Thinks Obama's knees are too sharp.

damn that reminds me he was back on last night on HBO.

*goes to d/l the show*

Hobodeluxe: damn that reminds me he was back on last night on HBO.

*goes to d/l the show*

where do you download it? i like maher, but i don't have hbo. would like to start watching his show though.

/i had a cathart

burndtdan: where do you download it? i like maher, but i don't have hbo. would like to start watching his show though.

I've seen websites where there are bits to rent.

also, what is the problem with chris matthews saying obama inspires him? i see fox news creaming themselves over mccain being a POW all the time, in no uncertain terms, and i don't see newsbusters busting them for it.

when watching an opinion show, expect to hear their opinion. if you don't like their opinion, turn it off. the market will take care of the rest.

because Bill Maher never has an opinion on anything?

burndtdan: also, what is the problem with chris matthews saying obama inspires him?

My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often.

I think it's good that Obama can get him excited. He's like an all-natural alternative to Viagra.

cousin-merle: burndtdan: also, what is the problem with chris matthews saying obama inspires him?

My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often.

I think it's good that Obama can get him excited. He's like an all-natural alternative to Viagra.

i just don't see a problem with it. if he has that opinion, and it will influence his editorializing about the subject, i'd rather he were open and honest about it. and after all, his is a pundit show; they discuss the news, they don't report it.

burndtdan: i just don't see a problem with it. if he has that opinion, and it will influence his editorializing about the subject, i'd rather he were open and honest about it. and after all, his is a pundit show; they discuss the news, they don't report it.

I don't care either, it just makes me feel dirty to think about Chris Matthews' tingle.

And Olbermann would probably just give you a stern look and call you "sir" the entire time you were doing it.

cousin-merle: I think it's good that Obama can get him excited. He's like an all-natural alternative to Viagra.

In fairness, Matthews is a equal opportunity man-crusher:

"Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West." Linky (new window)

Matthews and Olbermann are not reporters.

BladBoy: cousin-merle: I think it's good that Obama can get him excited. He's like an all-natural alternative to Viagra.

In fairness, Matthews is a equal opportunity man-crusher:

"Here's a president who's really nonverbal. He's like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West." Linky (new window)

see... matthews isn't biased, matthews is an idiot. there's a difference.

/he really doesn't have very many good opinions
/but he is good at busting the balls of mindless nutjobs

robsul82: Matthews and Olbermann are not reporters.

Real reporter:

cousin-merle: burndtdan: where do you download it? i like maher, but i don't have hbo. would like to start watching his show though.

I've seen websites where there are bits to rent.

i just found his free podcast with itunes, so that will work nicely.

cousin-merle: robsul82: Matthews and Olbermann are not reporters.

Real reporter:

that i think is my favorite mostly unnoticed part of her biography. that picture cracks me up.

burndtdan: cousin-merle: robsul82: Matthews and Olbermann are not reporters.

Real reporter:

that i think is my favorite mostly unnoticed part of her biography. that picture cracks me up.

Definitely. 80s Jersey mall hair on someone with whom McCain wants to entrust the presidency, quite amusing.

Olbermann used to be able to stay more or less objective. He would definitely hit Bush & Co. hard because they deserve it but he would also smack the Dems when they deserve it. He has now lost all objectivity.

He let Obama slide on FISA when he would have nailed Clinton to the had she done the same thing. He's rapidly becoming what so many have accused him of for so many years, a left-wing version of O'Reilly.

CravenMorehead: He's rapidly becoming what so many have accused him of for so many years, a left-wing version of O'Reilly.

While agree that he's definitely less objective now than in the past, he's nowhere near O'Reilly. Not even close.

O'Reilly is psychotic.

PoopStain: That said, Obama seems to have given Matthews a jizz session. If a candidate makes you orgasm, you might have a worship problem. You might also be farking retarded.

"Giving you a thrill/shiver" doesn't mean "giving you an orgasm". That exaggeration is just what's been applied by Maher in this case.

There's nothing wrong with being inspired, and there's nothing wrong with powerful words physically moving you. Maher is just too cynical to be able to appreciate genuine feeling in someone else.

PoopStain: burndtdan: his is a pundit show; they discuss the news, they don't report it.

