now let's all get behind a leader, ready to take on the world with war, wants total control of the military and economic power of the country and wants to dictate HIS policies to the entire country. yes,i am talking about saddaam hussein!ironic that his clone,georgy bush put him out of power...
If liberals would listen to this and lend and ear of their bleeding heart to what this man is trying to say, they'd find reason. Why is it that you can call Newt a dumb bastard and you get applause, but if he called a liberal a dumb bastard it's considered hate speech and incompassionate. All agendas aside, that's pretty fucked up.
Thank God for Keith Olbermann. It is amusing that the Republicans, who wrote the book on hate, can dish it out but sure can't take it. Especially when it is so deserving.
No, it's the Democrats who wrote the book on hate. Hatred of Jews and Christians. Hatred of the American military. Hatred of the Danish cartoonists. Hatred of lacrosse players.
Newty it's your mother. Your a fucking idiot and you'll never be president. Your a hypocrite and an ego maniac and the people are on to you. Oh, I tried to raise you right but I guess shit happens. Now go kill yourself like we discussed. Love MOM
Keith Olbermann is the saddest excuse of a journalist I've ever seen. There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and the typical verbal vomit he spews out every night. Please Keith, for the sake of reason, GO BACK TO ESPN.
Keith actually deals out quite a bit of logic and reason in his show Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He provides proof, and if you actually listened to Keith rather than right-wing pundits you'd realize that Keith is a moderate centrist who loves freedom.
All the traitors and america-haters love the dems; we need our troops back home so they can start shooting liberals, feminists, pedophiles, al-qaeda patrons and everyone else who votes democrat
Why are most of the American's on YouTube so divided between the 2 parties? Bush lied. In early 2001, Powell AND RICE gave assessments on TV about Iraq that were THE OPPOSITE of what they later said. It's all just spin to cover the big game plan. Attack, take assets. Spend taxpayers money, transfer it to the profiteering companies. Both parties do this. Google Smedley Butler, General in the US Marine Corps and 2 time winner of the C.M.O.H, he wrote a very short book called "War is a racket".
It's one's built up assumptions about the world that determine these filters, and I know I have mine, but I have in my short 20 yrs because of certain circumstances been exposed to a greater variety of understandings of the world than most others to begin to notice these invisble assumptions that are so deceptive even to the more perceptive individuals.
Your thinking may be too much inside the box. I believe I understand a bigger pattern in global events that changes the entire picture from one that is mostly built of assumptions about the world which filter the information available to me to one of clarity.
The second problem stems from the first, in that if you do not know the real intent you can not correctly analyze the real reasons for success or failure, or even if it was a success ro failure. I.E. Depending on the perceived intent for the Iraq war,the big insurgency and violence could either be considered a success or failure.
You are correct, the realization of true practical knowledge is achieved by understanding the intent and outcame and then analyzing why they succeeded or failed, but I find two problems with your thinking. I believe your knowledge of intent for many of these policies makes sense at a zoomed in picture of the events that occur and the knowledge available adn therefore you miss the big picture and the real intent is still invisible.
I just read one of ur comments. I skipped one and read the one on top. I know they direct different commentaries and perspectives to corresponding listeners, but I do not get most of my information on specific issues through the mainstream media so I believe I am less affected by it. I forgot to mention Economics before.
I'd love to delve into a personal discussion with you on many topics. You seem to be a very learned individual. However, not only could I spend hours discussing my ideas and the supporting research, hours would be necessary to even glaze the surface of what I believe is really going on in this world, and more importantly, who we really are. So, I'd like to part our ways in this forum. Maybe 1 day if we meet again I can get into quantum physics, philosophy, sociology -- my real interests.
ok, I do apologize for premature critisizm. however, let it be noted that while you do present an interesting point of view, from what you have written so far, I disagree with what you have said. Sometimes, I let my emotions take the best of me when politics are concerned and for that I apologize.
You need to do a little more research, guy. I'm sorry, but stylistic language is not a sign of intelligence. You need to open your mind and set yourself free of assumptions, and when the knowledge begins to flow, only then will you realize that while Olbermann is mostly incorrect about his assumptions as well, he is far more intuitive and closer to the truth in his assertions than you are.
There is a difference between following a craze, and beginning to realize the truth, albeit only part of it. You need to stop using other people's quotes and pretending you are some highly intellectual individual and realize that you are guided by the same type of hate craze you critisize.
