Well, that didn’t take long!

If there’s one thing that Keith Olbermann could do, it was attract viewers. That’s usually the golden armor for any broadcaster: you have to have behaved almost intolerably badly to get a network to fire you if you attract an audience, but that’s what MSNBC did to Mr Olbermann, despite his show being MSNBC’s biggest ratings success. Before that, he had been fired from ESPN and Fox Sports.

But, Mr Olbermann landed on his feet, and was hired by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Al Gore’s Current TV network.


Keith Olbermann Fired From Current TV

Olbermann’s program will be replaced by “Viewpoint With Eliot Spitzer.”

Current has terminated its relationship with Keith Olbermann nearly one year after he joined the network.

Network founders Al Gore and Joel Hyatt issued a letter announcing the termination. Read below.

To the Viewers of Current:





We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before.





Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it. 



We are moving ahead by honoring Current’s values. Current has a fundamental obligation to deliver news programming with a progressive perspective that our viewers can count on being available daily — especially now, during the presidential election campaign. Current exists because our audience desires the kind of perspective, insight and commentary that is not easily found elsewhere in this time of big media consolidation. 





As we move toward this summer’s political conventions and the general election in the fall, Current is making significant new additions to our broadcasts. We have just debuted six hours of new programming each weekday with Bill Press (“Full Court Press, at 6 am ET/3 am PT) and Stephanie Miller (“Talking Liberally,” at 9 am ET/6 pm PT). 



We’re very excited to announce that beginning tonight, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer will host “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer,” at 8 pm ET/5 pm PT. Eliot is a veteran public servant and an astute observer of the issues of the day. He has important opinions and insights and he relishes the kind of constructive discourse that our viewers will appreciate this election year. We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Governor Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis.
 



All of these additions to Current’s lineup are aimed at achieving one simple goal — the goal that has always been central to Current’s mission: To tell stories no one else will tell, to speak truth to power, and to influence the conversation of democracy on behalf of those whose voice is too seldom heard. We, and everyone at Current, want to thank our viewers for their continued steadfast support.





Sincerely,




Al Gore & Joel Hyatt


Current’s Founders

If you are a fairly strong ratings getter, but you keep getting fired from everyplace you work, maybe it’s not them; maybe it’s you who is the problem. When your bosses say, in public, “Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it,” you really are a problem. If you get fired from a network nobody watches, to be replaced by Eliot Spitzer, you really, really! are a problem. :)

Mr Olbermann used to a “worst person in the world” segment when he was on MSNBC; perhaps it’s karmic justice that he should actually have been looking in the mirror when he was doing it.

92 Comments

  1. The line of the day goes to Aaron Worthing:

    His viewer must be devastated.

    Mr Worthing also has Mr Olbermann’s response, and it is unsurprising that Mr Olbermann is threatening to sue. Of course, suing the guys who canned you pretty much tells anyone else who is even thinking about hiring you that he, too, could get sued, and that maybe it’s just wiser not to hire you. Mr Olbermann is smart enough to know this, which means he’s also smart enough to know that there’s just nothing left for him in broadcasting right now.

    In the meantime, Rush Limbaugh’s ratings have increased. :)

  2. Ed:
    Mr Olbermann is smart enough to know this, which means he’s also smart enough to know that there’s just nothing left for him in broadcasting right now.

    There’s still openings – sweep the floor, empty the trash cans, hold the cue cards, get coffee, and most of all, he could ask Algore for a job as a yes man to just agree with Algore.

  3. Yorkshire wrote:

    There’s still openings – sweep the floor, empty the trash cans, hold the cue cards, get coffee, and most of all, he could ask Algore for a job as a yes man to just agree with Algore.

    Yeah, but he could get Wagonwheel to do that for a lot less, and far less danger that he’d sue.

  4. “Truth be told, Limbaugh said: “

    Oh please, does Limpy ever tell the truth? I’ve yet to hear it from him!

    Moreover, a careful reading of this report does not indicate from when Limpy’s ratings have improved, probably from his recent low. How do his ratings compare to where they were before the Flukke kerfuffle?

    I find it telling that none of the Limbaugh acolytes on here, like Yorkshire and Mr Editor, never, never cite anything this monster pontificates. And why is that? In their hearts they know that Limbaugh is a propagandist, just like Mr Hitchcock is, therefore neither can ever be accused of telling the truth.

    Limbaugh is an embarrassment to our nation, just like Hitchcock is to the more normal others on this blog, make no mistake about that! “Excellence in Broadcasting” and “Truth Before Dishonor”: Give me a break!!!

  5. Limbaugh is an embarrassment to our nation, just like Hitchcock is to the more normal others on this blog, make no mistake about that!

    Coming from someone who has claimed to actually be to the Left of Obama, from someone who routinely calls various Conservatives liars and doesn’t have the cajones to admit when he was wrong about that, after being given lots of proof repeatedly, that’s about as big a compliment as I could get. To be called a small-scale equivalent to Limbaugh is an ultimate achievement. I only wish it were so.

  6. SINP writes

    Limbaugh is an embarrassment to our nation, just like Hitchcock is to the more normal others on this blog, make no mistake about that! “Excellence in Broadcasting” and “Truth Before Dishonor”: Give me a break!!!

    Give me a break? How about “Bridging the Gap” whose very title is a blatant lie, and which garners perhaps up to four visitors daily? Or, what about someone who was suspended from this blog due to the perpetual need to threaten others merely for disagreeing with him and/or engaging in behavior which he himself regularly engages?

    Are they embarrassments?

  7. I stand by this statement:

    “Limbaugh is an embarrassment to our nation, just like Hitchcock is to the more normal others on this blog, make no mistake about that! “Excellence in Broadcasting” and “Truth Before Dishonor”: Give me a break!!!”

    Stupidly, koolo thinks that moving the goal posts, or attempting to construct a moral equivalence, somehow negates my comment on Limbaugh and Hitchcock. It definitely does not. In fact, koolo’s refusal to address my comment in itself exhibits not only stupidity, but also weakness, as is usual for him/her!

  8. SINP writes

    Stupidly, koolo thinks that moving the goal posts, or attempting to construct a moral equivalence, somehow negates my comment on Limbaugh and Hitchcock. It definitely does not. In fact, koolo’s refusal to address my comment in itself exhibits not only stupidity, but also weakness, as is usual for him/her!

    If stupidity is pointing out that your own actions/words are simply no better than either Limbaugh’s or Hitchcock’s, then by all means call me “stupid.” Fortunately, people with full-sized brains know that you’re simply full of it.

    Your comment is negated precisely because you are no better than those you mention. It is yet another example of your unbridled hypocrisy, and penchant for applying standards to everyone but yourself. Not only are you disgustingly unappreciative (of the Editor), but you’re exceedingly irrational.

  9. It became obvious to me rather quickly over on CSPT that Wagonwheel was not all that tightly wound, nor were his positions rooted in any form of factual basis, so I have never been all that concerned about Wagonwheel’s opinion of me. His opinions of people and his trashing of people can best be likened to a foreign air force consisting of 5 Kates mocking our Raptors and claiming the Kates are far more effective than the Raptors.