Remember that the next time some retarded ass cites Bill O'Reilly as proof Fox News is biased.

here's the rub on that argument.

i have no problem with o'reilly expressing his opinion, and most don't. no one questions whether o'reilly is biased. the problem he has isn't his opinion, it's his representation of the facts that he uses to explain that opinion. every man is entitled to his own opinion, not his own facts.

chris matthews says "i was inspired." to be like o'reilly, he would have to have said "i was inspired, because obama flew in on pegasus and shot lasers from his eyes." see the difference?

o'reilly thinks we did the right thing in iraq? sure, whatever, he's an idiot, but that's his opinion. o'reilly says we "didn't invade" iraq? that's lying.

PoopStain: I see that you excuse one pundit that agrees with you and not another that doesn't agree you. You are going on the list.

[snip]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you because of the jizz you are spunking in my ear. I'm not giving you an award for fellating Obama. Go sell your shiat somewhere else.

Ah okay, so you're retarded then. No problem - just good to know. Since you should always be nice to the handicapped I won't make fun of you.

burndtdan: i have no problem with o'reilly expressing his opinion, and most don't. no one questions whether o'reilly is biased. the problem he has isn't his opinion, it's his representation of the facts that he uses to explain that opinion. every man is entitled to his own opinion, not his own facts.

chris matthews says "i was inspired." to be like o'reilly, he would have to have said "i was inspired, because obama flew in on pegasus and shot lasers from his eyes." see the difference?

o'reilly thinks we did the right thing in iraq? sure, whatever, he's an idiot, but that's his opinion. o'reilly says we "didn't invade" iraq? that's lying.

Also, O'Reilly insists he isn't biased and has no opinions.

PoopStain: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you because of the jizz you are spunking in my ear. I'm not giving you an award for fellating Obama. Go sell your shiat somewhere else.

Dude. Grow up.

PoopStain: I see that you excuse one pundit that agrees with you and not another that doesn't agree you.

rather presumptuous of you. i rarely agree with chris matthews. but it's clear you don't understand matters of opinion vs. matters of fact.

You are going on the list.

PoopStain: See above, cockstain.

Cockstain?

Wow. You really showed me.

PoopStain: See above, cockstain. I'm not apologizing for seeing Obama as a better but flawed choice in this election. He's not the second coming of Jesus. You should probably look at yourself and try to figure out why you have such an attachment to a political figure in the first place.

Psst...I think he was talking about your fixation with bodily fluids and their resultant stains. Can you make fart noises with your armpits too?

PoopStain: Indeed. Go read some more second-rate hack philosophy and pretend it makes you smart.

You amuse me. Keep posting.

Lionel Mandrake: PoopStain: Indeed. Go read some more second-rate hack philosophy and pretend it makes you smart.

You amuse me. Keep posting.

careful dude, or he'll put you on "the list".

burndtdan: careful dude, or he'll put you on "the list".

I just hope he doesn't have my IP address...

This could be a strategy. It did, afterall, work for FOX last two elections.

/just sayin'

John Paul Jones: CravenMorehead: He's rapidly becoming what so many have accused him of for so many years, a left-wing version of O'Reilly.

While agree that he's definitely less objective now than in the past, he's nowhere near O'Reilly. Not even close.

O'Reilly is psychotic.

Agreed. He's not there yet. But he's on his way. Everything McCain does get slammed by him and everything Obama does is the result of his perfection.

Objectivity gone. Blind support for his candidate at all times.

McStinky: This could be a strategy. It did, afterall, work for FOX last two elections.

/just sayin'

in all honesty, if it were a strategy, it would be an intelligent one. the mood of the electorate is shifting.

however, i think any gain of liberal bias on msnbc is in response to what gets them ratings, not some corporate strategy. it is, in that regard, the free market at work.

burndtdan: McStinky: This could be a strategy. It did, afterall, work for FOX last two elections.

/just sayin'

in all honesty, if it were a strategy, it would be an intelligent one. the mood of the electorate is shifting.

however, i think any gain of liberal bias on msnbc is in response to what gets them ratings, not some corporate strategy. it is, in that regard, the free market at work.

True. If I were the heads at MSNBC, I'd worry about losing my base by outright favoring Obama. It doesn't sit well with me, that's for sure.

PoopStain: Lionel Mandrake: You amuse me. Keep posting.

burndtdan: careful dude, or he'll put you on "the list".

My God, you two just gave me at least two minutes of laugh out loud goodness. Onto the favorites list you go!

cousin-merle: Psst...I think he was talking about your fixation with bodily fluids and their resultant stains. Can you make fart noises with your armpits too?

Not you. I didn't laugh. Try harder.

OK, now I'm just confused....more so than usual.

This thread makes as much sense as this picture:



/and the liters aren't even here yet.