The only problem with Olbermann is that he only sees half the truth. The truth is that both parties are under the same control, it is the same conspiracy. It doesn't really matter who wins elections, who loses. Unless we decide as a people to peace for peace instead of fight for peace, we will never achieve peace.
Listen guy, stop thinking you are some genious. I had Paul Grey as a professor at BC. He is a very smart man, and it is an insult to him to use his quotes in the manner than you have.
To republicans, all independant thinking and opinions other than theirs as "hate speech". Olbermann calls it like he sees it. He doesn't make threats. He doesn't call people "traitors", wish their cities attacked by terrorists or bully widows of 9/11. You want hate speech? Take a good look at your precious Ann Coulter, sir.
The latest ratings are out, and it looks like Olbermann is still in the ratings crapper: FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,505,000 FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,802,000 FNC SHEP SMITH 1,374,000 FNC HUME 1,258,000 FNC GRETA 1,194,000 CNN KING 1,014,000 CNN COOPER 835,000 CNN DOBBS 814,000 CNNHN GRACE 676,000 MSNBC OLBERMANN 665,000
A PHD is not a sign of knowing it. I've had many professors who were real idiots. Theyd use circular and irrational arguments to prove their points because their pride would not allow them to consider they may be wrong. Historians are worst of all. They study only what theyve been told and rarely question the books. Take 9/11, if the government planned it, but the books say it was Osama, then future historians will "know" and teach that it was Osama when it was really the government.
Why does so much conservative/Republican talk involve name-calling labels? Call it hate speech, call it what you like, but Keith's always got the right answer. He asks for the end to an useless war that is lining the pockets of war-profiteering buddies. That's a fact and everyone knows it. The label of the speech doesn't matter, whoever is speaking. The content of the speech does. Hey Newt instead of arguing that KO's a hater, how about you address the substance of his argument?
What argument? He basically just asserts, over and over again, in nasty name-calling terms (much like Rush Limbaugh) that the Iraq invasion was wrong, pointless, harmful, and that Bush only wants to get people killed for profit. When the same garbage was being thrown against Clinton everyone on the left could see it for what it was. Now they throw it at Bush and call it patriotism and irrefutable logic. How pathetic!
I hate liers, I hate manipulators, I hate profits in exchange for young American lives, I hate a war whos mission is paste a bullseye on you're forehead and try not to get killed.
There's no double standard here. Point a finder at Clinton and say 'there's a bad man' sure some people will agree, but point a finger at Bush and say the same, you'll hear the roar of thousands who agree.
I think Newt is brilliant, for an evil guy. He's obviously running for President below the radar, angling for the voice of dispirited conservatives. I hope he's the nominee - I don't think the Republicans will really like their other options - McCain, Guiliani, Romney ..
This is the guy who tells us we need gatekeepers for the internet. The guy who wants to regulate Free Speech. I wonder how he would feel if he were not allowed to spew his bulltweed. Does this moron know anything about American history?!
I hope Newt holds true to his promise to run for President in '08. I've got a urinal cake saved just to attach a "Newt" button to and a case of beer on ice.
What's really horrifying is that ANYBODY takes this man seriously. He's so blatant in his hypocrisy and hunger for personal power. What is with all these people in politics who have forgotten, or never knew, that the job of public servants is to... serve the public?
Listening to Newt again is like finding a threadbare, worn out pair of socks in the back of my dresser drawer. The kind I have to throw away, not even good for polishing shoes. Come to think of it, wasn't he shit-canned some time ago?
The Republican Party hyped up Clinton's oral sex to the point that the whole world was looking in the pants of the US President. They laughed at us. Most non-Americans I spoke to thought the whole hype was ridiculous and wondered what was wrong with our country that we made such a big deal out of it.
When I discuss our current political climate with non-Americans, they wonder how any American can back Bush. In other words, most of the world is a blue state.
The appeal of Olbermann lies not with liberalism, but with his giving voice to the mass outrage at Bush, the proverbial truth to power that rarely gets through most of the media filters (and I'm not just talking Fox News). His ratings are so high because his views, and his righteous anger, echo that of 60% (and growing) of the nation.
Newt - utter filth. Liar, no soul. Delivered zero when he had the chance and now masturbates himself to think there might be a round two. Way to go with the "Family values" there, half-wit; we all know.