    Japanese

    versus

    USAF F-22

  10. More of your character weaknesses and deficiencies here, koolo, not to mention that you have brought Limbaugh’s and Hitchcock’s outpourings down to mine whom you criticize at every opportunity. Hilarious!!!

    “If stupidity is pointing out that your own actions/words are simply no better than either Limbaugh’s or Hitchcock’s, then by all means call me “stupid.” Fortunately, people with full-sized brains know that you’re simply full of it.

    Your comment is negated precisely because you are no better than those you mention. It is yet another example of your unbridled hypocrisy, and penchant for applying standards to everyone but yourself. Not only are you disgustingly unappreciative (of the Editor), but you’re exceedingly irrational.”

    You know what, koolo, if you and Mr Hitchcock really believed the fictions that you write about me, then you would ignore me completely and go about your propagandizing. But neither of you do this, which is mighty telling about you two, not to mention that both of you drag the quality of this blog downhill every day, helped lately by our Editor himself. Now that is really hilarious! :) :) :)

  11. SINP writes

    More of your character weaknesses and deficiencies here, koolo, not to mention that you have brought Limbaugh’s and Hitchcock’s outpourings down to mine whom you criticize at every opportunity.

    You said precisely there — I “have brought Limbaugh’s and Hitchcock’s outpourings down to” yours. My apologies to both Limbaugh and Hitchcock!

    You know what, koolo, if you and Mr Hitchcock really believed the fictions that you write about me, then you would ignore me completely and go about your propagandizing. But neither of you do this, which is mighty telling about you two, not to mention that both of you drag the quality of this blog downhill every day, helped lately by our Editor himself.

    To quoteth SINP: “But I feel the need to push back.” Or, to put it another way: This is yet another example of you wanting standards applied to everyone but yourself.

    Who “drags” the blog down further — people like Hitchcock and myself, or people like you — who was suspended due to continued attacks, outright lying, inferring illegal activity by someone else on here, and threatening others?

  12. You know what drags the quality of a blog down? Allowing someone who threatens other people to comment on that blog.

    You know what drags the quality of a blog down even further? Giving that person admin authority on the blog.

    But I do appreciate your hard work in showing the world an excellent example of a passive-aggressive personality in action. You’re the poster child of Passive-Aggressive, Wagonwheel. And that much should be obvious to just about everyone. But that tactic won’t go very far in helping you to “Win friends and influence people”. Nor will it help you to draw people to your dishonorably named and vacuous (and nearly reader-less) blog site paid for by the largess of someone far better than you, in every way.

  13. “Who “drags” the blog down further — people like Hitchcock and myself, or people like you — who was suspended due to continued attacks, outright lying, inferring illegal activity by someone else on here, and threatening others?”

    Aside from this being a false statement, koolo, you have just made my point, again. You have become obsessed with my posts, so that in spite of all your criticism of me, you continue to respond, which makes you a profound liar, and me hardly an opinion to be ignored on here. Now that IS the truth, you blatant hypocrite and liar, koolo!

    Now let us see if you have the self-discipline to not respond to this post from someone you truly loathe, koolo, or will your standards continue in absentia.

  14. “….. or will your standards continue in absentia.”

    Where the hell is abstentia? Is that a Canadian provence? 8-) (insert smiley face here).(did Ys)

  15. I see Wagonwheel has forgotten his meds again today. The man who got suspended due to his threatening behavior is definitely showing very clear narcissistic traits that, when combined with his passive-aggressive traits, prevents him from being able to provide any sound, logical rebuttals.

    But we already knew that.

  16. SINP writes

    Aside from this being a false statement, koolo, you have just made my point, again.

    You don’t have a point, SINP. And it’s not a false statement. It’s all on record.

    You have become obsessed with my posts, so that in spite of all your criticism of me, you continue to respond, which makes you a profound liar, and me hardly an opinion to be ignored on here.

    Spare us the self-flattery. Aside from the ridiculous, non-sensical run-on sentence, the fact of the matter is that I am engaging in precisely the activity you yourself stated you engage in — that of “push back.” I am “pushing back” at your utter nonsense. Are you “obsessed” with my posts? Hitchcock’s? Yorshire’s? You sure seem to respond to them a lot.

    Once again, you are caught in a web of your own making, SINP. You hate it when we point out your hypocrisy, your inconsistencies, and your outright lying. And when that hate builds to a fever pitch, you lash out — in the ways I noted in my previous comment.

  17. The threatening behavior was in the eyes of a hyperventilating beholder who suddenly realized that he could be in trouble, therefore better to launch an overwhelming offensive, to which our Editor succumbed. It was as simple as that!

    And this criticism coming from one who is obviously unhinged, poor fellow!

  18. Like I said, koolo is obsessed, can’t resist responding, thus has no self-discipline whatsoever. And he says he is a school teacher too!

    Now it’s a run-on sentence which has rumpled koolo’s shorts. Too much. And obviously you don’t know what constitutes a run-on sentence. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren’t you koolo.

    So now his latest excuse is to push back. Please, koolo, is this your best?

    Therefore, the hypocrisy, the inconsistencies, the outright lies are on you, koolo. I understand the thinking: Agree with me, or you are a liar. Time to go play in your sand box, koolo, and let the adults on here debate the issues!

  19. SINP writes

    So now his latest excuse is to push back. Please, koolo, is this your best?

    It’s an insult now to say I’m “pushing back?” They’re your own words!

    Please have the nurse bring your meds, SINP … and pronto. You definitely have one big screw loose.

  20. The threatening behavior was in the eyes of a hyperventilating beholder who suddenly realized that he could be in trouble, therefore better to launch an overwhelming offensive, to which our Editor succumbed. It was as simple as that!

    Of course. It’s the victim’s fault now, as well as the Editor’s. Once again you show what a disgustingly unappreciative “person” you are, SINP. Not to mention an absolute snake.

  21. For the record, while Wagonwheel was nonsensically arguing that he threatened nobody, the Editor stated very clearly that the Editor’s standards are final on this site, and by the Editor’s standards, Wagonwheel was very clearly engaging in threatening attacks against other commenters here, and the Editor absolutely declared that sort of threatening behavior to be off-limits. But Wagonwheel continued apace, to get himself suspended for 2 weeks — with nobody to blame but himself. But that doesn’t change the fact that Wagonwheel has refused to be reticent, has refused to accept responsibility for his own actions, which caused him to be suspended, and continues to blame everyone but himself for his punishments.

  22. I’d like to know if Olbermann successfully attracted new viewers to Algore’s TV network. I’m not suggesting he failed, I’m just not sure he succeeded.

    Although I can’t stomach the sick bastard for more than a few minutes, I suppose he does have a certain appeal to others of his ilk. Possibly someone who comments here might be a regular viewer.

    In any case, Olbermann was fired for his inability to work cooperatively with management and with production crews. Which is similar to Rosie O’Donnell’s recent rejection at Oprah Winfrey’s network although inability to attract and retain viewers was part of the reason she was terminated. However, O’Donnell’s reputation for sparking bitter internecine disputes is a well known and persistent personal characteristic.

