I am against any woman calling another woman stupid. You are not furthering our gender when you do that.

How can O’Reilly censor Nielsen? He doesn’t have the weight of the Federal government to send after them.

O’Reilly is talking about Nielsen perpetrating fraud in collusion with liberal-leaning networks. The limit of O’Reilly’s stated involvement is asking for more details as to why the ratings are swinging so drastically in the past few weeks (Olbermann’s snide dismissal of “you suck,” which so utterly lacks the insight to which he aspires, aside).

Personally I believe O’Reilly is devoting too much airtime worrying about the ratings, as he’s giving the “guttersnipe at MSNBC” too much fodder. The ratings swing seems to coincide with election interest and nothing more.

But even so, Olbermann, who often is so guilty of the very things he accuses others of doing (making his comments about “projection” a few months ago all the more ironic), still manages to misquote O’Reilly to further his ill-conceived points. The other night, he combined a quote about DVRs and home viewership, leaving out several sentences to create a quote that doesn’t make any sense, and a situation any fair-minded viewer could easily reject. The SNL parody of his Ego-ness was dead on.

Not that O’Reilly couldn’t be accused of the same thing on occasion. But from my experience watching both shows, such tactics are a matter of course with KO, while O’Reilly for the most part preserves the context of the statements. Even the Barney Frank confrontation bears this out. Frank tried to say O’Reilly misquoted him because he left out parts of the statement. But the full context, which O’Reilly read anyway, didn’t help Frank, who then denying saying words he clearly said.

The difference between O’Reilly’s Nielsen comments and actual censorship is that Obama would use the apparatus of government to attempt to rein in free-thinking conservative ideas, and silence anyone who would speak against his policies. Obama has stated as much when he talks about Fox News costing him 3 percentage points in the polls, and when his Democrat comrades bring up the Fairness doctrine.

If Liberals were attracting such a huge audience, why does Air America radio do so poorly in the ratings.

Also, don’t assume all viewers of Olbermann and The Daily Show are hardcore leftists. Well, most Olbermann viewers probably are, although some conservatives like to tune in to get a sense of what the opposition is saying, and to find a source of righteous indignation.

The Daily Show however is a comedy show, and even conservatives find it funny. The show picks on both sides and the Republicans have gotten the brunt of the attacks since they have been in power most of the past 8 years. The Daily Show and Colbert will be much better off under an Obama/Pelosi administration than Olbermann will be.

But every few years the hardcore Liberals have managed to hijack the system from within, making it look as if Republican policies are at fault when very often the opposite is true. Voters don’t know the difference.

You talk about uneducated people driving policy. The ones who drive policy are the American electorate. Do you even understand the core principals of our country? The scary thing is that Democrats rely more on the rank uneducated than anyone. Without the votes of people who lack basic common sense, who buy in to the Dem’s constant victimization of class and race, where would Democrats be? You’re black? You’re a victim. Vote for us. You’re a woman? You’re a victim. Vote for us? You don’t have the skills to compete in the job market? You’re a victim. Vote for us? That’s the scary thing. This encouragement of complacency in the workforce, while encouraging activity in politics. Nothing demonstrates this more than Obama’s call for people to ditch work and school for Election day to volunteer for him. What an ego! Symbolism over substance to the extreme.

Oh, and Hannity and Limbaugh and conservative talk radio didn’t pick the leader of the party, which I guess is McCain for the time being. Conservatives don’t really like McCain. He won a wave of popular support thanks to measured support from news outlets with whom he’s always enjoyed a cordial relationship. The New York Times supported him for the nomination, which should have been a sign of trouble. Once he got the nomination, they turned on him, as was so predictable.

Please back up this paranoid claims you are making about right to privacy and habeas corpas. When did these get thrown out the window? Are you talking about abortion and anti-terror tactics?

It seems to me one of the biggest streams of venom is the claim that pro life people are somehow against the right to choose, or are against privacy. That is such a loaded statement, and so untrue. It utterly dismisses the notion that someone else can have a legitimate philosophical difference with you. In this case, the personhood of the fetus. If the fetus is considered a person, it’s no longer a question of privacy. I doubt you would argue that someone has the right to murder someone else in the privacy of their own home. Is that also a choice? Why do hardcore liberals feel the need to call someone a monster because they believe in giving innocent life a chance to flourish?

Please note that I don’t necessarily support the pro-life position. I’m just against the demonizing of it from the pro-choice side.

As for habeas corpas, well, even Abe Lincoln recognized the need to suspend such rights in extreme circumstances. But what is going on now is a far cry from that. If you do not support weeding out terrorists seeking to destroy our government, then by all means, believe your silly conspiracy theories and vote against the Republicans.