A) I don't want anything to do with a future where you rule the American Empire.
B) Truth be told, you and your party peddle fear and hate, that how you win elections, calling the other side "soft" and impliying that a vote for the opposition is a vote for the terrorist.
Question is Newt, who is speaking the truth and who speaking out of his ass?
Olbermann: "And also here — we have institutionalized the terrorizing of the opposition.
"True domestic terror:
"Critics of your administration in the media receive letters filled with fake anthrax.
...
"A series of reactionary columnists encourages treason charges against a newspaper that published "national security information" that was openly available on the Internet."
""To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear."
...
"By this definition, the leading terrorist group in this world right now is al Qaeda. But the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party."
Olbermann is not comparable to O'Reilly. O'Reilly routinely invites guests from both sides of a particular argument. Olbermann excludes from his program virtually all opinions differing from his own. He is nothing more than propogandist for the fringe far left.
O'Reilly then tells the people who disagree with them to shut up or just turn off their mic. He is a bully. He lies. Find something wrong Olbermann has said on his show. You can't. Olbermann is a patriot.
Your question is likely moot. Olbermann seemingly has a policy against inviting conservatives on his program, so they probably couldn't get on anyway. However, I'd love to see Newt (who is about ten times smarter than Olbernut) get on the program, but I doubt Keith would have the guts to invite him.
So by that rationale the Lincoln-Douglas debates were a circus, because they included parties exchanging differing viewpoints, correct? What you describe as "civilized discourse" is simply Keith either having no respect for opinions other than his own, or not having the balls to defend his ideas. I think these are both the case.
Civilized discourse and debate were different in the age that preceeded television. Hell, the way people spoke to each other 20 years ago was more like Lincoln's time than now. How far down we've come.
Yes, a prime example of how far down we've come is witnessing the behavior of liberal college students at various universities when a conservative speaker is invited. Having no respect for the First Amendment or opinions different than their own, they simply disrupt the speaker instead of questioning them.
I don't disagree with you there. I do think there is truth to their frustration, that it speaks to something larger, but in all fairness, the conservatives who speak there are full of shit too.
Perhaps that is why these people don't have careers that involve public speaking. Not all liberals can have the skills of a successful lawyer, a renowned media personality, or gifted politician. They are going on emotion primarily, logic secondarily, and I often criticize them for the results of that too.
Leftist logic: "No smart/sane person could possibly disagree with me. Therefore they must be stupid and/or crazy and/or have something seriously wrong with them and/or be hateful bigots. I will not even attempt to consider the thought that they might have legitimate concerns and just call them names. Look at how compassionate/understanding I am!"
Utter nonsense. "Think for yourself" is more like it, i.e. have a fact based opinion. You're just defending being a lemming taught to vote against your own best interests by a group of simple-minded con men. And you're embarrassed by how simply you were fooled. Find a set and stop being a sheep to the slaughter.
Anyone catch Newt's comment that "America can only survive if we impose severe curbs on freedom of speech"? If you missed it, it was delivered at an event in New Hampshire... honoring individuals who stand up for free speech.
Yes, like kicking the village idiot out of the square and into the forest when he is drunk and a risk to others. So, get off the fountain and go grab some wood.
Democrats (NOT all 'liberals, BTW) didn't murder Senator Wellstone & his family, Dems didn't murder 3000 innocent people on 9-11, Dems didn't make millions upon millions just minutes before the planes hit the towers, Libby & Krongard aren't Dems, Ari Fleischer, Perle, Cheney & Poppy Bush aren't Dems, Dems didn't send thousands of soldiers to fight for an oil pipeline to be built to the Caspian and gas lines to India...
LOL - talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Who questioned the Americanism of other members of congress, and started a multi decade tidal wave of conservative hate speech and naysaying? None other than Newt.
"The purveyors of hate speech are always out of bounds" because hate speech isn't an argument, it's manipulation through fear. But please distinguish that from people who hate you, even if they're on TV explaining why.
Is this the same Newt that had his 1st wife served with divorce papers while she was undergoing chemo for cancer... stiffed her for child support... then tried to hide assets from the divorce court by putting them in the name of his girlfriend/"personal assistant"?
