RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events MSNBC About to 'Blow Up'?

i thought the lawyer son of the lawyer guy was head of MSNBC?

My favorite part of the story is where they say that MSNBC "has made a larger impact on YouTube than it has on the ratings."

so if you take out whomod, they have no impact?

Poor Olbermann. It'll be back to late nights on ESPN if whomod isn't careful.

Maybe he can hire Wanky as a bodyguard, what with all that military experience and ability to watch whomod's back.

but the convention will last 3 days, Wanky would already desert and be discharged from service by then....

wow......he is losing it?

There was a SI article about Olbermann when he left ESPN for his first MSNBC gig, in it they talked about how he was close to being fired for crazy shit there. After he went to MSNBC this second time from FOX sports they say he kept leaving messages for Dan Patrick(i think maybe someone else) rubbing it in his face how much money he was making.

Wow. The RNC should be a blast. I'll probably check out MSNBC just to see how crazy it gets. Seriously, what I wouldn't give to see Joe deck Olbermann square in the jaw.

MSNBC’s False Attack Prompts Threats Against Conservatives: Maddow’s error resulted in PR consultant receiving hate mail, death threats.

Looking forward to Zick's loud denunciation of Maddow and the liberal thugs threatening these people.

Don't be a silly ass G-man. Death threats from the liberal fringe is just as unacceptable as they are if they were coming from conservatives.

And if Maddow made an error she should correct it.

they would need a three hour show just devoted to errors.

Loaded Debate:

• Tuesday MSNBC showed video of a man carrying a semi-automatic rifle and a pistol outside the building where President Obama was giving a speech in Phoenix. Arizona is an "open carry" state, meaning having a legal firearm in the open is permitted. But anchor Contessa Brewer injected race into the story saying, "Here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists," which sparked a discussion about possible danger to the president.
  
  The video was edited in way in which you can't see the whole picture. The truth is the man featured there with the weapons was African-American, not white. No one on air ever pointed that out.

Zick, could you do me a favor and find me a link to the Media Matters editorial blasting MSNBC for such a biased and glaring factual error? I can't seem to find it but I'm sure it's there.

The reporter was speaking in general according to the FOX article. FOX is biased towards conservatives. You don't mind biased reporting as long as it serves your party G-man. If you want to act rightous about this, well thanks for the chuckle.

Zick is contradicting himself. He says Fox is biased towards conservatives but uses, as an example of that bias, a story where they gave MSNBC a chance to explain why Brewer's story was broadcast the way it was.

Media Matters also does that to, so do you think their not biased?

....who are you talking to when you switch into the third-person? Are you having courtroom flashbacks? Is there a jury present when you type your posts?

dont take every MSNBC post personal Pro.....

HE'S MY MOTHER!!

In an update, National Review points out that Olbermann had announced he'd be on live at 10:00 pm with election results but then went to a re-run instead.

Raw Story:

• A political war of sorts has broken out inside MSNBC, with Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough criticizing prime-time talking head Keith Olbermann for his scathing criticism of Scott Brown, the Republican candidate in Tuesday's special Senate election in Massachusetts.
  
  "Olbermann calls Brown a 'homophobic racist reactionary' who 'supports violence against women.' How reckless and how sad," Scarborough, a former Republican member of the House, Tweeted Monday evening....
  
  "This isn’t the first time Scarborough has essentially called out Olbermann, but on-air, it is never by name," writes Steve Krakauer at Mediaite. "His one reference on Morning Joe today to the Olbermann comment followed the same model. 'A certain person on this network, whose name will not be mentioned, went on a tirade the likes of which are sad and pathetic,' he said."
  
  "Is it MSNBC civil war?" Krakauer asks. "Not quite. But we’ll see if Olbermann has a response tonight – especially if the 'bad joke' ends up winning."

You know, if MSNBC wanted ratings they'd put Scarborough and Buchanan on prime-time. Those two guys are the only ones there with any sanity left. Olbermann and Maddow have serious manic-depressive episodes over the Obamassiah so often (especially, in regard to health-care reform) that it comes off as creepy and kinda stalker like. Schultz just continues to spew garbage each time he opens his mouth and I can't wait for him to get trounced if he tries for the Senate seat.

msnbc uses buchanan because he's one of the few people crazier than maddox and olberman.

Pretty much. Liberal talk shows love Pat because he makes conservatism look bad.

Massachusetts: Olbermann Cries Racism

• The Republicans and the Tea Partiers will tell you what happens with Scott Brown tonight whether he wins or comes close is a repudiation of Obama policies. And surely one of Obama's policies from the viewpoint of his opponents is it's OK to have this sea-change in American history--to have an African-American president. Is this vote to any degree just another euphemism, the way 'states rights' was in the '60s?

What a fucking tool.

yup he's a douchebag

a douche bag with an ulcer after tonight!

Olbermann's gone full whomod.

He's apologized to Scott Brown because he forgot to say that Brown is also a "sexist", ranted about teabagging and called Curt Schilling the "third dumbest" player in baseball.

another quote from the Olbermann meltdown:

• My God, he’s still talking! Senator-elect Brown is still giving his victory speech tonight in Boston. Howard Fineman will help me wrap it up -- if he wraps it up -- in a moment. First, the second of tonight’s "Quick Comments." The tea baggers have elected their first guy tonight, and, thus, they will expecting legislation by tomorrow making it a death penalty offense to call them "tea baggers."