    It might be informative to examine the prevalence of anger management issues and related personality disorders among vocal leftists. It seems to be a recurring pattern.

  23. WW wrote:

    I find it telling that none of the Limbaugh acolytes on here, like Yorkshire and Mr Editor, never, never cite anything this monster pontificates. And why is that? In their hearts they know that Limbaugh is a propagandist, just like Mr Hitchcock is, therefore neither can ever be accused of telling the truth.

    Rush Limbaugh is a master at setting the liberals in an absolute tizzy, and mobilizing conservatives, but he’s not necessarily a news source. Moreover, I normally choose to cite from sources which won’t lead to the immediate complaint that the source was biased; I know that if I said that 2 + 2 = 4, and cited Mr Limbaugh as my source, you’d immediately scream that my source was biased, and I needed a real one.

    Limbaugh is an embarrassment to our nation, just like Hitchcock is to the more normal others on this blog, make no mistake about that! “Excellence in Broadcasting” and “Truth Before Dishonor”: Give me a break!!!

    Given that Mr Limbaugh is the number one radio broadcaster in America, and has been for 24 years now, I’d certainly call that “excellence in broadcasting.” He has done exactly what he set out to do: draw huge audiences, make millions of dollars, and advance conservative causes. Keith Olbermann, on the other hand, actually a fairly talented broadcaster himself, keeps managing to give his employers reason to discharge him.

    As for Truth Before Dishonor, allow me to present two graphs:

    Do I really need to label the traffic graphs for you? :)

  24. WW wrote:

    Limbaugh is an embarrassment to our nation, just like Hitchcock is to the more normal others on this blog, make no mistake about that!

    Yet millions upon millions of people tune in to listen to Mr Limbaugh each week, and you, despite your great dislike of Mr Hitchcock — a dislike which appears to be most heartily returned — keep coming here, to read this site, and have been so attracted to his articles that you have at least thrice (his count, not mine) chosen to break your promise not to comment on his articles. Why is that?

  25. WW wrote:

    You know what, koolo, if you and Mr Hitchcock really believed the fictions that you write about me, then you would ignore me completely and go about your propagandizing. But neither of you do this, which is mighty telling about you two, not to mention that both of you drag the quality of this blog downhill every day, helped lately by our Editor himself. Now that is really hilarious! :) :) :)

    Now, that’s an odd statement. Neither Koolo nor Mr Hitchcock ever made a promise not to comment on one of your articles, yet you made a promise not to comment on Mr Hitchcock’s. That would seem to place more of a restraint on you, one you imposed upon yourself, than they have. Yet you couldn’t help yourself, and not only continue to comment on their comments on my articles, but have recently stopped honoring your own promise concerning Mr Hitchcock’s.

  26. Popularity, Mr Editor, does not equate to righteousness, and is not a measure thereof. One would have expected that you would understand this concept at your more advanced age and expected maturity. I don’t think that you have! But I will give you credit for admitting that Limbaugh is not a resource for fact based information worth quoting. Maybe there is still some hope, though this hope appears to be withering on the vine, lately! :)

  27. “But I will give you credit for admitting that Limbaugh is not a resource for fact based information worth quoting.”

    Wish we could do the same for you regarding Rachael Maddow.

  28. But I will give you credit for admitting that Limbaugh is not a resource for fact based information worth quoting.

    Now that right there is an absolute lie (and since all lies foment from their father, Satan …) as any who actually read can see. Here’s a hint: The Editor’s comments are in this thread. How utterly stupid is it to lie about what someone said in the very same thread, and on the very same page of the thread, as the person you’re lying about? Who does that?

    Why don’t you try telling the Truth about what the Editor said, Wagonwheel? Would that defeat your hate-filled purposes? Why, yes, it would! You cannot claim the mantle of Honorability or Truthfulness, as your numerous Dishonorable and Lie-filled comments prove! And the above-quoted comment of yours is only the latest in your Dishonorable and Lie-filled commenting here!

    Come on, Wagonwheel, I DOUBLE-DOG-DARE YOU to quote the Editor’s actual words as to why he doesn’t quote Rush Limbaugh! And then to comment based on the Editor’s actual words and not your made-up version of them! I bet you can’t do it! Because that would take a level of Truth that you cannot attain!

    (Over-use of the exclamation mark in homage to the documented liar Wagonwheel.)

  29. Yet millions upon millions of people tune in to listen to Mr Limbaugh each week, and you, despite your great dislike of Mr Hitchcock — a dislike which appears to be most heartily returned — keep coming here, to read this site, and have been so attracted to his articles that you have at least thrice (his count, not mine) chosen to break your promise not to comment on his articles.

    The emphasized part is where I take issue with you, Editor. I see where your number comes in, but your count is off. I said five times covering three consecutive days. I do not take issue with any other portion of the quoted comment.

  30. I wish to go on record as saying that I believe that it is wrong to form betting pools and offer odds as to how soon Keith Olberman will psychologically or physically self-destruct. I will not participate with those who find amusement in betting that he doesn’t make it two more years before jumping backwards out of his penthouse, after he finds that Viagra will never work for him again and that Anne Coulter has been once more mocking him in print about it.

    I also wish to say that although Olberman constantly refers to others as the worst person in the world as a way of amusing and profiting himself, I will no longer slightingly refer to him as Keith Old-Vermin, nor will I mock his odd physical profile as being uncannily like that of an overgrown Janeane Garofalo.

    Please, let us all wish Mr. Olberman the very, very best. If you don’t do it now, you may be sorry you didn’t once it is too late.

  31. Popularity, Mr Editor, does not equate to righteousness, and is not a measure thereof. One would have expected that you would understand this concept at your more advanced age and expected maturity. I don’t think that you have!

    Straw man alert! False premise alert!

    The Editor was not referring to righteousness, as Wagonwheel absolutely falsely claimed, but to whether Limbaugh or I should be considered an embarrassment as Wagonwheel had claimed we were. As I already showed in a previous comment, Wagonwheel’s integrity is not in doubt: he doesn’t have any, without a doubt. So, it is no wonder that Wagonwheel would be dishonest in his attacks against the Editor on this point as well.

    Again, integrity, honor, Truth, reading for comprehension, accuracy, are absolutely all exceedingly weak points — or nonexistent — in Wagonwheel’s character.

  32. Yesterday (@ 11:43) I raised the question of Olbermann’s effectiveness at attracting new viewers to Algore’s Current TV. It seems he failed. The following excerpt is from David Carr’s 3/31/12 article in Media Decoder: (bold added)

    Keith Olbermann: Machine Gun for Hire

    He did not solve the miserable ratings math at Current — as my colleague Brian Stelter pointed out, in his 40 weeks on Current TV, he had an average of 177,000 viewers at 8 p.m., a shadow of his former incarnation at MSNBC where he drew a million-plus people a night.

    That’s not all his fault. Anybody who has watched the Keith-less version of Current could understand why they wanted him so badly in the first place. Beset by technical problems that had Mr. Olbermann broadcasting his show with a black backdrop in a kind of hostage/protest motif, Current was not and is not ready for prime time.