The condemnation of Clinton criticism as "hate speech" was an obscure phrase used by a handful of pundits. I call Newt's criticism of Clinton's ethics "Hypocrisy Speech". He abandoned his 1st wife while she recuperated from cancer in a hospital. Divorced his 2nd wife because he was caught schtooping a House aide. Conspired to misrepresent multiple ethics violations. Olbermann '08!!
I disagree. I think it's great that Newt is going directly on YouTube to state his views, as much as I disagree with almost all of them. The more politicians use the internet, the less TV time they need to buy, and that's where most of the corruption lies.
Now I do think Gingrich should have open and acknowledged that Olbermann criticized him harshly over his plan to restrict free speech in the name of security against terrorism. This must have been a reason for this criticism of Olbermann.
And guess what...Olbermann is correct. Who is the hater? The people that don't want to save people from disease by using stem cells that wind up in the garbage can. Garbage can or research facility...intelligent people say send the cells to be researched and ignorant uninformed people say throw them in he trash. How can it be smart to waste these cells as we do when so many millions can be helped by them?
olbermann is the type of fellow who would praise achmadinajad and castro and would call sarah palin and mit romney extremist terrorists.
leonarddaccardi 1 year ago
Olbermann is nothing but a communist peice of shit.
aspie101 3 years ago 3
It's only considered a double standard when they are being called out. Never when they start the shit! Newt is a fraud!
lmmajor 4 years ago
now let's all get behind a leader, ready to take on the world with war, wants total control of the military and economic power of the country and wants to dictate HIS policies to the entire country. yes,i am talking about saddaam hussein!ironic that his clone,georgy bush put him out of power...
1wellhowdydoo1 4 years ago
If liberals would listen to this and lend and ear of their bleeding heart to what this man is trying to say, they'd find reason. Why is it that you can call Newt a dumb bastard and you get applause, but if he called a liberal a dumb bastard it's considered hate speech and incompassionate. All agendas aside, that's pretty fucked up.
darcebaug 4 years ago
Newt in 08!
ANicole13 4 years ago
Thank God for Keith Olbermann. It is amusing that the Republicans, who wrote the book on hate, can dish it out but sure can't take it. Especially when it is so deserving.
Gerryb6 4 years ago
No, it's the Democrats who wrote the book on hate. Hatred of Jews and Christians. Hatred of the American military. Hatred of the Danish cartoonists. Hatred of lacrosse players.
StoogeWatcher 3 years ago
Dobermann is not from God! He may be from Allah, though.
And why does he wear a vinyl toupee?
RockStudioLive 2 years ago
Newty it's your mother. Your a fucking idiot and you'll never be president. Your a hypocrite and an ego maniac and the people are on to you. Oh, I tried to raise you right but I guess shit happens. Now go kill yourself like we discussed. Love MOM
thysbes 4 years ago
Keith Olbermann is the saddest excuse of a journalist I've ever seen. There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and the typical verbal vomit he spews out every night. Please Keith, for the sake of reason, GO BACK TO ESPN.
cpagerun 5 years ago
Keith actually deals out quite a bit of logic and reason in his show Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He provides proof, and if you actually listened to Keith rather than right-wing pundits you'd realize that Keith is a moderate centrist who loves freedom.
Awesomebox360 4 years ago
All the traitors and america-haters love the dems; we need our troops back home so they can start shooting liberals, feminists, pedophiles, al-qaeda patrons and everyone else who votes democrat
syjajkneba 5 years ago
Fox News is a hundred times worse than Keith Olbermann when it comes to bashing democrats. "Do as I say, not as I do" -Republican Motto
Xicano82 5 years ago
you're dumb
ANicole13 4 years ago
So basically all of these comments bashing Gingrich are proving his point...
darcebaug 5 years ago
haha
ANicole13 4 years ago
Newt should be neutered based on his record of infidelity. Hypocritical bastard. STFU.
jaycon44 5 years ago
I'll probably favorite this just to laugh at it later. douche gingrich
mokona7 5 years ago
Also, bravo to Keith Olbermann for being influential enough for somebody like gingrich to actually feel that he needed to respond to his words.
mokona7 5 years ago
Olbermann's Tokyo Rose
KCtheKat 5 years ago
Why are most of the American's on YouTube so divided between the 2 parties? Bush lied. In early 2001, Powell AND RICE gave assessments on TV about Iraq that were THE OPPOSITE of what they later said. It's all just spin to cover the big game plan. Attack, take assets. Spend taxpayers money, transfer it to the profiteering companies. Both parties do this. Google Smedley Butler, General in the US Marine Corps and 2 time winner of the C.M.O.H, he wrote a very short book called "War is a racket".
