TexasCHLforum.com

I'm not usually one to cheer anyone's misfortune, but it's kinda hard not to be giddy at this news ....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40028929/ns ... ision_2010" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

EDIT: for those of you who don't want the stench of msnbc.com on your browser history ... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11 ... campaigns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if you're not sure why, just listen to his take on the "true meaning" of 2A

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=STwsbUwcO4U[/youtube]

NO class..

He's finally achieved the status he's bestowed on others. He's "THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!"

G26ster wrote:He's finally achieved the status he's bestowed on others. He's "THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD!"

That was good!

As for Keith Olbermann...That boy ain't right.

So the story said some guy I've never heard of named Chris Hayes will be filling in. Searched for him and found this photo ..

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Secti ... baller.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look at the glasses

Now look at Olbermann's glasses
http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/upl ... ermann.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now look at the glasses worn by Rachel Maddow, who hosts the show just after the Olbermann show
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-co ... maddow.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is some WEIRD cult-like affection for nearly identical eye wear over there at MSNBC .... perhaps these are the only frames that will be offered under Obamacare?

While I am not a fan of this individual, or any other individual, that pitches the Lenninist / anti-American propaganda that he does, I'm not following exactly WHY the dude was fired.

He donated personal funds to some democrats?

And....???

Who WOULDN'T come to the conclusion that this dude supports the Lenninists?

Just seems odd that the network was fine with paying him to pitch the Lenninist agenda, but at odds with him when he makes legal contributions to those very same Lenninists with his personal money.

Hypocritical on the networks part imo, and while not surprising, they usually give their "own" a pass on hypocrisy.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote: . . . I'm not following exactly WHY the dude was fired . . .

When one of their pundits is caught making partisan political donations, a "news" network loses plausible deniability when their on-air "talent" is accused of bias.

HankB wrote:

Texas Dan Mosby wrote: . . . I'm not following exactly WHY the dude was fired . . .

When one of their pundits is caught making partisan political donations, a "news" network loses plausible deniability when their on-air "talent" is accused of bias.

Actually this is a standard part of the employment contract with any news organization (I worked in newspaper business for about 10 years). Employees are usually specifically prohibited from engaging in any support of causes or political candidates or parties - no attending political rallies (NPR warned their employees not to attend the Jon Stewart Rally to Restore Sanity in Wash DC a few weeks ago based on this), no donating to candidates, no endorsing candidates etc.

The media companies force you to give up some of your rights as a condition of working for them. Of course, THEY (the owners/managers/publishers) of said media companies still hob nob with political heavyweights, offer "institutional" endorsements of candidates, and sometimes even donate money. Like most employers, they never said their way was fair just that it's their way or the highway.

This type of thing is one reason I was not heavily involved in pro-gun causes or politics (other than writing news articles about politics) even though I had a CHL and believed in RKBA. I don't remember specifically, but I believe even membership in the NRA would be a problem for many journalists.

The media companies force you to give up some of your rights as a condition of working for them.

I fully understand how it is SUPPOSED to work, however, NONE of the mainstream news networks follow the unbiased "just the facts" approach to news anymore, and I find it disgustingly pretentious of MSNBC to fire "their man" for simply donating private funds to the twisted causes THEY PAY HIM to pitch.

IMO, they canned him for other reasons, and used this particular piece of policy as an excuse. Any individual could figure out where the dude stands, regardless of contributions he makes.

Oh well, he won't be missed by me, and I never watch MSNBC anyway.

TDM, I agree with you. But this is one of those "obvious" no nos of any news organization. It's equivalent to walking into a school with a gun. I don't agree with the law, but if I refuse to follow it I'm just asking to be arrested. By donating to politicians, which becomes an open public record, Olbermann was just asking to be suspended and/or fired.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

Oh well, he won't be missed by me, and I never watch MSNBC anyway.

Based on their ratings, you aren't alone. I'm sure that both of their regular viewers will miss Keith.....

The rest of us...not so much.

I especially like the part about it only applies to old weapons. What orifice did he pull that from? Logic would dictate a militia needs to be armed to meet its current enemy, right? So following that we should be allowed all class III items. "The right to keep an bear old arms shall not be infringed"???

Is Rachel a he/she?