How much will Keith Olbermann pay Hannity for the waterboard treatment?

Olbermann would never welch, so option #2 is out of the question. However, I can see Hannity changing the rules considerably to the point that Olbermann has no choice but to refuse to pay...at which point Hannity and Fox can loudly proclaim that he did welch. Far more likely, however, is Hannity failing to be subjected to waterboarding at all, as to do so would give even more legitimacy and credibility to MSNBC...and Fox doesn't need that. my money's on #1...

one guy from fox did this awhile back. if anybody has learned to swim they can imagine what waterboarding feels like. i couldn't do it for 30 seconds. i'm not scared for life after almost drowning either. in fact recovered and know how to swim. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2jKe5zAS9E

Are you kidding. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING could give credibility to MSNBC.

"Are you kidding. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING could give credibility to MSNBC."

That's probably true; they don't need to be given credibility, as they've done a magnificent job creating their own... :-)

I say waterboard that SOB Hannity 126 times in one month as well. Heck its just frat boy hazing anyway right?

Is it possible Olbermann could get in trouble for this and be forced to rescind the offer? If waterboarding is actually torture, then wouldn't it be illegal to offer a "reward" for doing that to someone, even if it's to charity?

Possibly--though Hannity brought it up first, telling Charles Grodin that he'd be happy to be waterboarded for charity. (The only torture involved so far is having to watch recordings of Fox News to see that clip.)

there needs to be an option of no reports by settlement date. Neither network will allow it to happen, as neither will want to look bad if it would actually go down.

"That's probably true; they don't need to be given credibility, as they've done a magnificent job creating their own... :-) "


I guess that's why their ratings are so high, huh?

I added a "doesn't happen" to option 1, so it should now be clear that regardless of Hannity's mental fortitude, if the event never happens, (i.e. networks can it or its never mentioned again in the press) it will settle as option 1.

Despite the fact that he's on video saying that he will, Hannity today said that he never made any statement claiming that he'd consent to be waterboarded.

Hannity is a wuss (not that I would be able to submit to this form of torture). But, he has a stage on national TV and makes light of a war crime (i.e. no big deal I'll do it) then backs off; wussy is my book.

Erik MSNBC is the fastest growing cable new channel according to Nielsen ratings. The may not be as high as faux news, but give it time there is a whole generation of Americans that can't stand the dribble that Hannity and O'Reilly spew on a nightly basis.

MSNBC is the fastest growing cable new channel according to Nielsen ratings. well if you start with 3 people watching you gotta grow at some point. check the Nielsen ratings..fox has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. least they did last time i checked. :O)

It would be something close to amazing if Fox News didn't garner better ratings; open-minded TV viewers, after all, have their choice of MSNBC, CNN, HLN, and so on, while those on the radical right seeking a place of conservative electronic solace--a place to turn in which their wounds can be salved and their set opinions bolstered--have only Fox. On any given weekday evening, Fox's rating in the 25-54 demo is substantially higher than either of those other three, but if one conjectures that Fox has all those of a highly conservative bent while the rest of viewers are spread among the other networks, Fox only has somewhere between a third and much less than half of everyone watching...a number that strongly mirrors the results of the latest presidential election.

"Open-minded vs radical right seeking a place of conservative electronic solace--a place to turn in which their wounds can be salved and their set opinions bolstered"

Give me a break.
Why don't you call it for what it really is - Liberal Biased Media.

FOX gives listeners / viewers a place to listen to news anchors who:
Do not have a thrill run up their leg when listening to Obama speak. - Chris Matthews

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and his guest Janeane Garofalo defamed fellow citizens who attended the prior day's Tea Parties with the same vitriolic contempt. Garofalo actually called Party-goers "a bunch of teabagging rednecks," adding "this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up."

(Note - I attended (2) of the tea party protests and saw nothing that resembled any of the MSM reporting)
http://www.norcolophoto.com/Tea_Party_FC2009/index.html
http://www.norcolophoto.com/Tea_Party_Loveland2009/index.html

At this point in time, Miss America contestants get tougher questions than Obama does at Presidential news conferences.
Recent case in point:New York Times reporter asked: What enchanted you the most from serving in this office?

I could go on, but I will probably be called hateful for pointing out the hatred that fills the left wing opinion media, which has replaced true news media today.