suedenham 5 years ago
olbermann is just pointing out the truth. if you want to call it hate speech to make yourself feel better go ahead.
agparkerson 5 years ago
I like Clinton, but those last-day pardons were unpardonable.
safuna 5 years ago
Newt in 2008!!!
sirjames45 5 years ago
Keith O. is a complete tool. Newt is the man. ESPN needs to get rid of bad character.
hsl44det1 5 years ago
Actually, Keith quit ESPN many years ago...he's been on Fox and now at MSNBC.
safuna 5 years ago
It's one's built up assumptions about the world that determine these filters, and I know I have mine, but I have in my short 20 yrs because of certain circumstances been exposed to a greater variety of understandings of the world than most others to begin to notice these invisble assumptions that are so deceptive even to the more perceptive individuals.
vsuric 5 years ago
Your thinking may be too much inside the box. I believe I understand a bigger pattern in global events that changes the entire picture from one that is mostly built of assumptions about the world which filter the information available to me to one of clarity.
vsuric 5 years ago
The second problem stems from the first, in that if you do not know the real intent you can not correctly analyze the real reasons for success or failure, or even if it was a success ro failure. I.E. Depending on the perceived intent for the Iraq war,the big insurgency and violence could either be considered a success or failure.
vsuric 5 years ago
You are correct, the realization of true practical knowledge is achieved by understanding the intent and outcame and then analyzing why they succeeded or failed, but I find two problems with your thinking. I believe your knowledge of intent for many of these policies makes sense at a zoomed in picture of the events that occur and the knowledge available adn therefore you miss the big picture and the real intent is still invisible.
vsuric 5 years ago
I just read one of ur comments. I skipped one and read the one on top. I know they direct different commentaries and perspectives to corresponding listeners, but I do not get most of my information on specific issues through the mainstream media so I believe I am less affected by it. I forgot to mention Economics before.
vsuric 5 years ago
I'd love to delve into a personal discussion with you on many topics. You seem to be a very learned individual. However, not only could I spend hours discussing my ideas and the supporting research, hours would be necessary to even glaze the surface of what I believe is really going on in this world, and more importantly, who we really are. So, I'd like to part our ways in this forum. Maybe 1 day if we meet again I can get into quantum physics, philosophy, sociology -- my real interests.
vsuric 5 years ago
ok, I do apologize for premature critisizm. however, let it be noted that while you do present an interesting point of view, from what you have written so far, I disagree with what you have said. Sometimes, I let my emotions take the best of me when politics are concerned and for that I apologize.
vsuric 5 years ago
You need to do a little more research, guy. I'm sorry, but stylistic language is not a sign of intelligence. You need to open your mind and set yourself free of assumptions, and when the knowledge begins to flow, only then will you realize that while Olbermann is mostly incorrect about his assumptions as well, he is far more intuitive and closer to the truth in his assertions than you are.
vsuric 5 years ago
There is a difference between following a craze, and beginning to realize the truth, albeit only part of it. You need to stop using other people's quotes and pretending you are some highly intellectual individual and realize that you are guided by the same type of hate craze you critisize.
vsuric 5 years ago
The only problem with Olbermann is that he only sees half the truth. The truth is that both parties are under the same control, it is the same conspiracy. It doesn't really matter who wins elections, who loses. Unless we decide as a people to peace for peace instead of fight for peace, we will never achieve peace.
vsuric 5 years ago
Listen guy, stop thinking you are some genious. I had Paul Grey as a professor at BC. He is a very smart man, and it is an insult to him to use his quotes in the manner than you have.
vsuric 5 years ago
To republicans, all independant thinking and opinions other than theirs as "hate speech". Olbermann calls it like he sees it. He doesn't make threats. He doesn't call people "traitors", wish their cities attacked by terrorists or bully widows of 9/11. You want hate speech? Take a good look at your precious Ann Coulter, sir.
ericbrooksdotcom 5 years ago
I wonder when it became criminal to think...
paralleluniverse1988 5 years ago
if we put curbs on free speech & regulate the 'internets', isn't that doing more harm to our country than 100 al qaedas could ever hope to?