    The channel’s election coverage has been tendentious and painful to watch, and the depth of its bench can be measured by the fact that it is bringing aboard former Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer of New York to replace him. Current will have to do some renovating to make room for all of the baggage he brings with him, from both his scandal-ridden exit from the governorship and his ratings-challenged turn at CNN…

  33. SINP writes

    Maybe there is still some hope, though this hope appears to be withering on the vine, lately!

    There’s always hope that you’ll un-hypocrite yourself and stop replying to us “righties,” but nevertheless, it’s appropriate you used the classic “wither on the vine” quote because it illustrates what you do in here everyday — lie, distort and selectively edit.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/05/20/democrats-distort-newt-gingrichs-medicare-comments-again

  34. Hitch, you’re correct to point out Perry’s misrepresentation of the Editor’s statement. Perry thinks he’s being clever, but the evidence of his bad faith is on record for all to see and to judge him accordingly.

  35. John Hitchcock says:
    March 31, 2012 at 14:21 (Edit)

    But I will give you credit for admitting that Limbaugh is not a resource for fact based information worth quoting.

    Now that right there is an absolute lie (and since all lies foment from their father, Satan …) as any who actually read can see. Here’s a hint: The Editor’s comments are in this thread. How utterly stupid is it to lie about what someone said in the very same thread, and on the very same page of the thread, as the person you’re lying about? Who does that?

    Why don’t you try telling the Truth about what the Editor said, Wagonwheel? Would that defeat your hate-filled purposes? Why, yes, it would! You cannot claim the mantle of Honorability or Truthfulness, as your numerous Dishonorable and Lie-filled comments prove! And the above-quoted comment of yours is only the latest in your Dishonorable and Lie-filled commenting here!

    Come on, Wagonwheel, I DOUBLE-DOG-DARE YOU to quote the Editor’s actual words as to why he doesn’t quote Rush Limbaugh! And then to comment based on the Editor’s actual words and not your made-up version of them! I bet you can’t do it! Because that would take a level of Truth that you cannot attain!

    (Over-use of the exclamation mark in homage to the documented liar Wagonwheel.)

    The gauntlet has been thrown down!!!!! The challenge has been issued!!!! And Wagonwheel is incapable of picking up the gauntlet!!!!! Wagonwheel is incapable of rising to meet the challenge!!!!! As I predicted!!!!!

    (Over-use of the exclamation mark in homage to the documented liar Wagonwheel.)

  36. Source, resource, or talkin’ the truth:

    It should be clear that Rush Limbaugh is not a news reporter, or a resource for news, his 3 hour radio show, 5 days a week, consists largely of personal commentary on a wide range of topics, news included, and phone calls from listeners. Tune in, 12 noon EST, and see for yourself.

    Limbaugh is the most popular radio personality in the history of radio by far, and his loyal audience is numbered in the 10s of millions.

    He isn’t a news source, and he doesn’t pretend to be. Although he does make news when something he says offends Leftists by exposing their stupidity or their dishonest shenanigans. Which makes him a source of their discontent, and a scapegoat for their invective, and a target for their attempts to silence him by attacking his show’s advertisers.

    We see examples of that here almost daily.

  37. “Wish we could do the same for you regarding Rachael Maddow.”

    That is an unearned insult to Rachel Maddow, who operates on a much higher plane than Limbaugh, not to mention that she is a truth-teller. Otherwise, it is on you, Hoagie, to support your accusation!

  38. SINP writes

    That is an unearned insult to Rachel Maddow, who operates on a much higher plane than Limbaugh, not to mention that she is a truth-teller. Otherwise, it is on you, Hoagie, to support your accusation!

    LOL!! Thanks for the guffaw, SINP. She may have more degrees than Limbaugh, but the “truth-teller” part is a scream. You’ve been shown innumerable instances of her lies, omissions, and selective edits, so stow your “it is on you” nonsense. She’s about as truthful as you are in this forum.

  39. Allow me to correct you, ropelight:

    It should be clear that Rush Limbaugh is not a news reporter, or a resource for news, his 3 hour radio show, 5 days a week, consists largely of personal commentary on a wide range of topics, news distorting the news included, and phone calls from listeners. Tune in, 12 noon EST, and see for yourself.

    Limbaugh is is unfortunately the most popular radio personality in the history of radio by far, and his loyal audience his loyal audience of wingnuts is numbered in the 10s of millions millions of victims of his anti-democratic propaganda.

    He isn’t a news source, and he doesn’t although he does pretend to be. Although he does make news when something he says offends Leftists by exposing lying about their stupidity or their dishonest shenanigans. Which makes him a source of their their justified discontent, and a scapegoat for their invective, and a target for their attempts to silence expose him by attacking his show’s advertisers.

    There, that fixed it for ya, ropelight, which I’m sure you appreciate!

  40. “You’ve been shown innumerable instances of her lies, omissions, and selective edits, so stow your “it is on you” nonsense.”

    Here we have another wingnut charge without any examples, the same sort of garbage Mr Hitchcock pulls all the time, therefore example not needed, but will gladly be supplied upon request. Moreover, your projections of self are quite obvious and just like the child that you appear to be.

    Where are your examples koolo, or is this one more example of your made up charges.

    You and Mr Hitchcock unquestionably reside at the bottom of the barrel, where you both are scraping like mad men, figuratively speaking of course!

  41. “Popularity, Mr Editor, does not equate to righteousness, and is not a measure thereof. One would have expected that you would understand this concept at your more advanced age and expected maturity. I don’t think that you have!”

    Hmmmm, whoever said that makes an excellent point!

    I would apply that point to Rush Limbaugh, in spades!!!

  42. Look at that!!!! Wagonwheel continues his STRAW MAN tactics apace!!!! And refuses to accurately quote the Editor!!! Once again proving he does not have the strength to pick up my gauntlet that I threw down at his feet!!!

    In other words, my absolute declaration that Wagonwheel cannot even think to win an argument if only facts are permitted has once again gone unchallenged by the documented liar Wagonwheel!!!

    (Over-use of the exclamation mark in homage to the documented liar Wagonwheel, who has no idea how to properly use the exclamation mark and no ability to debate Truthfully.)

  43. Mr Hitchcock, you know what you can do with your gauntlet!!!

    Regarding my promise not to comment on your blog, I withdrew it, as I told you several days ago.

    But the obvious fact is that you cower at the possibility of anyone, especially myself and Anna Nova, like anyone, former marine or not, consumed with cowardice, would do.

    Why don’t you step up and allow free rein to anyone wishing to comment on your thread without being deleted.

    In fact, I now note that you have taken the liberty to delete comments you don’t like on threads other than yours. And our Editor has permitted this to occur. I say: Shame on you both! You wingnuts are now showing your true colors: Orange

    Now go take care of that gauntlet!

  44. Regarding my promise not to comment on your blog, I withdrew it, as I told you several days ago.

    In other words, you broke your promise. You admitted you lied!!! And, well, the Editor has declared I have full authority to force you to keep your promise if I so desire, regardless of your lies!!!!!