McStinky: True. If I were the heads at MSNBC, I'd worry about losing my base by outright favoring Obama. It doesn't sit well with me, that's for sure.

i think you're not looking at the whole picture. look at the entire market. of the big three cable news channels, one is totally unabashedly in the tank for republicans, and is still in business. one is not in the tank for either camp necessarily, but does everything in their power still to invent controversy on obama for the ratings, and they're still on the air.

that tells me two things. one, they are not at risk of losing their audience by giving that audience what it seems to want. and second, as much as i prefer objective reporting, i also understand the dangers of having one side of the political equation have a monopoly on biased media.

the result is that people like george w. bush get elected and we march gladly to a pointless war, because there was no one there to demand we take a second look at what's happening. so in that sense, i don't see the inherent evil of them being biased toward obama. god farking knows there is enough media biased toward mccain, and if those are going to be the terms of the game, if that's the field they are playing on, it would be remiss of obama to not to have a game there. it's the mistake the democrats have been making for more than 20 years, and why every democratic candidate since carter has been painted in exactly the same mold in the media.

Are you kidding? I would have broken his pelvis hitting that.

John Paul Jones: While agree that he's definitely less objective now than in the past, he's nowhere near O'Reilly. Not even close.

O'Reilly is psychotic.

O'Reilly has more or less defended Obama on a few issues.

Olbermann does no such thing for McCain.

This Bill Maher? Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death Bill Maher?



His relevance is practically that of a Dennis Miller.

Frank N Stein: John Paul Jones: While agree that he's definitely less objective now than in the past, he's nowhere near O'Reilly. Not even close.

O'Reilly is psychotic.

O'Reilly has more or less defended Obama on a few issues.

Olbermann does no such thing for McCain.

True. He may do it tongue-in-cheek, but at least he does try.

cousin-merle: robsul82: Matthews and Olbermann are not reporters.

Real reporter:

OH SNAP, son!

vegaswench: True. He may do it tongue-in-cheek, but at least he does try.

Yeah. I used to like Olbermann. Up until his Special Commentary™ on the Heller ruling in which he made several bold face lies.

lol

burndtdan: McStinky: True. If I were the heads at MSNBC, I'd worry about losing my base by outright favoring Obama. It doesn't sit well with me, that's for sure.

i think you're not looking at the whole picture. look at the entire market. of the big three cable news channels, one is totally unabashedly in the tank for republicans, and is still in business. one is not in the tank for either camp necessarily, but does everything in their power still to invent controversy on obama for the ratings, and they're still on the air.

that tells me two things. one, they are not at risk of losing their audience by giving that audience what it seems to want. and second, as much as i prefer objective reporting, i also understand the dangers of having one side of the political equation have a monopoly on biased media.

the result is that people like george w. bush get elected and we march gladly to a pointless war, because there was no one there to demand we take a second look at what's happening. so in that sense, i don't see the inherent evil of them being biased toward obama. god farking knows there is enough media biased toward mccain, and if those are going to be the terms of the game, if that's the field they are playing on, it would be remiss of obama to not to have a game there. it's the mistake the democrats have been making for more than 20 years, and why every democratic candidate since carter has been painted in exactly the same mold in the media.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

vegaswench: True. He may do it tongue-in-cheek, but at least he does try

Not so much tongue-in-cheek sometimes. I remember him specifically defending Obama when people were charging him with plagiarizing his speeches.

They should call this guy Barack Oboner.

burndtdan: Hobodeluxe: damn that reminds me he was back on last night on HBO.

*goes to d/l the show*

where do you download it? i like maher, but i don't have hbo. would like to start watching his show though.

/i had a cathart

youtube

cousin-merle: robsul82: Matthews and Olbermann are not reporters.

Real reporter:

funny, but that's an anchor

A very astute observation , but I'm surprised he said it on air and even more surprised it stayed in.

Must be his ratings need pumping up.

Michael Moore who also needs ink I suppose. He said he thought a hurricane striking the coast was a good thing to happen during the Republican convention and that there must be a God.
Very good Michael , I in turn hope the souls of the departed from the storms wrath come visit you.

Whats wrong you couldn't find anyone to bankroll your stay in St Paul so you have to pay to stay during the delayed events.
Most of the principal speakers have already canceled and even McCain said it likely would be delayed.
Taking pleasure from folks misery is very mean spirited.

larry00: Taking pleasure from folks misery is very mean spirited.

It happens. If Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the rest of the deserving all died horribly today, I would feel bad for their families, but I would be overjoyed in every other way. I'm sure Michael Moore means the same thing. Sort of a targeted celebration of a disaster.