And now, thanks to those links you’ve posted, I get the sarcasm – and a whole new “appreciation” of Olbermann’s perniciousness. To be fair though, I’ve heard similar vitriol spew from his Conservative counterparts which, much like Scarborough, I think can often cheapen the debate.

As for Olbermann:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/286056

Followed by this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydNY-9xNzB0&feature=related

Enjoy.

I did, in fact, completely miss the sarcasm. I hadn’t heard the particular Olbermann rant in question and, hence, didn’t have the proper reference.

I am repeating a comment he made about Scott Brown in his most recent over-the-top rant. After calling him a sexist, racist, women beating, homophobe, pedophile, whatever (and in favor of using a curling iron on Nasty Pelosi to boot), his repsonse to critics was if it wasn’t all true, Brown would’ve disproven him. I laughed outloud when I heard it. He’s a complete dolt. I can’t for the life of me understand his appeal to anyone.

I’ll be sure to look at your link when I get a chance.

But you’re an attorney, Vishnu. While constitutional law is far from your professional specialty, you can certainly read and understand a case decision’s syllabus with greater speed and ability than I can. Why don’t you go here and research the underlying matter at hand.

I would, in fact, be interested in your opinion after you’ve studied the case and the SCOTUS’ decision.

When elections roll around the people vote for the message not the person. The money coming in is more an indicator of the popularity of the message than anything else.

Are you operating under the misapprehension that Citizens United in any way changed campaign finance laws. If so, you confusion about my comparing Olbermann’s salary to “Corporate funding of candidates” makes sense.

Thankfully, the SCOTUS’ decision had nothing to do with funding. It only removed the restrictions upon companies and unions from producing and/or funding independent political ads during the later part of an election cycle, something that MSNBC uses Olbermann to do during every major election.

Now do you see the hypocrisy? Olbermann’s claiming democracy is dead because other people will now be able to pay people to do the same thing he does.

Personally, I think that Olbermann still has some work to do to reach the level of Beck or Limbaugh, but I am more liberal so that probably makes sense. Irregardless, I would find it even more odd to hear that Olbermann has exceeded the hypocrisy of Beck, for example.

As for the Supreme Court decision, after all my previous rants, it should come as no surprise that I am extremely opposed, and to be honest ‘appalled’ doesn’t even begin to express my initial reaction. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but I had honestly thought that with so much opposition to corporate funding of our politicians, I was more expending more restrictions rather than the removal of all restrictions.

In a sense, as far as I’m concerned, the USA has lost all traces of being a democracy, and has simply been converted to a puppet show for the masses, while the elite simply rape the poor.

… a little dramatic, yes … but, honestly, I couldn’t believe this decision.