    Why don’t you step up and allow free rein to anyone wishing to comment on your thread without being deleted.

    I don’t condone anarchy!!! I also will not permit someone who fraudulently used a form of ID Theft (stealing my email address to use to attempt to avoid moderation) to have access to any of my articles!!!! And some radical Leftist who is incapable of debating in Truth (that would be YOU!!!!) and has declared he will not comment on my articles (that would be YOU!!!!) has no cause to complain when he breaks his promises and his comments then vanish!!!!

    (Over-use of the exclamation mark in homage to the demonstrated LIAR Wagonwheel.)

  45. No, Perry, I don’t appeciate you twisting my words. That’s exactly the point of my comment @10:51 above:

    Hitch, you’re correct to point out Perry’s misrepresentation of the Editor’s statement. Perry thinks he’s being clever, but the evidence of his bad faith is on record for all to see and to judge him accordingly.

  46. In fact, I now note that you have taken the liberty to delete comments you don’t like on threads other than yours. And our Editor has permitted this to occur.

    The Editor has a moderation filter designed to capture PIATOR’s comments. PIATOR uses multiple socks, multiple ipnums, multiple email addresses, including those belonging to someone else (mine) to avoid automatic moderation. I place PIATOR comments into moderation, allowing the Editor to delete or re-instate as he so desires. I do, however, delete comments on my articles at my so choosing, clearing them from the trash as to be unrecoverable. I have also deleted numerous comments Koolo has made over the past few months, as he can readily tell you. But, although he has my email address that I pay attention to multiple times a day (not to be confused with the one PIATOR stole for his own lie-filled use), he has neither complained publicly or to me in person for his comments permanently vanishing from my threads.

  47. Carry on, Mr Hitchcock, with your outright hatred. Coming from you, I could care less, although I will continue to push back and expose you based on you uncontrolled, angry behavior, as condoned by the inactivity of our unresponsive and disappointing Editor who refuses to live up to his own standards of conduct, only selectively.

    The only reason I stay on this deteriorating blog is that you people require debate and push-back. Therefore, I will be here, until you cut me off.

    And by the way, on BtG, I offered to pay my share, which was declined, as I have pointed out previously. Yes, it was a reasonable thing to do for our Editor to share some of his bandwidth with me, which I appreciate. That said, I insist on feeling free to criticize our Editor on matters and issues with which I disagree. It appears that you and koolo seem to think I am out of line to criticize him. That alone speaks volumes about your unwillingness to honor free speech. It should only be free when you agree, is that it Mr Hitchcock?

  48. “I have also deleted numerous comments Koolo has made over the past few months, as he can readily tell you. “

    That right there says it all about you, Mr Hitchcock, and about koolo.

    Koolo, what is the matter with you that you would put up with this censorship without complaint? Judging by the way you challenge me, which is certainly often and OK, what happens re Hitchcock? Do you realize how damaging this is about you?

  49. Wagonwheel, you have been shown to be a liar of the first order. You have also been shown to have absolutely zero knowledge of what the First Amendment actually says, let alone what it actually means — and it means exactly what it says. I have not, in any way, at any time, even so much as attempted to violate anyone’s First Amendment rights, ever.

    And here’s another gauntlet I throw at your feet. And once again, it will be a gauntlet you cannot pick up. I challenge you to point out, using the specificity of the entirety of the First Amendment, any time I have violated anyone’s First Amendment rights. You cannot pick up that gauntlet because you cannot understand the extremely absolute and extremely explicit language of the First Amendment, as proven time and again every time you mention it.

    Now go, child, and study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that rightly divides the Word of Truth.

  50. SINP writes

    Koolo, what is the matter with you that you would put up with this censorship without complaint? Judging by the way you challenge me, which is certainly often and OK, what happens re Hitchcock? Do you realize how damaging this is about you?

    Because it is partly his blog. How can you logically compare that to challenging you? You aren’t part owner/contributor of this blog. You’ve made yet another ridiculous analogy. Maybe we can write a book about all your nonsense at some point — including a forward by your wife about how you mistreat her.

    And LOL — how “damaging” this is to me? Only in your mind, SINP. And that ain’t worth a second’s worry.

  51. Thank you, Koolo. I would also like to point out (and I was waiting for your comment to do so) that a few of my comments have met with partial deletions from the Editor. And I have never complained, publicly, or in private to his email, which I obviously have and use frequently.

    I can say whatever I darn-well choose to say. But if I want to say things the Editor prohibits, I have to say it somewhere other than on the Editor’s site. Freedom of Association is also part of the First Amendment. That is something documented liars like Wagonwheel cannot fathom, since they don’t actually have a concern for the Constitution.

  52. “Because it is partly his blog. How can you logically compare that to challenging you? You aren’t part owner/contributor of this blog. You’ve made yet another ridiculous analogy. Maybe we can write a book about all your nonsense at some point — including a forward by your wife about how you mistreat her.”

    OMG, I can’t believe this answer. On the other hand, I guess I do. It actually fits!

    Short koolo: I have no principles or standards, therefore woe be it that I question the behavior of someone on my side.

    That says it all about you, koolo, so now go cry in your beer!

  53. SINP writes

    Short koolo: I have no principles or standards, therefore woe be it that I question the behavior of someone on my side.

    Even shorter SINP: “So, you act just like I do with regards to PIATOR!”

    But that would be a lie … as I noted above, I actually understand the First Amendment, and even though he didn’t set me up w/my own blog, I appreciate Editor allowing the commments that he does on this blog … I don’t constantly criticize him and bash him like you do. And you’ve benefitted from him quite a lot.

    This definitely demonstrates what sort of “person” you are. No wonder you’re a radical leftist.

  54. It’s interesting that Perry’s standards and principles include violating the standards and principles of other people at will, in their own “homes”. Perry’s standards are that he’s above the Law and that he’s allowed to lie at will and break any promises that he makes, so long as they inconvenience him in any way.

    I’ll note here that I have now very clearly released Perry from his promise on two separate articles. I’ll also note here that Perry has not availed himself of the opportunity to comment on those two threads where I specifically allowed him to do so, despite his promises not to comment on my articles. But Perry intentionally broke his promise no less than 5 times in 3 consecutive days where I had not released him from his promise.

    A Perry promise is not even worth the 1s and 0s necessary to transmit them across the internet! And that is an undeniable fact!

  55. John Hancock’s autobiographical intro has finally appeared:

    My standards and principles include violating the standards and principles of other people at will. Additionally, my standards are that I am above the Law and therefore allowed to lie at will and break any promises at my convenience, in any way I so choose.

    I can play your silly game, Mr Hitchcock, which is just as meaningless as yours, with the exception that the above actually happens to be true, based on the previously unaltered and incorrect statement you made prior. ‘Tis the mark of a troubled human being, whom I actually pity.

    Sounds like you have come upon hard times again, even in Texas where jobs are supposedly plentiful. Have you applied for unemployment, a program of our Federal Government, meant to help out people like yourself? If so, you ought to be thankful for the safety net, which is there for people like yourself, if and when needed. Isn’t this a great and caring country?

