first?

At least no last

I think it's to your great credit, Nicole, Keith Olberman and to C&L that this was posted.

I still can’t get over how Chris Dodd slapped BillO around the room and left him as a wet spot on the floor. That was just too good.

Nate @ 1:

Bummer... I suppose if he's going to give Bill O the worst listing for his JetBlue ambush. Using Bill-O's own tactics against him earns you in kind.

I don't think that's what KO said, Nate. He was sayin' leave the guy alone at home.

In public(as in outside of the Faux Compound) 's'okay.

Keith is the man!! He has more tact and couth then alot of news casters out there.
(katie kalic can you hear us now)?

regardless,, keith needs to stay and keep on exposing the liars and the corruption thats right befour our eyes.
oh and new ´´empy nest eagle pics´´ are up at my blog . Have a look and well see it for yourselfs.

KO got to call BO a pervert but does not want "the sheep" at his house.

Andy K @ 10:

Nate @ 1:

Bummer... I suppose if he's going to give Bill O the worst listing for his JetBlue ambush. Using Bill-O's own tactics against him earns you in kind.

I don't think that's what KO said, Nate. He was sayin' leave the guy alone at home.

In public(as in outside of the Faux Compound) 's'okay.

You're probably right Andy... Here's to hoping Mike stays on Loofah boy like stink on sh!t. In public of course. Maybe we should start a fundraiser for a giant billboard highlighting transcripts of Bill-O's perverted phone calls with the woman he sexually harassed.

I disagree with Olbermann about his assessment of Stark's actions, because with Orally you have to be willing to play just as dirty (since he will just continue to abuse your one-sided fairness and even use it against you), and I see Billo going off of the deep end and being a danger to his neighborhood. But I agree with most of Keith's assessments and respect his approach, even if occassionally wrong. ;)

I am curious to hear from some of those who ripped me and others who said the same as KO on the Stark posting (Dr. Matt and the Site Monitor stick out in memory). Are you guys going to rip into and insult KO now that he said exactly what we said?

Did everyone read the research on BillO?

"Content analysis of O'Reilly's rhetoric finds spin to be a 'factor'
Commentator uses name-calling more than once every seven seconds in 'Talking Points Memo'
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 2, 2007

Editors" This study, published in the academic journal Journalism Studies, was conducted and released without any involvement of any special interest group. The researchers received no grant funding for this study. Additional data, charts and the full text of the study are available online at http://journalism.indiana.edu/papers/oreilly.html.

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Bill O'Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the "No Spin Zone," but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.

The IU researchers found that O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.

"It's obvious he's very big into calling people names, and he's very big into glittering generalities," said Mike Conway, assistant professor in the IU School of Journalism. "He's not very subtle. He's going to call people names, or he's going to paint something in a positive way, often without any real evidence to support that viewpoint."

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html

Interesting research findings about BillO

Yeah, what Willie Krash (22) said.

john @ 24:

Otay @ 21:

john @ 20:

I am curious to hear from some of those who ripped me and others who said the same as KO on the Stark posting (Dr. Matt and the Site Monitor stick out in memory). Are you guys going to rip into and insult KO now that he said exactly what we said?

You just did.

I had no problem on the thread w/ those who disagreed w/ me and felt Stark's behavior was OK, I don't recall you being one who resorted to name calling or condescension on that thread though.

No, I didn't name call. I guess I respect everyone's opinions on this site too much. ;)

john @ 20:

I am curious to hear from some of those who ripped me and others who said the same as KO on the Stark posting (Dr. Matt and the Site Monitor stick out in memory). Are you guys going to rip into and insult KO now that he said exactly what we said?

Keith is wrong as you are. I have no problem admitting that. I don't use talking points or take direction from anyone. You're both wimps on this issue. Big deal.

Otay @ 27:

john @ 24:

Otay @ 21:

john @ 20:

You just did.

I had no problem on the thread w/ those who disagreed w/ me and felt Stark's behavior was OK, I don't recall you being one who resorted to name calling or condescension on that thread though.

No, I didn't name call. I guess I respect everyone's opinions on this site too much. ;)

Disagreement is healthy. That thread became much to much like what I would expect from the right where anyone who didn't line up behind Stark was being insulted and shouted down. I think it is great that Keith deals not from ideology but from principle.

justabill @ 25:

Yeah, what Willie Krash (22) said.

Yeah, I agree!

johnnyRocketpants @ 11:

I watched this last night, and I see Keith's point about it being BillO's home and all (a point made by a few C&Lers too), but I'm sorry, it still cracks me up. Especially seeing them wave at BillO with the loofahs on their hands. Brilliant!

