Kief Olbermann: Life As A Bath House Towel Boy

By
January 22, 2010

MSNBC's resident Left Wing Geisha has gone beyond embarrassingly entertaining to bizarro land by comparing the recent SCOTUS ruling to the Dred Scott decision. I'm thinking he has a racial thing going, as not enough black athletes let their towels slip back when Kief was supposedly collecting baseball stats so he could pretend his eyes were looking elsewhere.

I mean really. You only have to take one look at this dude, learn of his towel-boy like obsession with sports to figure out his MO. I'm thinking he got out of sports just about the time they started using velcro to keep their towels up in the locker room. There just didn't seem to be enough juice left in it for old Kief, any more. I bet he would have made a decent umpire, if only he could have gotten over his obsession with seeing balls to the exclusion of everything else when watching a game.

I wonder, is he really trashing Tea Parties when he says teabagger, or is he simply relieved to be able to use the word in public and have it used to describe someone other than him for a change?

Within five, President Lincoln at minimum contemplated arresting him. Within seven, he died, in poverty, while still Chief Justice. Within eight, Congress had voted to not place a bust of him alongside those of the other former Chief Justices.

But good news tonight, Roger B. Tawney is off the hook.

Today, the Supreme Court, of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than "Dred Scott v Sandford," declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th Century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people, any restrictions on how these corporate-beings spend their money on political advertising, are unconstitutional.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Ashen says:

    Olby is not a teabaggER, rather the teabgEE.

  2. cc says:

    I just spewed coffee all over my keyboard. You MUST post warnings!

  3. Al in St. Lou says:

    There’s something insane about the left’s fear of corporations. They completely fail to realize that corporations are fairly powerless without government collusion. Whenever I try to explain that to a moonbat, they come back with, “OMG! They make profits!” as though that’s a coherent argument against corporations.

  4. rrpjr says:

    Corporations are the perfect enemy for the Left (a fat, slow-moving taget generally more interested in serving its customers, its employees and the growing demands of regulation and taxes than in aggressive self-defense), and the perfect manifestation of Leftist self-projection. By attacking the “greedy” and “corrupt” corporations, the Leftist deflects attention from the largest, most corrupt, most truly “greedy” and anti-individualist leviathon of all — government.

  5. Jeff says:

    my wife is a lifelong liberal feminist who was indoctrinated with the “hate corporations” bile in school. Then she opened a business. While I don’t expect her to vote for Conservatives her attitude towards business, government, taxes is very non-liberal and her attitude towards the welfare state is at best described as Atilla the Hun like. Lets just say that she’ll die defending your right to an abortion and kill you if you try and tax her to pay for it.

  6. Dannysold babysitter says:

    A little self loathing going on here ? Buck up , little guy , its OK , and I’m sorry , again .

  7. David says:

    Let’s see, Olbermann works for a corporation doesn’t he. If we can shut Olbermann up, I would be willing to file the motion to reconsider yesterday’s ruling.

  8. templar knight says:

    “my wife is a lifelong liberal feminist..”
    Crikey, man, you have my prayers!

  9. Fred Beloit says:

    I used to work for a very large and respected corporation[OK, go ahead and laugh, but we only used the highest quality quills in our pens]. For a while I was in the corporate contributions organization at headquarters. We used to screen requests for contributions from within and outside the company and recommend a go or no-go to top management. Our main criterion was based on whether approving the request was in the company’s fields of interest. Thus, efforts in education were of interest, whereas, say, helping sick or abandoned animals was not.
    Politically, we basically stayed out, but we did have registered lobbyists in Washington. With this new SCOTUS decision, here is what could typically happen in the future, IMO. A sales manager responsible for a large city customer territory might seek to get advertising help for a state or city incumbent’s[read customer's] election campaign. He would send a request through us. We would forward saying, recommend no go. (Remember, I am talking about the future now. We never received such requests while I was there. All the executives knew better.)
    Why? Not in the Company’s fields of interest. Not granting this request might cause us to become out of favor with one customer, who may or may not be re-elected, but the risks of an adverse public reaction outweighed assistance in this case. In any case, our direct job was not to sell. Our direct job was to protect and enhance the reputation of the company. A good reputation aids sales indirectly.
    This decision will not cause a major rush of corporations into the political arena. Ain’t gonna happen.
    Will a corporation respond to a false charge from a politician. I suppose so, but only with careful forethought. Can’t see anything wrong with that.

  10. D-Day says:

    Hey Keith: They may not teach this at the Cow College where you got y’er fancy degree from, but it’s spelled “Taney” not “Tawney.”

  11. John Boy Walton says:

    I’m confused about something here, if corporations and the like are so bad why were the Dems in general and Barry the magnificent accepting campaign contribs by the millions from them. According to the Center for Responsive Politics they received more money in bribes, excuse me contributions, than had ever been received before by any candidate or party especially in banking, health care and pharma contribs. Their stance strikes me as just a tad bit hypocritical.

  12. x11b1p says:

    ball dipping good