  56. ” I don’t constantly criticize him and bash him like you do. And you’ve benefitted from him quite a lot.”

    So you see, koolo, that my standards and principles do not permit me to be bought off, unlike in your case. Another truth about an aspect of your character has been revealed, and it stinks really badly!

  57. Nice try, Wagonwheel, but you need to return to The Lost Kos and DU for further instructions. Your trollery is far below standard. But your dishonesty is among the greatest in the blogosphere, so there’s that.

  58. Wagonwheel, why did you declare Delaware is a state that counts and Texas is a state that doesn’t count? I wrote an article about that, with linkage to your lie-filled comments. I even posted that article on this site. Beyond that, I explicitly gave you permission to comment on that article, waiving your promise not to do so.

    Now go, defend yourself!!! That is if you’re not a coward!!!

  59. So you see, koolo, that my standards and principles do not permit me to be bought off, unlike in your case.

    Oh noes!!!! Koolo!!! Wagonwheel found out about that dollar two ninety-eight!!!! Oh, wait!!!

    Wagonwheel maliciously and intentionally lied about you!!!! Quel surprise!!! More proof that Wagonwheel has absolutely no principles whatsoever and will lie whenever it fits his purposes!!!

    Wagonwheel is just another M-F-in liar!!!!

  60. Give proof that anyone, anyone at all, paid off Koolo, or admit that you’re a hate-filled liar who will personally lie about someone else’s character whenever the mood hits you in order to benefit your principle-free hate-filled agenda.

    Since you cannot show any evidence at all, even circumstantial or second-hand, for your outright hate-filled agenda-serving personal lie-filled attack against Koolo, I would expect an immediate retraction and apology out of you if you were the type that had principles and integrity. But since we all know you are completely lacking in integrity (as very clearly proven) and completely lacking in principle (as you show every day here), I know you don’t have the cajones to admit to your lies or to apologise for your lies against Koolo and your hatred of Koolo.

  61. WW wrote:

    Regarding my promise not to comment on your blog, I withdrew it, as I told you several days ago.

    To which Mr Hitchcock replied:

    In other words, you broke your promise. You admitted you lied!!! And, well, the Editor has declared I have full authority to force you to keep your promise if I so desire, regardless of your lies!!!!!

    The initial promise was made, as I recall, because neither commenter either liked or trusted each other, and since both had administrative authority on the old site, both thought tat the other was editing each other’s comments surreptitiously.

    Now, I don’t know that a promise can be unilaterally withdrawn — it would seem to me that both parties ought to have to agree — but I would suggest that until Hell freezes over the two parties develop a greater respect for each other, it would be better for Wagonwheel to stick with the old promise. And Mr Hitchcock ought to make the same promise, that he will not attempt to comment on Perry’s articles on Bridging the Gap.

  62. ropelight quoted:

    Keith Olbermann: Machine Gun for Hire

    …He did not solve the miserable ratings math at Current — as my colleague Brian Stelter pointed out, in his 40 weeks on Current TV, he had an average of 177,000 viewers at 8 p.m., a shadow of his former incarnation at MSNBC where he drew a million-plus people a night.

    That’s not all his fault. Anybody who has watched the Keith-less version of Current could understand why they wanted him so badly in the first place. Beset by technical problems that had Mr. Olbermann broadcasting his show with a black backdrop in a kind of hostage/protest motif, Current was not and is not ready for prime time.

    The channel’s election coverage has been tendentious and painful to watch, and the depth of its bench can be measured by the fact that it is bringing aboard former Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer of New York to replace him. Current will have to do some renovating to make room for all of the baggage he brings with him, from both his scandal-ridden exit from the governorship and his ratings-challenged turn at CNN…

    I couldn’t have been one of Mr Olbermann’s viewers, or watch anything else on Current TV, because our local cable company, which carries seems to believe that a fishing channel, a motorsports network, a horse racing channel, two home shopping channels, BBC America, an old-time television shows channel and MSNBC have enough interest that their cable subscribers would want those channels, doesn’t seem to think that Current TV would interest enough viewers to waste spend money on it.

    I mean, really, we already have one unabashedly liberal news network in MSNBC, and it’s so little watched that the local cable company didn’t bother to bring MSNBC up to the high definition channels. Why would they spend money on another, almost totally ignored, liberal channel, this one with a good dash of environmentalist whacko thrown in?

  63. WW wrote:

    Popularity, Mr Editor, does not equate to righteousness, and is not a measure thereof. One would have expected that you would understand this concept at your more advanced age and expected maturity. I don’t think that you have!

    No, but it a measure of persuasiveness.

    Then, quoting himself, WW wrote:

    “Popularity, Mr Editor, does not equate to righteousness, and is not a measure thereof. One would have expected that you would understand this concept at your more advanced age and expected maturity. I don’t think that you have!”

    Hmmmm, whoever said that makes an excellent point!

    I would apply that point to Rush Limbaugh, in spades!!!

    Again, persuasiveness counts. If you are attempting to persuade people that your political views are the correct ones, then you have to persuade them to listen to you in the first place. The Washington Post, hardly a news organization friendly to Mr Limbaugh, noted that his audience is (probably) between 14 and 25 million unique listeners per week. The article went into some of the problems in accurately measuring radio audiences, which accounts for the wide discrepancy in the estimates.

    Keith Olbermann, on the other hand, was attracting something like 117,000 viewers per night. The radio measure of 14 to 25 million unique listeners per week would break down to roughly 2.8 to 5 million per day, for Mr Limbaugh, or (roughly) 20 to 40 times Mr Olbermann’s draw. Even if we look at his numbers when he was on the much more widely available MSNBC, Mr Limbaugh was drawing an audience several times as large.

    But, it certainly is true that persuasiveness doesn’t mean that someone is either righteous, to use WW’s word, or just plain right. After all, a majority of the voters were persuaded to vote for Barack Obama in 2008, and he turned out to be a total dunce.

  64. In fact, I now note that you have taken the liberty to delete comments you don’t like on threads other than yours. And our Editor has permitted this to occur. I say: Shame on you both! You wingnuts are now showing your true colors: Orange

    Really, Wagon … er, Perry, if you don’t like the way Dana runs his blog, then why don’t you Sandra Fluck off and go someplace else … ?

  65. SINP writes

    So you see, koolo, that my standards and principles do not permit me to be bought off, unlike in your case. Another truth about an aspect of your character has been revealed, and it stinks really badly!

    No, it’s called simply being courteous to the host. You ought to try it sometime.

    “Character? What’s that??” asked SINP.

  66. “In fact, I now note that you have taken the liberty to delete comments you don’t like on threads other than yours.”

    Yes, after he promised not to do so.

    I guess that shows just how “Christian” he is.

  67. Oh, and I note he deleted my comment mentioning that I had previously shown him lying.

    I guess if a coward can’t deny his actions, the best he can do is try to hide them.