GawdMachine 5 years ago
Reggie1971 5 years ago
A PHD is not a sign of knowing it. I've had many professors who were real idiots. Theyd use circular and irrational arguments to prove their points because their pride would not allow them to consider they may be wrong. Historians are worst of all. They study only what theyve been told and rarely question the books. Take 9/11, if the government planned it, but the books say it was Osama, then future historians will "know" and teach that it was Osama when it was really the government.
vsuric 5 years ago
Why does so much conservative/Republican talk involve name-calling labels? Call it hate speech, call it what you like, but Keith's always got the right answer. He asks for the end to an useless war that is lining the pockets of war-profiteering buddies. That's a fact and everyone knows it. The label of the speech doesn't matter, whoever is speaking. The content of the speech does. Hey Newt instead of arguing that KO's a hater, how about you address the substance of his argument?
NakedWombat666 5 years ago
What argument? He basically just asserts, over and over again, in nasty name-calling terms (much like Rush Limbaugh) that the Iraq invasion was wrong, pointless, harmful, and that Bush only wants to get people killed for profit. When the same garbage was being thrown against Clinton everyone on the left could see it for what it was. Now they throw it at Bush and call it patriotism and irrefutable logic. How pathetic!
pacotheus 5 years ago
Goddamn right I'm a hater!
I hate liers, I hate manipulators, I hate profits in exchange for young American lives, I hate a war whos mission is paste a bullseye on you're forehead and try not to get killed.
There's no double standard here. Point a finder at Clinton and say 'there's a bad man' sure some people will agree, but point a finger at Bush and say the same, you'll hear the roar of thousands who agree.
Thats not double standard, thats just reality.
Norm2c 5 years ago
I think Newt is brilliant, for an evil guy. He's obviously running for President below the radar, angling for the voice of dispirited conservatives. I hope he's the nominee - I don't think the Republicans will really like their other options - McCain, Guiliani, Romney ..
Nominay 5 years ago
This is the guy who tells us we need gatekeepers for the internet. The guy who wants to regulate Free Speech. I wonder how he would feel if he were not allowed to spew his bulltweed. Does this moron know anything about American history?!
iamgr80k 5 years ago
Actually, he's *Doctor* Gingrich, with a Ph.D. in History. So, yeah, he knows. It makes the deliberate mis-statements he makes all the more glaring.
Davidkevin 5 years ago
I hope Newt holds true to his promise to run for President in '08. I've got a urinal cake saved just to attach a "Newt" button to and a case of beer on ice.
BaseballGreatTyCobb 5 years ago
Actually Newt you're not a conservative you're a ZIONIST and war mongering scum. You are far from a "conservative"
DaveIrie 5 years ago
What's really horrifying is that ANYBODY takes this man seriously. He's so blatant in his hypocrisy and hunger for personal power. What is with all these people in politics who have forgotten, or never knew, that the job of public servants is to... serve the public?
filkertom 5 years ago
Listening to Newt again is like finding a threadbare, worn out pair of socks in the back of my dresser drawer. The kind I have to throw away, not even good for polishing shoes. Come to think of it, wasn't he shit-canned some time ago?
subtlesquire 5 years ago
Newt Gingrich is still around? LOL...
WindupAtheist 5 years ago
The Republican Party hyped up Clinton's oral sex to the point that the whole world was looking in the pants of the US President. They laughed at us. Most non-Americans I spoke to thought the whole hype was ridiculous and wondered what was wrong with our country that we made such a big deal out of it.
When I discuss our current political climate with non-Americans, they wonder how any American can back Bush. In other words, most of the world is a blue state.
richpee 5 years ago
The appeal of Olbermann lies not with liberalism, but with his giving voice to the mass outrage at Bush, the proverbial truth to power that rarely gets through most of the media filters (and I'm not just talking Fox News). His ratings are so high because his views, and his righteous anger, echo that of 60% (and growing) of the nation.
Andysays 5 years ago
Well put. Plus, he doesn't rely on spurious facts for his point of view, which is the stock in trade of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, et. al.
Heraldblog 5 years ago
Newt Gingrich is irrelevant and everyone knows it but him.
aarobel 5 years ago
Newt - utter filth. Liar, no soul. Delivered zero when he had the chance and now masturbates himself to think there might be a round two. Way to go with the "Family values" there, half-wit; we all know.
beldez 5 years ago
Newt. Once a lizard...always a lizard.
handyboy2000 5 years ago
Why does it never occur to the Republicans that they get more criticism because they are wrong/deluded/stupid/fanatic/etc. more often?
peterg76yt 5 years ago
A) I don't want anything to do with a future where you rule the American Empire.