That being said, I'll just declare myself the WPinW too. I guess I'm a terrible person for enjoying what Stark did. How will I go on...

It made me laugh, although I do think it is wrong. That said, did anybody else notice that Mike Stark had breasts? (that made me laugh too)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1058/962929636_402222560f.jpg

john @ 32:

I think what he was saying was the Keith deals from principles not just ideology. O'Reilly will rip on Kos for having someone who posts a cartoon that was perhaps tasteless, but lets the left slide. KO isn't like that. He is consistent.

I'm guessing you meant "...but lets the RIGHT slide."

I appreciate KO's consistency, although I question his motive in this situation considering he is a public figure as well. But my point is, I can laugh at what happened without feeling obligated to defend Stark's actions. Stark turned the tables on BillO, and I appreciate the humour and message of what he did. I can also laugh at the tasteless cartoons, because I understand the underlining message of, let's say, Lieberman blowing Bush.

Keep in mind, Keith said Stark's stunt would be fine if it were in public. Many objectors here would still call that 'sinking to BillO's level'. I disagree, which in some concern-troll minds makes me juvenile & asinine. I hope you're not one of them, and allow me to see the gray in what is far from a black and white issue.

Some of you still don't get it. KO is right.
Becoming a disgusting creepy stalker because Loufa is a a creepy jerk is paying him back how? It's "fighting" him HOW?

Is Bill o going to quit his show because someone posted nasty leaflets in his neighborhood? Is Fox going to cancel his show? Is he going to tone down his rhetoric? Are you so delusional as to think so?

NO. By doing what Stark did WE LOSE. It affects Bill O in no way except positively, because now when he bellows about the left being hateful, he'll have more ammo. When people on the fence investigate Bill O's charges, there's more of a chance they'll see validation for them. He himself will see this as validation that he is right.

What exactly do those of you who are saying he deserves it think this will accomplish other than to tarnish US? if all you want is to vent your own spleen regardless of the consequences, then you're no better than the right-wing screamers.

johnnyRocketpants @ 37:

john @ 32:

I think what he was saying was the Keith deals from principles not just ideology. O'Reilly will rip on Kos for having someone who posts a cartoon that was perhaps tasteless, but lets the left slide. KO isn't like that. He is consistent.

I'm guessing you meant "...but lets the RIGHT slide."

I appreciate KO's consistency, although I question his motive in this situation considering he is a public figure as well. But my point is, I can laugh at what happened without feeling obligated to defend Stark's actions. Stark turned the tables on BillO, and I appreciate the humour and message of what he did. I can also laugh at the tasteless cartoons, because I understand the underlining message of, let's say, Lieberman blowing Bush.

Keep in mind, Keith said Stark's stunt would be fine if it were in public. Many objectors here would still call that 'sinking to BillO's level'. I disagree, which in some concern-troll minds makes me juvenile & asinine. I hope you're not one of them, and allow me to see the gray in what is far from a black and white issue.

I did mean right, thanks for the correction. I was going to correct myself, but that would have been 3 posts in a row. Honestly, I can see where a person could think O'Reilly had it coming to him, because he has a whole lot coming to him for the way he treats people. I don't think Stark's actions were reprehensible, but I did object to it being described as "reporting". What Fox does is not reporting and we call them on it, so I don't like seeing people on the left falling into that same trap.

My objections on that thread were more to the group think shown by some posters and the bullying on the thread. The end doesn't justify the means. I think progressives need to encourage an open and frank discussion because I think that if that happens our side wins. People like O'Reilly have to cut mics and shout down those they disagree with because they don't have facts or reason on their side. I don't like seeing anyone marching in lockstep and telling others they are wrong for having their own opinion. As I said on another thread, a perfect example of being aggressive, smart and still having dignity was what Dodd did to O'Reilly. My respect for him grew so much seeing how he did that.

Flawless KO. Flawless. My stomach sank when I saw Mike Stark's little stunt. When they get you to sink to their level, they win. No wonder why O'Reilly didn't explode at the stunt. He knew he had Stark right where he wanted him.

Sorry, Mike. I don't have your back on this one. You gave this round to the Falafel head.

Love how Olbermann declares his side 'the good guys'. Prime example of taking the high road.

craig @ 39:

Some of you still don't get it. KO is right...

...Is Bill o going to quit his show because someone posted nasty leaflets in his neighborhood? Is Fox going to cancel his show? Is he going to tone down his rhetoric? Are you so delusional as to think so?

NO. By doing what Stark did WE LOSE. It affects Bill O in no way except positively, because now when he bellows about the left being hateful, he'll have more ammo. When people on the fence investigate Bill O's charges, there's more of a chance they'll see validation for them. He himself will see this as validation that he is right.