  68. “Thank you, Koolo. I would also like to point out (and I was waiting for your comment to do so) that a few of my comments have met with partial deletions from the Editor. And I have never complained, publicly, or in private to his email, which I obviously have and use frequently.”

    So you claim, Mr Hitchcock.

    But as you know full well, your claims have been shown to be lies in the past. This is why you keep deleting references to them.

  69. A.N. says:
    April 2, 2012 at 00:04

    Oh, and I note he deleted my comment mentioning that I had previously shown him lying.

    I guess if a coward can’t ….

    Ironic, that you, of all trolls, should be accusing someone else of cowardice, given your paranoiac history.

  70. Editor says:
    April 1, 2012 at 18:37

    ropelight quoted:

    Keith Olbermann: Machine Gun for Hire

    …He did not solve the miserable ratings math at Current — as my colleague Brian Stelter pointed out, in his 40 weeks on Current TV, he had an average of 177,000 viewers at 8 p.m., a shadow of his former incarnation at MSNBC where he drew a million-plus people a night.

    That’s not all his fault. Anybody who has watched the Keith-less version of Current could understand why they wanted him so badly in the first place. Beset by technical problems that had Mr. Olbermann broadcasting his show with a black backdrop in a kind of hostage/protest motif, Current was not and is not ready for prime time.

    The channel’s election coverage has been tendentious and painful to watch, and the depth of its bench can be measured by the fact that it is bringing aboard former Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer of New York to replace him. Current will have to do some renovating to make room for all of the baggage he brings with him, from both his scandal-ridden exit from the governorship and his ratings-challenged turn at CNN…

    I couldn’t have been one of Mr Olbermann’s viewers, or watch anything else on Current TV, because our local cable company, which carries seems to believe that a fishing channel, a motorsports network, a horse racing channel, two home shopping channels, BBC America, an old-time television shows channel and MSNBC have enough interest that their cable subscribers would want those channels, doesn’t seem to think that Current TV would interest enough viewers to waste spend money on it.

    I mean, really, we already have one unabashedly liberal news network in MSNBC, and it’s so little watched that the local cable company didn’t bother to bring MSNBC up to the high definition channels. Why would they spend money on another, almost totally ignored, liberal channel, this one with a good dash of environmentalist whacko thrown in?”

    You bring up common point about Cable TV (or satellite subscription for that matter). One of the things my father has been carping about for the last year was the disappearance of the old History Channel. A US senator apparently caused some notice and amusement the other day by expressing disappointment over the same disappearing act.

    It morphed, it appears into “History”, a sort of “Lifetime Channel” for correspondingly low IQ types whose tastes differ only to the extent that they like their reality TV to focus on tattooed truck drivers who skid across icy wastes and say “f**K a lot; or specials on the Christian Gospels featuring the expert opinions of priestesses of Wiccan studies at Albuquerque Community College, and lilting voiced, nominally male, graduates of the Association for Research and Enlightenment.

    Now you can, if you wish, access History International, which still offers historical documentaries. If that is, you buy into the appropriate level of service. I think that that entails ascending from “Bronze”, up through “Silver”, into either the “Gold” or “Platinum” level.

    Of course even “Bronze” subscriptions look to be a good deal if you just count channels. I mean gosh 350 channels?

    Well, 200 are music only channels, 36 are shopping channels, 15 I believe I counted as Hispanic offerings of some kind, eight were religious cult channels with one additional Catholic and one actually Christian Protestant channel. And etc. …

    So, trying to be cooperative and help the “old man” out, I call up the service and say, “OK, my folks are very dissatisfied. Now, I know you don’t offer a la carte programming, though I can’t understand why with the technology you have. But let me lay out what they want and you tell me what we have to buy, ok?

    “They want the local channels, American movie Classics, Turner Classics, CNN, Fox, The Business Channel, a “real” History channel, the Discovery Channel, Nickelodeon, if it still exists for the grand kids, and …” I named a couple of others as well.

    I said “You can keep the shopping channels and the Sangria del Pueblo channel and the channel that has fat girls from the sex positive league of New Zealand sitting in a circle and masturbating 24/7.” Well no I didn’t say that in exactly that way, but the operator got the picture.

    Anyway, in order to get the 10 or 15 channels they actually wanted it amounted to buying into a package of over 500 channels, with no premiums, costing 96 bucks a month for the first year and yada yada yada thereafter. Now for only 36 more a month they could have eight channels of all the 1980′s era CineMax reruns they could bear to watch, plus HBO and Bill Maher too. So that was a real temptation, but …

    I think we are going to put up a digital antenna. It will probably only have to be about 30 feet tall.

    But it’s the better alternative. The only thing worse than having morons dish out their nihilistic feces on a plate and try serving it up to you, is having them expect to be paid for it.

  71. DNW laments:

    One of the things my father has been carping about for the last year was the disappearance of the old History Channel.

    It’s true enough that what passes for “history” are shows telling us how ancient aliens might have affected our culture today. But my daughters referred to the old History Channel as the Hitler Channel, because it seemed like everything was about World War II. The concept was good; the execution, not so much.

  72. Editor says:
    April 2, 2012 at 11:56

    DNW laments:

    One of the things my father has been carping about for the last year was the disappearance of the old History Channel.

    It’s true enough that what passes for “history” are shows telling us how ancient aliens might have affected our culture today. But my daughters referred to the old History Channel as the Hitler Channel, because it seemed like everything was about World War II. The concept was good; the execution, not so much.

    I’ve seen a number of references to the “Hitler Channel”. No doubt for many like my father who were of age, (even if just barely) to participate in the Atlantic war against Naziism, and in those modern world shaping processes that immediately followed, the era was of particular interest. There were also miles of archival film available, numerous good quality documentaries already in the can, such as the Victory at Sea series, and plenty of historical questions still open for review and discussion as the last embargoes on secret documents expired.

    My problem with the replacement channels is not the garbage exists, but that the level of intellectual interest and analysis is now so low across the board.

    Knowing something more than average about Church history for example, if only because I know considerably more than average about ancient and late classical history, I find this garbage impossible to watch. The stupidity of the so called authorities, is almost sublime in its degenerate and often dishonest perfection. Apart from the occasional and well regarded scholar in say, Semitic languages, most of the people they interview are outright clowns, who couldn’t identify a fallacious argument if it hit them in the face like a wet fish, or a fact, if they fell over it.

    They (these History channel “scholars”) remind me to a great extent of some of my fellow students in psychology, before I dropped the field for another. What became apparent after a certain number of courses, was that some of us were interested in perceptual and behavioral questions per se, while others were seeking either answers for their own problems, or ammunition for a quasi-political agenda. I personally found that the room was becoming too humid for my taste and that other areas offered the perspectives I was interested viewing just as well.

  73. “Ironic, that you, of all trolls, should be accusing someone else of cowardice, given your paranoiac history.”

    DNW, it should be crystal clear to you that the one deleting posts not to his liking is the coward. Why do you twist and spin it otherwise?

  74. My satellite package includes Algore’s Current TV. I’ve never watched it, so I checked it out. The offerings just aren’t my cup of tea.