These guys are really into relabeling / repackaging aren't they? Conservatives are happy with the title, but Liberals are always trying out a new one for size. Sometimes they want "right thinking(!)", "progressive", "open minded", "maverick", "moderate", "mainstream" and so forth in an attempt to disguise and distract from the Liberal label. The these type also throw in "radical", "right wing", "hate monger", and other adjectives to gin up some kind of fear of the benign when they talk about Conservatives!

Well, I'm not afraid of the liberal label, and, in fact, I readily and happily embrace it. As I've said before here, I'm a proud, card-carrying member of the ACLU. In the words of John F. Kennedy: "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'Liberal?' If by 'Liberal' they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of 'Liberal.' But if by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"

--We're clearly mainstream, as that implies a majority...and majorities win elections, QED.

--We're clearly open minded; that's one of the hallmarks of the very term liberal.

--Ditto the term progressive.

--Ummm...McCain and Palin used--and overused, ad nauseum--the term maverick to the point that no politician--left or right--should or will ever used it again, at least not for a very long time.

They on the right has worked long and hard--and, I'd have to admit, successfully--to demonize the very word liberal. But turnabout is fair play; the right shouldn't get so upset when the left uses a little of their own semantic trickery on themselves, should they? :-)

Ok that the words of of JFK were true, today in the words of Excavator himself the liberals are: "softer then ever in their policies abroad, the federal government which is run by radicals liberal extremists, - who during elections try to cloak themselves in conservative disguise and use media mind control to convince the public that they are in the mainstream in order to win, - is taking power away from local government, and is not only unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollars but is recklessly spending the dollars of tax for generations of unborn taxpayers.The record reflects."

Recently Rob Blagojevich used an argument eerily reminiscent of the argument quoted by JFK above to justify himself to the media. I hate to break it to you but the liberal policies are old and they failed back then, the arguments are old and they are being regurgitated today as "change" they may only win elections and illusion themselves with being in the mainstream as long as they can disguise who they really are -... Sorry man.

"We're clearly open minded; that's one of the hallmarks of the very term liberal."

Hmmmm. I wonder if Miss California, Carrie Prejean agrees with your statement?.

Hmmmm. I wonder if Joe the Plumber agrees with your statement?

Hmmmm. I wonder if Sarah Palin agrees with your statement?

Hmmmm. I wonder if AIG executives agree with your statement?

The term open minded, of course, meaning (as JFK put it) "...one who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions", not "one who never tires of hearing the same close-minded, outdated, fear-based hypocritical drivel over and over and over from those who'd remove the mote in others' eyes without bothering with the beam in theirs."

I was reading just this morning about the onetime Republican darling Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, and how he's A) left the GOP and B) believes gays are "queer" and, while he's got gay friends, he would never let them around his children. This is a guy who just a few short months ago was being dragged around with McCain and hailed as the Second Coming of conservatism, and now evidently feels freer to spew his ignorant fear of anything or anyone different from him. And that attitude, while perhaps extreme, is endemic. The sooner the right learns that, the better off they--and the country--will be.

I still question your use of the term "Open-Minded", no matter how you want to redefine it in order to fit your needs.
Analogous to licking your finger and seeing how the political wind is blowing that particular day.

First you say:
...onetime Republican darling Samuel "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, and how he's A) left the GOP
then criticize the GOP, which is a group that he has left.

Sounds like you hate on Joe, because his beliefs are not similar to yours and then you hate on the GOP because their beliefs are not similar to yours either. Best of all, proudly pat yourself on the back as a proponent of open mindedness.

In my earlier days, I might have asked if I could score some of the acid too.

So, would "without rigid reactions" describe some of the vile or clueless comments about, say Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, Ronald Regan, or the Founding Fathers that I have seen on this site?

JFK would be ashamed of his party today. He wanted to lower taxes. He knew the importance of a strong Navy. He knew and warned against the perils of communism. Today's liberals should have a problem with his war in Viet Nam, and his George W. Bush-like "belligerent" approach to fighting the Cold War. When he said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty", he did not sound like today's "liberal".

Now, JFK was not a conservative, but was, in many ways, more aligned with the George W. Bush style of governing.