What exactly do those of you who are saying he deserves it think this will accomplish other than to tarnish US? if all you want is to vent your own spleen regardless of the consequences, then you're no better than the right-wing screamers.

So you believe, as Keith does, that if this were in public it would be ok? Or do we lose that way too?

I'd suggest the right-wing screamers insist people tow their line.

Keith should have just left the whole issue alone, now all we're going to hear is that Keith thinks Stark is a whackjob, too. IMHO, Dildo'reilly shares responsibility for the venomous hatred aimed at Democrats, the distortion of truth and reality, and for that he deserves whatever maltreatment he gets, whatever the source and wherever the location.

It's not about "being nice" ... it's about "being smart". This tactic only worked in BillO's favor. Whether you hate BillO or not, he just got served a perfect piece of propaganda to throttle us with on his television show.

If we are better, then serve him cold facts, shout him down if necessary, expose his fraudulent statements. Hell, read them back to him on his show and prove what a liar he is. Call him names. Yes, Chris Dodd was flawless and should set the example for all 08 candidates to follow.

He's a douchebag, a liar, a sociopath, and a shitstain on out democracy. It ain't about being nice.

It's about being smart and Stark was dumb and he should be taken to the woodshed for it. We don't need to feed the enemy propoganda machine.

DDear Site Monitor, since it's germane, I hope it's OK for me to repost this, with some minor edits.... Thanks! nwa)

Originally posted on Mike's KOS Diary:

I’m So Jealous, You Made KO’s Worst Person 2 Nite (0 / 0)

Every night I watch Countdown on MSNBC and every night I’m disappointed because Olbermann just hands out those “Worst Person In The World” award things out like lollipops to people that just say and do bad things.

Every now and then he should be giving one out to me because I *am* a bad and truly evil person.

Once you get to know me, you’ll see just how true that is.

Therefore, I’m jealous that you got one tonight because:

a) you’re not an intrinsically bad or evil person like I am

and

b) I don’t see what you said or did as being a bad thing, not at all.

You got named #2, between comedian Rush Limbaugh, and BillO, with the argument that you ‘crossed the line’ by adopting their tactics, a sentiment I used to share, that is until I woke up and smelled Father Ted’s amphetamines, and had me one of those ‘moments of clarity’ that that approach has been done to death and not getting us anywhere, except having our asses handed to us over and over again.

Forever.

And forever

For, like, y’know, all eternity, like.

C’mon, Keith, I love you like a brother, but, you of all people, know that these guys not only never play fair, but they also fight dirty and taking this purported ‘high road’ is the nonsense they feed us, while they’re busy slamming us into the dirt.

When are we gonna come to our collectives senses?

My guess is that it’s probably gonna be the same day that Herr Busch stops braining us in all our faces and comes to our defenses.

Cosmo Kramer, please.

They’re playing hardball out there and we still think it’s a kick back game of Ultimate Frisbee.

It’s time we quit bickering amongst ourselves, circled the wagons, closed ranks, marched with one another in lock step and totally covered, protected and backed this Mike Stark guy up 110%.

It's the least we can do after he's put his butt on the line, over and over again. Let's not forget it was Mike that BillO threatened with a visit from the Brown Shirt Goons of Fox Security, as well as taken some physical hits from George Allen's campaign workers in2006 when Mike tried to ask the Senator some questions about his character.

This is an ideal place to start to show how serious we are about not giving in and swallowing their tripe whole anymore.

Either that, or we simply resign ourselves to keep getting what we’re getting, with the proviso that we can no longer bitch, cry, whine and moan about the results.

M’kay?

Sound reasonable?

‘Nuff said.

Semper Fidelis, you Magnificent Bastard.

~Nyc Alberts

by A Pen Warmed In Hell on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:43:39 AM ADT

Otay @ 51:

craig @ 39:

Some of you still don't get it. KO is right.
Becoming a disgusting creepy stalker because Loufa is a a creepy jerk is paying him back how? It's "fighting" him HOW?

Is Bill o going to quit his show because someone posted nasty leaflets in his neighborhood? Is Fox going to cancel his show? Is he going to tone down his rhetoric? Are you so delusional as to think so?

NO. By doing what Stark did WE LOSE. It affects Bill O in no way except positively, because now when he bellows about the left being hateful, he'll have more ammo. When people on the fence investigate Bill O's charges, there's more of a chance they'll see validation for them. He himself will see this as validation that he is right.

What exactly do those of you who are saying he deserves it think this will accomplish other than to tarnish US? if all you want is to vent your own spleen regardless of the consequences, then you're no better than the right-wing screamers.