    12:30p Bride Trafficking Unveiled – Mail order brides
    1:00p Forced into Marriage – Aid for victims
    2:00p Documentaries to See Before You Die – unspecified
    4:00p Biggie and Tupac – Examines the unsolved murders
    6:30p Russian Neo-Nazis – Growing neo-Nazi movement in Russia
    7:00p The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur – News
    8:00p Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer – News
    9:00p The War Room with Jeffifer Granholm – Politics
    10:00p Repeat of Young Turks
    11:00p Repeat of Eliot Spitzer
    12:00a Repeat of Jennifer Granholm
    1:00a Gateway to Heroin – Cheaper than Rx pills
    2:00a World’s Biggest Gangs – El Salvador’s Mara 18
    3:00a Mexico’s Death Train – Dangerous entry to US
    4:00a This Illegal American Life – Life stories of illegals
    5:00a Recovery High – High School rehabilitation center
    6:00a Full Court Press – The Bill Press Show – News
    9:00a Talking Liberally: Stephanie Miller Show – Radio simulcast
    12:00p The War on Weed – Marijuana laws in CA and NY

  75. Wagonwheel says:

    April 2, 2012 at 12:44

    “Ironic, that you, of all trolls, should be accusing someone else of cowardice, given your paranoiac history.”

    DNW, it should be crystal clear to you that the one deleting posts not to his liking is the coward. Why do you twist and spin it otherwise?”

    If a flea bitten hound from another yard digs its way under my fence and starts using my lawn as a latrine, I’m under no obligation to accept its presence.

    Now, I might magnanimously tolerate it if it’s a well behaved little doggie, and never snaps or behaves as if it feels entitled. But some mutt with brain-worm starts crapping the place up, and it will just go; whether or not it’s “responsible” for its behavior.

  76. ropelight says:
    April 2, 2012 at 13:19

    My satellite package includes Algore’s Current TV. I’ve never watched it, so I checked it out. The offerings just aren’t my cup of tea.

    Fortunately, Comcast Cable out of the Gettysburg, PA Office doesn’t offer Currant TV.

  77. “Now, I don’t know that a promise can be unilaterally withdrawn — it would seem to me that both parties ought to have to agree — but I would suggest that until Hell freezes over the two parties develop a greater respect for each other, it would be better for Wagonwheel to stick with the old promise.”

    Mr Editor, you are a fine one to pontificate against promises being withdrawn, when you have indeed done exactly the same thing, not even with an announcement, instead stealthily.

    I am talking about your failure to enforce your “Comments and Content Policy” judiciously and fairly, after all the fanfare about it when your started this new blog.

    Shall I repost some of Mr Hitchcock’s garbage in order to prove my point? And then there is your vendetta against Anna Nova, Mr Hitchcock’s as well.

    Wake up Mr Editor and restore our respect for your word!

    PS: I regret having to withdraw a promise I made, but subsequent events with Mr Hitchcock’s exercise of power on this blog to control the debate have made me realize that I made a bad mistake. So again, like Mitt Romney does all the time, without even admitting to such, consider my promise retracted.

  78. “I regret having to withdraw a promise I made, but subsequent events with Mr Hitchcock’s exercise of power on this blog to control the debate have made me realize that I made a bad mistake. So again, like Mitt Romney does all the time, without even admitting to such, consider my promise retracted.”

    Perry, Are you actually trying to get yourself banned? Do you think that that is an easier path than taking up the behavior gauntlet which you have thrown down at the feet of others?

    Why not give Dana a break, and accept that this is his blog, and that he can run it as he sees fit, without being beholden to your ideas of equity.

    You saw what happened to the other blog. He cannot allow this site to degenerate into an arena devoted to interpersonal bickering, or all his efforts will be again wasted.

    Look around you Perry. How is Phoenician’s blog doing? What about Frick and Frack’s bile fountain over in Iowaay? How’s your blog for traffic?

    Look what happened with the Trayvon Martin discussion here. I posted comment after comment in considered response to your remarks, and I did so in a systematic and methodical and unemotional manner, citing my sources and relying on the data known.

    And what did you do in response? Did you ever even listen to the complete 911 call available on Youtube?

    You say today that you will soon have a response to my interpretation of the Travon/Zimmerman incident schematic you recommended. Today? My comments have been up two days already while you have in the meanwhile been so preoccupied with matters of blogging comment box equity, that you could not manage to formulate a coherent reply. How can that be? Didn’t you master the information yourself before recommending the source? Apparently not, since your comments are full instead of vague objections based on indignant feelings and assumptions. And no analysis at all.

    You claim to have been a scientist. Surely you can do better than what you have shown so far. If you can and do, you will be doing everyone, not only yourself, a favor.

  79. Perry, considering your word is worthless, making a big deal out of withdrawing your promise is a bit redundant, humorous, but redundant.

    Respect is a two way street. Try showing some for others around here, especially those opposing your views, and you may earn some for yourself. It’s unlikely, but it is a possibility.

    PS: Smart money says your ignorant comments, insults, and caterwauling only escalate till you get another time-out. I’ll be surprised if you make it to the end of the month.

  80. WW:
    PS: I regret having to withdraw a promise I made, but subsequent events with Mr Hitchcock’s exercise of power on this blog to control the debate have made me realize that I made a bad mistake. So again, like Mitt Romney does all the time, without even admitting to such, consider my promise retracted.

    You have just said my word is worthless and makes you the way lesser person.

  81. “PS: Smart money says your ignorant comments, insults, and caterwauling only escalate till you get another time-out. I’ll be surprised if you make it to the end of the month.”

    And your example or examples are exactly what, ropelight?

    Coming from someone who gives a good portion of insults on this blog, your word is not much.

    “You have just said my word is worthless and makes you the way lesser person.”

    With all the insults which fly around on here, how is it that you are not critical of others.

    As far as my word, I made a mistake and corrected it, and announced same. How is it that you have not criticized our Editor for breaking his word about his application of his own “Comments and Content Policy”, Yorkshire? You people do not comprehend how one-sided and partisan which you have become.

    All that said, I am not proud of having retracted my promise, but I could not continue with such a mistake having been made. Mr Hitchcock has grabbed enough power on this blog; I would be in error to stupidly give him more with an ill-considered promise not to engage him on points to which I am strongly opposed, not to mention to defend myself from the outrageous charges and insults that he makes. Do you not see this, Yorkshire?

  82. “All that said, I am not proud of having retracted my promise, but I could not continue with such a mistake having been made. Mr Hitchcock has grabbed enough power on this blog”

    Don’t let it bother you, Wagonwheel; blogs are generally meaningless, and this one more so than most – there are a thousand other wingnut echo chambers spouting the same sort of nonsense around. All of Mr Hitchcock’s “power” and $2.50 will get him precisely one cup of coffee, and at the end of the day, you’re living better than he ever can.

  83. Mr Hitchcock has grabbed enough power on this blog

    That’s where you are in error, Perry. I did not “grab” any “power” here. And I am still going to keep you to your promise, regardless of how many times you break it. You made your promise and now you have to live with it.

    Good DAY, sir.

Comments are closed.