B) Truth be told, you and your party peddle fear and hate, that how you win elections, calling the other side "soft" and impliying that a vote for the opposition is a vote for the terrorist.
Question is Newt, who is speaking the truth and who speaking out of his ass?
Ralfast 5 years ago
Fuck you Newt. Slime your way back to a dying wife or under your rock... Scum
JBliss 5 years ago
Olbermann: "And also here — we have institutionalized the terrorizing of the opposition.
"True domestic terror:
"Critics of your administration in the media receive letters filled with fake anthrax.
...
"A series of reactionary columnists encourages treason charges against a newspaper that published "national security information" that was openly available on the Internet."
safuna 5 years ago
"Republicans/terrorists" comment:
""To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear."
...
"By this definition, the leading terrorist group in this world right now is al Qaeda. But the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party."
safuna 5 years ago
Olbermann is not comparable to O'Reilly. O'Reilly routinely invites guests from both sides of a particular argument. Olbermann excludes from his program virtually all opinions differing from his own. He is nothing more than propogandist for the fringe far left.
Reggie1971 5 years ago
O'Reilly then tells the people who disagree with them to shut up or just turn off their mic. He is a bully. He lies. Find something wrong Olbermann has said on his show. You can't. Olbermann is a patriot.
logan31188 5 years ago
do you really think condi or anyone from the bush admin. would go on olbermann?...really?
djpe123 5 years ago
Your question is likely moot. Olbermann seemingly has a policy against inviting conservatives on his program, so they probably couldn't get on anyway. However, I'd love to see Newt (who is about ten times smarter than Olbernut) get on the program, but I doubt Keith would have the guts to invite him.
Reggie1971 5 years ago
Olbermann is interested in civilized discourse which would explain not including "conservatives". It's a show, not a circus.
Nominay 5 years ago
So by that rationale the Lincoln-Douglas debates were a circus, because they included parties exchanging differing viewpoints, correct? What you describe as "civilized discourse" is simply Keith either having no respect for opinions other than his own, or not having the balls to defend his ideas. I think these are both the case.
Reggie1971 5 years ago
Civilized discourse and debate were different in the age that preceeded television. Hell, the way people spoke to each other 20 years ago was more like Lincoln's time than now. How far down we've come.
Nominay 5 years ago
Yes, a prime example of how far down we've come is witnessing the behavior of liberal college students at various universities when a conservative speaker is invited. Having no respect for the First Amendment or opinions different than their own, they simply disrupt the speaker instead of questioning them.
Reggie1971 5 years ago
I don't disagree with you there. I do think there is truth to their frustration, that it speaks to something larger, but in all fairness, the conservatives who speak there are full of shit too.
Nominay 5 years ago
If they really were full of shit, shouldn't these enlightened liberals be able to call them on it?
Reggie1971 5 years ago
Perhaps that is why these people don't have careers that involve public speaking. Not all liberals can have the skills of a successful lawyer, a renowned media personality, or gifted politician. They are going on emotion primarily, logic secondarily, and I often criticize them for the results of that too.
Nominay 5 years ago
I am for collecting some money for Newt so he can afford removing that nasty brain tumor which is eating away his rational faculties.
bloodyduke 5 years ago
Why didn't you do this for our current president? Or did you consider that a hopeless cause?
safuna 5 years ago
Leftist logic: "No smart/sane person could possibly disagree with me. Therefore they must be stupid and/or crazy and/or have something seriously wrong with them and/or be hateful bigots. I will not even attempt to consider the thought that they might have legitimate concerns and just call them names. Look at how compassionate/understanding I am!"
TMorrowAZ 5 years ago
Utter nonsense. "Think for yourself" is more like it, i.e. have a fact based opinion. You're just defending being a lemming taught to vote against your own best interests by a group of simple-minded con men. And you're embarrassed by how simply you were fooled. Find a set and stop being a sheep to the slaughter.
beldez 5 years ago
TMorrowAZ...You are correct. A liberal fascist will personally attack anyone who disagrees even slightly with thier agenda.
inatent 5 years ago
Anyone catch Newt's comment that "America can only survive if we impose severe curbs on freedom of speech"? If you missed it, it was delivered at an event in New Hampshire... honoring individuals who stand up for free speech.
ianbruce 5 years ago
All freedoms come with responsibilities.