@chatarra: I don't "hate the Joe"; I merely ridicule him for his antiquated, fear-based beliefs...and I ridicule the GOP for blindly aligning themselves with someone like him. My remark about his leaving the party is simply to highlight the disarray in which Republicans find themselves. Just six months ago Wurzelbacher was a few million votes away from being a McCain White House fixture; he's now an unaffiliated, un-aligned 'independent' screaming hateful ignorance at the wind...hateful ignorance that, quite fortunately, is shared by a dwindling percentage of civilized society.

@notable: So the right wants to pull a revisionist trick by trying to claim JFK--one of the most well-respected leaders of any party our country has ever seen--as one of theirs? Ha! I'd say that would be like someone on the left claiming Reagan as a liberal...only our side doesn't want him. :-)

@Sqlman,
I agree with you - JFK was and is one of the most respected leader this country has ever seen.
It is not a revisionist trick. NN was using a solid argument called "compare and contrast" to show how much different our country is today vs the time when JFK was in charge. He is famous for the speech that said:
Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country.

Obama won the election largely by making promises about what the USA could do for the downtrodden and lower class of our society. He is now proceeding to establish socialism / fascism by taking control of the banks and auto makers. Successful companies are now viewed as evil conglomerations that need to pay for social experiments contrived by liberal agenda today. I fear to think about what the unemployment rate will become, as more and more successful companies are chased away from the country, due to oppressive business regulations.

One of these days, your grandchild will come and ask you:
Grandpa - how did you decide which product to purchase, back when consumers had choices?

sqlman - comment 15. here i thought you liberals was under control and i'd get a night off. seems my job is never ending. sigh!

i'll give you credit for being full of more BS than a farmers barn. how you "conjecture" those numbers is beyond me. people like to say foxnews is all rightwing kool-aide drinkers. if the numbers (more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined) are true, they gotta be dems and independents watching also. people aren't use to hearing anything other than the babble of the liberal left. now they have a place to get FAIR AND BALANCED NEWS they choose to watch fox. i guess the facts are hard to swallow. :O)

A new Pew poll completely smashes the narrative that far-left cretins have been pushing about Fox News. You constantly hear from the left that Fox News is a “right-wing propaganda outfit” and that only Republicans watch it. Clear thinking Americans have always known that to be nonsense, and a brand new Pew survey proves it.

Their annual survey of cable news audiences now shows:

FNC: 39% Republican, 33% Democratic, 22% Independent
CNN: 18% Republican, 51% Democratic, 23% Independent
MSNBC: 18% Republican, 45% Democratic, 27% Independent
So when Fox News claims to be “Fair and Balanced” that apparently also extends to their audience. Does this mean that since it’s mostly Democrats who watch CNN and MSNBC that those channels are “left-wing propaganda outfits?”

http://www.thehotjoints.com/2008/10/06/new-poll-more-democrats-watch-fox-news/

No...it means that Republicans are more than twice as likely to watch Fox as they are MSNBC and/or CNN, while Dems are only somewhat more likely to watch MSNBC and/or CNN than they are Fox. In other words, it's Democrat TV viewers who are fair and balanced...not Fox. (And independents are slightly more likely to watch MSNBC or CNN than they are Fox. What does that tell you?)

Gee, aren't ratings fun? :-)

it re-enforces my comment 29. also tells me you prolly worked for bill clinton. :O)

From Friday: "MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on tonight's "Countdown" pledged to donate $10,000 to charity after rabid conservative radio talk host Erich "Mancow" Muller was waterboarded today on live radio, in an attempt to prove the technique was "not torture." After six seconds Muller said it was "absolutely torture" and that were he to be interrogated by the use of waterboarding he would "confess to anything." Olbermann promised to donate $10,000 to the charity Veterans of Valor, founded by Sgt. Klay South, who administered the waterboarding to Muller today, and withdrew his offer to Sean Hannity to make a donation to the charity of his choice if he followed through on his offer to undergo waterboarding.

See the video here: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/conservative_radio_host_after_being_waterboarded_a.php

Bush/Cheney-prompted waterboarding = institutionalized torture = violation of Geneva Conventions = war crime. No matter how any on the right want to spin it, it's torture, plain and simple.=

Bush/Cheney-prompted waterboarding = institutionalized torture = violation of Geneva Conventions = war crime. No matter how any on the right want to spin it, it's torture, plain and simple.

Will Obama pursue legal proceedings against the previous administration for said war crimes?
No - he will not. It was not used frequently or haphazardly.
It was used against (3) enemies of the state who had no standing with the Geneva Conventions.