First, calm down and stop with the name-calling, please.

Second, the way Stark's action helps is it brings up Orally's checkered past into the news if any right wingnut reports it. And if they don't, at least the neighborhood knows what kind of creep is living in it. I would certainly want to know if there were a psychopathic creep in my neighborhood.

Third, Orally lies. To say what Stark did was anywhere near what Orally does is disingenous and a little silly. Stark told the truth and brought it into the public's attention. Granted, it was a PR stunt, but perfectly legal and not a horrendous stunt that some people's reactions seem to imply.

Fourth, I don't know how you can say with such certainty that Billo does not fear having his reputation in the neighborhood tarnished and that he at least won't ambush people at their private residences if he thinks there may be payback. Who knows, maybe wife is threatening him right now to stop some of the stuff he does as it comes back to their doorstep.

Fifth, just because you have come to the opposite conclusions I have does not mean you are right, and does not mean I am wrong. Or vice versa. Why don't we see how this turns out? I'm willing to change my opinion. How about you?

Well said Otay!

Tim @ 51:

It's not about "being nice" ... it's about "being smart". This tactic only worked in BillO's favor. Whether you hate BillO or not, he just got served a perfect piece of propaganda to throttle us with on his television show.

If we are better, then serve him cold facts, shout him down if necessary, expose his fraudulent statements. Hell, read them back to him on his show and prove what a liar he is. Call him names. Yes, Chris Dodd was flawless and should set the example for all 08 candidates to follow.

He's a douchebag, a liar, a sociopath, and a shitstain on out democracy. It ain't about being nice.

It's about being smart and Stark was dumb and he should be taken to the woodshed for it. We don't need to feed the enemy propoganda machine.

Sir, the Repubs have one of the smartest PR machines around. They win by pulling these stunts and usually far worse than this stunt. You could call this anything you want, but saying it isn't "smart" is stretching it. Being nice and principled is probably a better argument to use against Stark's actions than not being "smart".

As for feeding the Repub propaganda machine, I doubt this is influencing anyone but the 25%ers who are already hardcore Repubs. The rest are not going to side with the Repubs when they know the Repubs have done far worse. I think we are far too afraid of being perceived as imperfect than is warranted.

NoSpam @ 36:

It made me laugh, although I do think it is wrong. That said, did anybody else notice that Mike Stark had breasts? (that made me laugh too)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1058/962929636_402222560f.jpg

Those aren't breasts, they're distinguished moobs.
Past that, I have no comment. I'm too torn between "That's shamefully stooping to their level." and "Serves you right, you shameless, blustering bastard." to argue either side.
From a moral perspective I know it's wrong. From a tactical perspective, I think it's unwise. From a getting what you deserve perspective, it seems totally justified.

[Edited for mis-attributed quote-Sitemonitor]

I agree that Stark crossed the line on this one... this is a BAD PRECEDENT to set... can you imagine people hounding people they disagree with at their homes? No matter who it is... if you want to stand for something, you have to apply it to yourself, regardless of how much it seems like you want revenge. I despise our preznit and veep, I hold them responsible for thousands of untold deaths in America and Iraq, but yet I would not advocate doing anything like this (if it were possible).

IF we are trying to elevate the debate in this country, the tactics should not be to playball with the preschoolers, rather play like a major leaguer. We have the majority of this country behind us. It's just a bad example to set. Do you want someone showing up at the door of Jon Stewart's house because they disagree with him? KO made a clear reference to public versus private. Everyone is entitled to their privacy and their political views without fear of someone waiting outside their door.

Stark acted on his own, and while I do applaud him for taking action, I think point of Stark's stunt will be lost on BillO or any of his viewers (if they even hear about it). It does seem more self serving than anything else, more of a tit for tat, and I highly doubt it will change any of the ass clowns at Faux News, nor help anything.

I read postings on another blog referencing the 60's... well this is apples and oranges. You can't fit the square peg in the round hole and say it fits. It is a long shot. This is a talk show host who bad mouthed a blog and it blew up in his face. The stunt at his house was unnecessary.

If ANYTHING, Billo's outburst only helped the blog movement, rallying readers to the blogs and to rally politicians to support the bloggers. PLEASE HEED THIS POINT, any of you out there contemplating stupid stunts. The stunt will do NOTHING to rally anyone. BillO's own loofah-esque stupidity ultimately will bring him down. He's on a small platform and it's melting fast....

I only have one thing to say to you, Mr. O'Reilly!

I like tutles!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B-K4NGo2HE&eurl=

Hahahaa!!

Stark deserved it. Never fight in the mud with the pigs, it makes you no better off than they are, and even if you win, you are covered in filth.