TMorrowAZ 5 years ago
Yes, like kicking the village idiot out of the square and into the forest when he is drunk and a risk to others. So, get off the fountain and go grab some wood.
beldez 5 years ago
Newt: spending 7 times more dollars on the Clinton-Lewinski thing then on the 9/11 investigation.
elzosmid 5 years ago
Democrats (NOT all 'liberals, BTW) didn't murder Senator Wellstone & his family, Dems didn't murder 3000 innocent people on 9-11, Dems didn't make millions upon millions just minutes before the planes hit the towers, Libby & Krongard aren't Dems, Ari Fleischer, Perle, Cheney & Poppy Bush aren't Dems, Dems didn't send thousands of soldiers to fight for an oil pipeline to be built to the Caspian and gas lines to India...
WNanette 5 years ago
Whoa...I didn't think anybody thought Wellstone's plane was sabotaged.
safuna 5 years ago
Let me guess. You also think the moon landing was faked, and that Lyndon Johnson had JFK assassinated, right?
Reggie1971 5 years ago
Mossad owns you
DaveIrie 5 years ago
Olbermann is a liberal response to O'Reilly. If Newt Gingrich wants to end "hate speech", he should look there first.
jessedstrom 5 years ago
LOL - talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Who questioned the Americanism of other members of congress, and started a multi decade tidal wave of conservative hate speech and naysaying? None other than Newt.
geigy 5 years ago
"The purveyors of hate speech are always out of bounds" because hate speech isn't an argument, it's manipulation through fear. But please distinguish that from people who hate you, even if they're on TV explaining why.
unorthodoxJeremy 5 years ago
Is this the same Newt that had his 1st wife served with divorce papers while she was undergoing chemo for cancer... stiffed her for child support... then tried to hide assets from the divorce court by putting them in the name of his girlfriend/"personal assistant"?
ianbruce 5 years ago
Hey, ianbruce, none of that "hate speech."
safuna 5 years ago
No, it's actions, which are louder than words last time I checked. Fuck Newt Gingrich
DaveIrie 5 years ago
I've found the transcripts which Gingrich uses as examples of Olbermann's "hate speech," and will post longer excerpts to provide some context.
cluelessxpanda 5 years ago
Sorry, they're too long, only can post very short messages.
safuna 5 years ago
Stuff it Newt. You're a hypocritical slime bag
GTelles 5 years ago
The condemnation of Clinton criticism as "hate speech" was an obscure phrase used by a handful of pundits. I call Newt's criticism of Clinton's ethics "Hypocrisy Speech". He abandoned his 1st wife while she recuperated from cancer in a hospital. Divorced his 2nd wife because he was caught schtooping a House aide. Conspired to misrepresent multiple ethics violations. Olbermann '08!!
katetbetrue 5 years ago
I wonder if a user or a Gingrich staffer could give me the dates of the Olbermann/Countdown soundbites he quoted.
cluelessxpanda 5 years ago
It was Nov. 30 2006
CherryIce1114 5 years ago
I disagree. I think it's great that Newt is going directly on YouTube to state his views, as much as I disagree with almost all of them. The more politicians use the internet, the less TV time they need to buy, and that's where most of the corruption lies.
Now I do think Gingrich should have open and acknowledged that Olbermann criticized him harshly over his plan to restrict free speech in the name of security against terrorism. This must have been a reason for this criticism of Olbermann.
cluelessxpanda 5 years ago
give it up Newt..you are old news, a has-been going nowhere.
LiarsFoolsFanatics 5 years ago
And guess what...Olbermann is correct. Who is the hater? The people that don't want to save people from disease by using stem cells that wind up in the garbage can. Garbage can or research facility...intelligent people say send the cells to be researched and ignorant uninformed people say throw them in he trash. How can it be smart to waste these cells as we do when so many millions can be helped by them?
joewo 5 years ago
i like olbermann because I just like the fact that he speaks his mind and he (to me) is telling the truth. not a big fan of gingrich.
greekak229 5 years ago
Oh I see. Olbermann uses hate speech; Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, O'Reilly, Savage, Gibson don't.
safuna 5 years ago
Talk about "double standards," Newt.
safuna 5 years ago