So I’ll leave you with this reminder from the constitution. Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

Can you believe a bunch of almost illerates determined who is appointed to the supreme court who is going to be the leader of the Rethug party etc. These people are barely literate … dont know much about the constitution, laws, principles and fundamentals of our civilized society …. the core of our democracy. No wonder they find it so easy to trash the Habeas Corpus.

What is happening to our country that we consider venom spewers the ppl who direct our policy rather than intellects. Dont we want the best for our country or do we want direction from ppl who could barely make it past high school but are good at talking crap.

Arresting Hannity and O’Reilly for treason is probably the 1st way to restore our freedoms by getting rid of venom spewing freedom hating propogandists. They helped push for the end of Habeus Corpus … dont you think that is the most scared and treasonous act and they should be severely punished for that!

Fab, if all KO will have to talk about after the election are the host of other shows, he will lose his audience very quickly. Most people do not tune in to see them complain about other host. That subject really only matters to the few of us and a small amount of people.

One last point to everyone excited about the idea the democrates will pass something to stop or regulate Fox News. If they can do that what is next? Regulate all stories, TV, Paper, Radio? The next thing you know we will have someone watching this site to delete anything negative about their man. Followed by arresting them in the night never to be seen again. That may be a little far fetched, but remember the old saying about “give someone an inch and they will take a mile”.

That is exactly right, Colbert and Stewart are sapping the liberal watchers, but add the ratings up for for both Colber and Stewart versus Beck of headline news and O’reilly primary time shows, you see the reality is liberals bring in more viewers, night in and night out. Now CNN main, is still trying to fine an identity, they seem to still want to be the most TRUSTED SOURCE, but they can’t help themselves they pander to whatever is hot at the time.

Just one other comment, I am long time KO watcher, but I do believe there is an Obama bias, not a liberal bias in the news. Speaking as a Hilliary Clinton supportor, I know this for a fact. KO was the worst of them all. I hated his guts, he was completely unfair, when I thought he would have a level head in reporting the news, with some balance he did no such a thing. (In fact only Abrams gave Hillary a bit of fair time) I of course tuned out untill after the DNC. But I am sure KO will probably piss me off again, because he will show not a famous liberal bias rather he will show a complete irrational expectations for Obama. Infact he might be a bigger hater of the Obama than O’reilly every was.

Also, if anyone say KO Friday night, Mr. Olbermann totally misquoted O’Reilly. He left a huge portion of a quote about the DVR stats out, and then made fun of O’Reilly over the falsified quote. This is totally disingenuous and Olbermann should be ashamed of himself. Except that he’s not. His ego is to big. Instead, he brought in John Cleese (a British citizen, so let’s all take his word on our election) to basically call O’Reilly a … well, I don’t want to type it, but it starts with ‘c’ and rhymes with ‘punt.’

Really classy there, Olbermann.

O’Reilly, meanwhile, was busy expressing no preference for president (let’s see Olbermann try that with a straight face) and even defended Obama against some claims by Victoria Jackson, who came across as pretty airheaded.

I think the most vigorously Olbermann has defended McCain’s campaign is when he named the guy who hung the Sarah Palin effigy as WPITW. Probably because to not do so would just be too wrong. So at least he got that one right.

Once the election is over, it will be interesting to see Olbermann’s ratings, since if Obama wins there won’t be much reason to watch him anymore.

At this point the best thing that could happen to Olbermann is for McCain to win. then he could continue his yallow journalist attacks and be the crusader for the left he so strives to be (even Cleese thanked him for doing so).

But if McCain somehow wins, then Olbermann might shoot himself. And then everybody wins.

Overall, O’Reilly continues to beat Olbermann HANDILY. However, Olbermann may just be the new king of the 25-54 market.

That said with Olbermann now consistently beating Bill Orally in the key demo and thus having higher ad rates than Faux Noise should Roger Ailes retire Billo the Clown into the geezer demo of his show?

This should be super fun to watch once Obama becomes President.

Though I find her somewhat shrill and more annoying in presentation than Olbermann, Maddow to her credit at least has more of a veneer of a news broadcast, and at least presents opposition opinions in addition to her own.

O’Reilly will probably be just fine. He is positioned as more of a watchdog. Considering the degree he has bashed the Bush administration over the bailout mess (though he supposedly just reads Republican talking points, according to the close-minded Olbermann), I don’t think O’Reilly will have any trouble finding fodder in an Obama/Pelosi administration. In fact, he might pick up more Republican viewers who will be increasingly turned off by other media outlets.

That is, of course, Obama is actually able to suppress the free voice of the press and censor any coverage of news that doesn’t cast him in the best possible light.

He also said at one point Nielsen credited him with having more homes watching than actual viewers, which is counterintuitive. And interesting if true.

His continued ranting about the ratings is a bit misguided and provides fodder for Olbermann. But those specific examples, if true, do seem to provide some context for his questions.

Whoot to KO and RM!