Tim in Japan @ 65:

bill o'reilly may be the biggest embarrassment to the Irish people ever but Keith is absolutely right on this. AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY.

For those that say we have to fight o'reilly with o'reilly tactics, please know, that's the exact same argument the neo-cons use to justify their actions at Gitmo.

Food for thought.

Wait a second here. "Keith is absolutely right" and "we (shouldn't) have to fight o'reilly with o'reilly tactics" can not co-exist. Keith's argument was we should not be going to people's homes to do this kind of thing, but that it's perfectly ok in public. That's still in line with BillO's tactics, is it not?

I'm sure Ms. Mackrus "appreciated" Starks action. Maybe it was something she wanted to put behind her. Did Starks bother to consider the victim? She fought and won. And despite the compensation, it was an ugly experience having to endure unwanted advances by a "man" who has power over you. So is Starks her white knight? Our vigilante. Something about what he did just doesnt feel right to me. I think what BOR did and all his subsequent activities was base. But I also think that Starks' use of the signs was overkill and juvenile. It lacked class and finess. Like any human, we get tempted to indulge our anger - to take justice into our own hands. I've learned that its always best to take the high road.

Otay @ 67:

Tim in Japan @ 65:

bill o'reilly may be the biggest embarrassment to the Irish people ever but Keith is absolutely right on this. AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY.

For those that say we have to fight o'reilly with o'reilly tactics, please know, that's the exact same argument the neo-cons use to justify their actions at Gitmo.

Food for thought.

Equating Stark's community service with Gitmo? Are you kidding?

No he is equating the logic used to defend Stark as the logic used to defend Gitmo. Big difference there.

john @ 72:

Otay @ 67:

Tim in Japan @ 65:

bill o'reilly may be the biggest embarrassment to the Irish people ever but Keith is absolutely right on this. AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY.

For those that say we have to fight o'reilly with o'reilly tactics, please know, that's the exact same argument the neo-cons use to justify their actions at Gitmo.

Food for thought.

Equating Stark's community service with Gitmo? Are you kidding?

No he is equating the logic used to defend Stark as the logic used to defend Gitmo. Big difference there.

If one defends Stark by saying one must always go general-tit-for-specific-tat no matter the consequences (for instance not only would one make a universal rule to visit all right-wing pundits houses because Billo did it in the past, but would also harm Repubs because Repubs did so in the past), then there would be a case to make this statement.

But it is silly to try to make that case here. My main defense of Stark is that he was educating the community on a sick guy living in the neighborhood, and this kind of action is certainly not an over-response or generic nail-alll-Repubs response to Bill's actions.

The Gitmo argument was a stretch.

John (Not Amato) @ 71:

Vindication!

Hey all you idiots that called us concern trolls on that mike stark thread, is Keith a concern troll also?

Crawl back in your holes.

What an insightful posting. You measure your vindication based on a news commentator. Good for you. I'll think for myself, thanks.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole incident by Mike Stark was just personal payback and advances the cause of no one. He was targeted by Bill O' and was threatened that people would go to his house so he went to his in turn and advertised the sexual harrassment lawsuit against him. Tell me, is there anything we should be getting out of this than a "revenge is sweet" feeling? I hear a lot of applause that he fought O'Reilly at his own game but is it really a game we want to play? Stalking people we deem enemies, focusing on their personal affairs instead of their substance or lack thereof? This stunt really advances no one and like said by others this just gives them more ammunition to say our side's full of hatred and immaturity. No "so are they" arguments, do we really honestly have to stoop to their level? I think the term that the right loves to use to describe us, is "hypocrite". Not sure if we want to give them reason to believe their biases. Also, we get it, he's a pervert and made a few women miserable in the ordeal and the aftermath. It's done and over with. How about all the lies and hate and stupidity he spews? Why not instead of making signs calling him a pervert you make signs of actual things he said, like how Al Qaeda can bomb San Francisco or any multitude of things he has said on his programs. Then you get revenge on him AND focus on the real issue (that he's a lying piece of crap right wing water carrier) and not the issues in his private life, and you can show to the world "this is the man for what he really is". Had Mike done that, he'd have my full support. Instead, I'm with KO on this one. And for those who are whining, saying (paraphrased) how your respect for him is lowered because he disagrees with the merits of this stunt, grow up. He made very legitimate points and they have been echoed on here and other forums since the incident was posted. If you disagree with his stance fine, just like we disagree with you, but let's not go making catastrophes out of it.