As you know, I happen to like Buchanan. For me, he represents Reagan conservatism (i.e., "paleoconservatism", as opposed to neo-conservatism) better than anyone else out there.
Can you give an example of this "crazy" talk by Buchanan?

Except for an occasional gaff, as every other pundit on the left or right has made as well, I don't see Buchanan as "crazy". Although I never watch him on MSNBC, only on McLaughlin Group when he appears.

Besides that whole "defend the Nazi" thing?

You can read that in full context on wikipedia.

What Buchanan said about Hitler is that he is portrayed as a caricature of evil and cowardliness. Said, in context, that while Hitler was evil, you have to acknowledge that, in his early years, Hitler was courageous and not a coward in World War I.
That while Hitler was murderous and brutal and arguably crazy, it's just bad and innaccurate history to say he was a coward.

Separate from Buchanan's opinion, I read a far-from-pro-Hitler biography, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (Praeger Publishers, 1973) by Robert Payne, but even that biography acknowledges Hitler was courageous on the battlefield, and decorated multiple times for his courage on the battlefield (he was a messenger who brought messages from field command posts to officers on the front line, a job that few German soldiers lived very long doing, and Hitler did it fearlessly and was injured multiple time in his service).
A book I read called Inside Hitler's Germany: Life Under the Third Reich (not Buchanan)said that Germans who lived through the 1930s under Nazi rule (up till 1939) look back on it as a time of prosperity, stability and national pride.
Hitler created millions of jobs, built the Autobahn highway system (which engineers brought home to the U.S. after the war, in envisioning the U.S. national interstate highway system), and created social programs such as Kraft Duch Freude, or "Strength Through Joy" that subsidized vacations for German workers with their families and sponsored other rallying community and nationalist events that were not focused on race, hatred or anti-semitism.

Obviously things in Germany went South after that, though.

The concentration camps (mostly for communists and other political oppossition at first) only held a few thousand prisoners until 1940, and initially were not nearly as brutal as what they evolved into in the 1940s. Euthanasia of the infirm and mentally ill did not begin until 1939. And it did not evolve into genocide until the Germans found themselves with millions of Jews and no nation that would take them in late 1941. The death camps did not begin until 1942.

In Buchanan's most recent book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, argues that Hitler's sole focus, as is evident in Mein Kampf, was invading Russia and colonizing it.
Hitler never wanted war with Britain, he never wanted war with France.
And that the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, while giving "right of self-determination" to many peoples of central and eastern Europe, had carved off giant chunks of germans in Germany and Austria-Hungary after 1919 and put them under rule of other cultures. And that Hitler in negotiations with Italy, with taking back the Rhineland, with absorbing Austria by will of a majority of its people, and with annexing Czechoslavokia (more brutally), was mostly a relatively bloodless reversal of the punishing terms of the Versailles treaty.

The roadblock for peaceful reversal of Versailles was when England gave a war guarantee to Poland (but England had no military forces to back up the threat, and was weak in 1939).
Hitler negotiated for months with Poland to simply allow railroads and highways across the Polish Corridor to unite separated East Prussia with the rest of Germany. WITHOUT wanting to take back the land, requesting only the city of Danzig that was 90% German, and would have left 1 million Germans in the Polish corridor under Polish rule.
Hitler negotiated this for 6 months, and only the British war guarantee prevented Poland from negotiating and accepting this peaceful resolution. Hitler knew England couldn't defend Poland, and invaded for what he wanted, thinking England would never go to war.
When England declared war, France was obligated to as well. To outmaneuver England and France, Hitler was forced to invade Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and France, which he was forced to by England and France declaring war and having to outfight them.
Hitler only wanted to invade Russia, and if England and France had just stayed in the sidelines, they could have watched while Germany and Russia destroyed each other.

Buchanan makes the point that to save less than 10 million Polish citizens from Hitler, the net result was condemning 100 million eastern Europeans to brutal slavery under Stalin.
Among many other enlightening points.

I've yet to read controversial remarks such as these that were truly racist or crazy, as is alleged about Buchanan.

While I'm a great admirer of Israel, I see the logic of Buchanan's point that no foreign nation should have the level of influence over our Senate and Congress as Israel does, to the point that any senator or congressman who disputes or scrutinizes U.S. aid to Israel is driven from office. For this, Buchanan is falsely labelled an anti-semite.

For questioning bad history and caricature of Hitler, he is falsely labelled a Nazi.

I've yet to read accusations toward Buchanan of this type that hold up when Buchanan's words are read in context.

Buchanan fell out of favor of Republican neo-cons when he was critical of George W. Bush's abandoning of Reagan conservatism, well explained in his 2004 book Where the Right Went Wrong. And since then, a number of the slanders toward him have come from the right, for not towing the party line.

We've had this discussion before and, with all due respect, I'm not having it again. However, I will note that this isn't just about his views on WWII and Hitler. It's his insistence on defending war criminals like John Demjanjuk past all point of reasonable doubt.