve been making ridiculous claims this whole time.

[klrdotorg]

GstateBALL-LICKER,

Did you enjoy getting your ass spanked by InvestigatorDave? He spanked you good.

You're one of the most pathetic Olby-defending/Fox attacking YouTube trolls I've seen. You always sound like an angry twelve year old girl. Predictable and boreing.

Here's an idea. Try to come up with something clever or original to say.

Run along now little BALL-Licker.

[GstateBALLER925]

hey douchefag,

did you enjoy being a cheerleader for dave, and thinking about oreilly while you spank yourself like a flamer? you seem to like talking about gay shit, so im sure you were doing that the whole time. fag.

and you are the most moronic piece of shit scum on youtube making lame comebacks that come from 12 year olds... and you claim im a 12 year old? you cant even spell, idiot.

heres an idea, think before you make stupid comebacks, and get a hooked on phonics while your at it, ass.

[klrdotorg]

Hey BALL-LICKER,

Not a very clever comeback, Licker. You need some new material. But, "douchefag", that was really funny, Licker!

And Licker, you've really got some homo-erotic issues, Licker. Getting "spanked" in a debate doesn't imply "gay shit", unless the person interpreting it is a BALL-Licker.

You're boring, Licker. (I fixed the typo, so no need for hooked on phonics.)

[GstateBALLER925]

oh not good enough? how about asshat? jerkoff? dipshit? jackass? imbecile? cock sucker? see compared to you, i lick pussy... so licker is a good name for me. ill take it b/c it shows im not a flaming faggot like your stupid ass.

um, i happen to be okay with homos and w/e they do, as long as they dont bring it around me. if you didnt know already, that is the basis of being a straight male. but you saying spanked and that im a ball licker is just straight up fucking gay. think of something new.

[klrdotorg]

Here's a standard BALL-Licker debate.

BALL-Licker: Keith is awesome and speaks the truth, you neo-cons suck ass.

Anyone: Really clever, Licker (sarcasm).

Licker: Yeah, it was clever, you fucking asswipe, like how clever o'rally is when he's playing w/ his loofah. U fucking flamer.

Anyone: OK, Licker, but I didn't say anything RE: that.

BALL-Licker: Yeah, but you dream about o'rally and his loofah, U jerk-off asshat cock-sucker. You're a retarded fag.

?

Grow up BALL-Licker

[GstateBALLER925]

i have never said keith is awesome. i also never say anyone sucks ass. nobody but your stupid immature ass has called me "licker". and many people that i debate with regarding olbermann always bring up oreilly, so they did it first, and i respond to their idiocy. nice try, moron. epic fail.

[klrdotorg]

BALL-Licker,

I've debated many Olby defenders, but you and maybe 2 or 3 others (who post on nearly every Olbywatch vid) are so routinely juvenile and your posts are laced with predictable and pathetic profanities and epithets. So I called you on it.

Epic fail............. ah, no. If you had any shame, you would be embarrassed.

And are you saying that you only bring up Bill O'Reilly when your opponents do?

If so, you're a liar. And I would be happy to prove it. Let me know.

[GstateBALLER925]

i have debated many olbermann haters, and you along with... i dont know, 95 percent of you crackpots are immature 5 year old all the time laced with predictable and pathetic comebacks that are lame and make no sense. and you think im juvenile? you are changing my name to try and talk shit and make me feel bad for having a name with the word "ball" in it and you come to the conclusion that im a "ball licker". it doesnt get anymore pathetic than that. everything you do is an epic fail, dumbass.

[GstateBALLER925]

i never said i bring up oreilly EVERY single time other people do... most of the time i say it first because it is a great punchline and i know it will piss people off. however, many times i have dealt with people that bring him up first, and i just have to respond back. its a great avenue to up the shit talking because it just gives me more ammo. if you want to prove that i do this all the time, good luck... youll have to read every comment i have ever made on youtube to prove that point.

[klrdotorg]

BALL-Licker,

Actually, people can go to "Keith Olbermann Vs. Fox News" on youtube. It's 2:43 and was added by InDefenseOfSense. Anyone can go there to see your handy spam-work and your clever repartee.

I won't waste my time looking thru other samples of your lack of wit and style, but I remember that vid because of all the silly and unprovoked attacks you made. Everything that I've accused you of can be seen in your posts on that one video.

Adios, BALL-Licker.

[GstateBALLER925]

great job buddy. you proved something that i already admitted to. why did you even waste your time with it? yea dont waste your time, and MORE importantly, dont waste my time. i have better shit to do than deal with your irrelevant ass. thats great douche... you achieved your goal of finding me bringing up bill oreilly before someone else did. now we can move on with our lives, and you can pretend to be an innocent mother fucker when you act like an immature asshole on a daily basis.

[klrdotorg]

BALL-Licker (17 hrs ago): "many people that I debate with regarding olbermann always bring up o'relly, so they did it first, and i respond to their idiocy. nice try, moron. epic fail."

Then, I offered to prove you to be a liar.

BALL-Licker (14 hrs ago): "... most of the time i say it first because it is a great punchline and i know it will piss people off."

No surprise that you're a hypocrite like the pussy you defend - Olbermann. Run along BALL-Licker, we know your act.