That said I honestly don't see this resulting in much. Bill O isn't going to be talking about it because of the subject, and anyone on the right is just going to believe what they already did anyway (and how many of them frequent the liberal blogs anyway?). Not going to affect any of us on the left, we're just going to disagree with how to see one silly stunt and then next month no word will be made of it. As for everyone else, I think they know that both sides have their bad moments by amateurs and will likely focus much more on who is running for office and the sh*thole of a government and legacy the Bush Administration has become.

johnnyRocketpants @ 76:

John (Not Amato) @ 71:

Vindication!

Hey all you idiots that called us concern trolls on that mike stark thread, is Keith a concern troll also?

Crawl back in your holes.

What an insightful posting. You measure your vindication based on a news commentator. Good for you. I'll think for myself, thanks.

By the way, I'd wager BillO agrees with you too. Vindication there too, eh?

Otay @ 81:

Roninkokoro22,

Stark could have done it much better. I'll grant that. He could have just had signs with the facts listed about Bill, and actual threats referenced. Then let everyone reading them come to their own conclusions. I am confident that if he had listed Bill's quotes on what Bill was threatening to do to any women who outed him, people would realize what a sick and twisted guy lived in the neighborhood.

Kind of makes you wonder whether or not they already know, and if so, if they care. If he lives with "his kind of people" (read, not referring to perverts), I doubt they even care.

roninkokoro22 @ 82:

Otay @ 81:

Roninkokoro22,

Stark could have done it much better. I'll grant that. He could have just had signs with the facts listed about Bill, and actual threats referenced. Then let everyone reading them come to their own conclusions. I am confident that if he had listed Bill's quotes on what Bill was threatening to do to any women who outed him, people would realize what a sick and twisted guy lived in the neighborhood.

Kind of makes you wonder whether or not they already know, and if so, if they care. If he lives with "his kind of people" (read, not referring to perverts), I doubt they even care.

I think that depends on whether they have kids. Particularly teenage daughters.

where are the signs posted that obermann was talking about?

I think Keith is right, they should ambush B.O. in public ...men's rooms when he is paying out money in a double occupancy stall.

I am suspicious. I am listening to Mike Malloy's radio talk show now -- and the same thing is happening. A whole bunch of "Democrats" are calling up and writing, telling Mike to "be nice" to right-wing callers. I realize Keith isn't a right-winger, but his bosses are. (Plus they love to make up fights.) I am SO GLAD I have TiVo and don't have to listen to the 2nd half of his program -- except "Worst Person," which I can get to without watching the rest.

I think we know what Bush talked to the right-wing talk show hosts about a few days ago. It isn't coincidence that all of a sudden, all over the place, "Democrats" are telling liberal radio shows (and blogs) to BE NICE.

I started to say you idiots aren't smart enough to fool me. But then I thought, "DUH." Let me rephrase it: You aren't even smart enough to fool the "IQ 80" set.

Give up -- you are done.

I love KO and agree with him 99% of the time but I disagree. I still think Mike Stark did the right thing.

Loonie @ 13:

There you go. We apply our standards to our own. We don't make excuses for them.

Fair enough.
If we are going to call them on their Hypocrisy then we should at least try not to be hypocritical ourselves.

Having said that, in the words of Snoop dog, "Fuck Bill O'Reilly" !

Him and all those Wingnut blowhards like Limblahh, Malkin, Mann Coulter and Bush/Cheney/Rove, including all their apologists and supporters ... I really do wish there was a Hell sometimes just so I could gain some pleasure in the fact that scum like this will indeed burn for all eternity.

I wonder if Bill got the point? Has anyone heard anything from him regarding him getting pwnd using some of his own tactics?

Also, while I do believe we HAVE to take the high ground whenever possible. I also believe we need to fight these scumbags and fight them with everything we have.
If all they understand is being bullied then I believe when the occasion is right, bully them right back.

craig @ 40:

Some of you still don't get it. KO is right.
Becoming a disgusting creepy stalker because Loufa is a a creepy jerk is paying him back how? It's "fighting" him HOW?

Is Bill o going to quit his show because someone posted nasty leaflets in his neighborhood? Is Fox going to cancel his show? Is he going to tone down his rhetoric? Are you so delusional as to think so?

NO. By doing what Stark did WE LOSE. It affects Bill O in no way except positively, because now when he bellows about the left being hateful, he'll have more ammo. When people on the fence investigate Bill O's charges, there's more of a chance they'll see validation for them. He himself will see this as validation that he is right.

What exactly do those of you who are saying he deserves it think this will accomplish other than to tarnish US? if all you want is to vent your own spleen regardless of the consequences, then you're no better than the right-wing screamers.

Last I checked, not having ammo never stopped O'Reilly. He takes things completely out of context, or fabricates them completely to make his point. Stark's stunt isn't going to make or break the bank, as far as that goes.

Besides, if we're so worried about giving him ammo, when he takes visitor comments from blog sites and cites them as example, why don't you cry about all the partisan democrats refering to republicans as "rethugs", "repugs", etc.?

well this is nice for those of us in the initial thread who were called 'idiots' and 'wimps' for not liking this type of pandering, self-satisfied stunt.

[Mike-we're done with this now-Sitemonitor]

[Deleted Off Topic-Sitemonitor]

johnnyRocketpants @ 99:

Let's get one thing straight once and for all. Most of those who took issue with Stark's tactic took the "we shouldn't stoop to their level" line. This has not in anyway been validated by KO's commentary. KO opposed showing up at BillO's home, but suggested that if it were in public, that would be fine. That would still be considered stooping to BillO's level. KO sees a shade of gray in this issue, as do I.
Had Stark done this outside BillO's office, signs and all, KO would have had Stark guest host for a week.
The "I told you we shouldn't have stooped to his level, and Keith Olbermann agrees with me" line does not hold water, and frankly, reeks of a disparate attempt at self-validation.

Shorter JohnnyRocketpants: "Wahhhhhh!"

[Please get over and move on with your life, OK? Sitemonitor]

johnnyRocketpants @ 61:

Whoa, dude, you're attributing a quote to me that I did not submit!

Belated, but my sincere apologies. That was the first time I'd ever used the "Quote" button, and I wasn't paying enough attention to the HTML it generates, so I deleted the wrong attribution when I'd intended to just delete the quote from the message I was joking about. (I'm too used to the way that some bulletin board software generates attributed quotes, rather than the link-then-blockquote style here.)

For somebody who codes this stuff for a living, you'd think I'd pay more attention.

I agree with Keith on this one. The guy was wrong, wrong and believe me there is no one that dislikes this bastard like I do, but you have to restrain yourself with these people, which is why I resort to the name calling instead. They really get pissed off and embarassed when they look at these web sites and see all the funny crap said about them. The real pain is laying in wait.

They tend to try to play you out of pocket and my heart goes out to the fellow that did this, because I know just how angry he really is, but he has got to pull it together long enough to control himself with these bastards.

I truely believe that we are going to get our day in court with all of these ass holes. We just have to be cool calm and collected in our thoughts and actions.

Geez.
I can't believe my post caused so much consternation.
Are you people this literal about everything?

How about this, for the analogy impaired.

When you fight stupidity with stupidity, you end up acting stupid.

Better?

i gotta disagree with the saviour of our democracy & the classiest guy in the world on this one. until the wingnuts abide by the rules of civilized discourse, then fight fire with fire. they may have fux security, but we got mike stark. go git 'em mike.

kpeter @ 109:

I feel sorry for Mike Stark. He has been working so hard to fight back the rightwingers who collectively try to harm your country. He crosses a line once and so many of you stab him in the back calling his action as 'stupid', 'juvenile' and 'stooping to their level' etc.

I couldn't imagine what Mike had to go through, just because he stood up and fought back at the rightwingers (i.e. death threats, hate mails, hate phone calls, risking his family's wellbeing by going publicly against the rightwing, lack of financial stability). All for what? Because he cared for his country (he served in the army for your country too). But many of you don't care about that, do you? He does something bad once, and let's all kick this guy down the cliff - he's not useful to us anymore.

I believe it is because of those people who stood up and put their time and effort into doing something about the Bush administration and right wing hacks that the country has turned against the war. The 'do something about it' crowd made the blogosphere so powerful.

I also think that is the reason why C&L isn't that critical about him - because they understand sitting down doing nothing will result in nothing, and this guy Stark has been out there for years, risking himself just like C&L has been working hard with this blog for so many years.

In other words, I agree with KO on everything up until now. I don't agree with KO on this one. If it is Mike's well being or BillO's, I'll take Mike over Bill any time.

This quote needs to be read again. Stark has been putting himself in harm's way for our cause, time and again. You don't have to defend the guy. I haven't, and neither have most. We want to be able to laugh at what that asshole BillO had coming to him. But no, we're BAD PEOPLE if we have a sense of god damn humour.

"Oh no his family; oh no his children; we're stooping to his level; people will turn on us!" Please. His family, children, and fans, all 29% of them, no more no less, will not feel any different about us. They already think we are Nazis, or the KKK, or a David Duke convention because of what BillO said (as well as others). But some of you would rather sit there and take it, and try to reason with the 29%ers that can not be reasoned with. Take the high road when someone calls you a Nazi? And for some reason, you think that person, someone who has called you A FUCKING NAZI, deserves some kind of reprieve from the indignity that is American politics. Shame on all of you. And no, I don't include KO in the rant, because he had the balls to at least admit that he would be fine if Stark did this in public. Most of you Stark haters would not admit the same.

There's no one else on the planet that would do what Stark did for our cause. You wouldn't. I wouldn't. But he did, and to the most deserving administration-sucker we've ever known. But the haters wanna shoot Stark down this one time, never mind all the other shit you loved Stark for doing. What a bunch of turn-coats.

I never once, before now, called anyone here a concern troll, wimp, or anything untoward. But now I'm supposed to eat crow because a bunch of near-sighted, lock-step hard-liners feel they are vindicated due to a media personality (geez, awful similar to Republicans, eh?). I love KO, I PVR (that's TIVO to you Americans) every night, not-with-standing the constant nauseating "legal-drug" commercials, and I feel he's the only guy that tells it like it is in your news media. I once felt he should never have used E.R. Murrow's sign-off, but the fact is, as far removed as he may be, KO is the closest your country will EVER be to Murrow today. I believe even KO would be distraught at that thought. I think that's why he uses that quote, along with Letterman's camera-crash. It's great commentary of your news media standards, IMHO.

I never felt obligated to defend anyone's actions, including Stark's, but all you Stark haters have turned me around. All I wanted to do was laugh at BillO for being a GOD DAMN SEXUAL PREDATOR! But no, we're not allowed to do that apparently, if we want to be progressive. KO can do it, he is fine with going after BillO publicly, but most of Stark's haters are not (although they seem to indicate victory regardless,... I wish I could find a circle-jerk that affirmative).

I can only try to rest assured this is the result of an open forum, and an open debate among progressives. I fear, however, anyone who suggests the progressive stand is that of towing the line ala John (DEFINITELY Not Amato) might be more a kin to the Repubs.

johnnyRocketpants @ 114:

kpeter @ 109:

I can only try to rest assured this is the result of an open forum, and an open debate among progressives. I fear, however, anyone who suggests the progressive stand is that of towing the line ala John (DEFINITELY Not Amato) might be more a kin to the Repubs.

Actually, kpeter, in my mind you sound far more reactionary and conservative than progressive. You spout hyperbolic vitriol about Nazis and dub fellow liberals cowards. You're clearly thinking with your emotions here. There is a very good reason as to why the family of a rape victim doesn't comprise the jury in a court hearing; justice and revenge should never be confused.

Was it somewhat funny? Sure, to us. Just as I am certain that certain conservatives laugh and applaud Bill O'Reilly. At the end of the day, both are guilty of invasive behaviour - of harassment. And calling O'Reilly a "sex pervert" and 'alerting' the entire neighbourhood? I won't dispute that his actions toward that woman were disgusting but this reminds me of those paedophile witch-hunts in England - the entire 'name-and-shame' debacle. That sort of thing makes me uneasy. As with Bill Clinton and the blowjob scandal, this is something between Bill O'Reilly, FOX News, his victim, her family, and his family. Forming a mob so that we can 'police' the lives of others (never, ever contemplating our own sins and certainly hoping those skeletons don't come to light) is terrifying to me.

Anyhow, this is my final post on the subject I think. I just wanted to put that out there.

Shawnmeat @ 117:

Oops! I butchered the quote function.

I'm afraid I'm not sure if you butchered my quote, or that of another. I certainly hope you haven't thought my quote to be that of a "reactionary and conservative".

If so, let's talk. If not, happy Canadian Long Weekend.

John (Not Amato) @ 93:

My point is pretty clear, and not too complicated either. Mike Starks actions stirred up a lot of emotions, and many of us felt it was inappropriate and over the line. When we voiced these opinions, we were told by everyone from the sitemonitor to an assortment of ends/means clowns that we were "concern trolls" and not welcome. Mike reacted similarly at dkos.

Well, it turned out, the majority here and at dkos were all concern trolls. Now Keith has similarly expressed disappointment in Mike.

I know its hard to face the fact that you didn't think it out carefully when you knee-jerked to Mikes defence just because of who mike and billo are, but deal with your hypocrisy.

This is a rather meanspirited comment, but I'm sick of dealing with idiots.

As one of those sticking up for the confusingly-named "concern trolls" that night, I gotta say once again John's got one of the greatest posts I've seen up here.
My two cents - yes, we should all be angry at Bill and the right for what they are. Let us not join their ranks in spirit and actions. I don't think Mike's little ambush was gross in the way of, say, O'Reilly speaking of Shawn Hornbeck... but none of us can legitimately believe that these things will or should help our side in the end.