by Faramarz_Fateh

MSNBC has removed Keith Olberman from the position of anchor for the political coverage of the presidential race.

Olberman is the only sane voice in the balls to the walls Republican loving Christian controlled main stream media in the U.S.  Olberman is being marginalized as crazy while likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'reily and Glen Beck spew garbage on Fox news everyday for 3 hours a day.

The main reason he was removed was due to a comment he made during the intro video for John McCain.  He basically said enough milking of 9/11 for political purposes.  He was 100% right by the way.

Please send protest emails to:   if you like Olberman and hate to see him discarded.



more from Faramarz_Fateh

skatermom khanoom,

by Majid on

Memory is the second thing to go,

FORGOT what the first one was !



Hear ye, Hear ye, Ms. Lady

by skatermom (not verified) on

Hear ye, Hear ye,
Ms. Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild has spoken. Let us all jump ship.

No problem Majid khan! By the way what's the first thing to go? After reviewing Bahareh's vids I have a pretty good clue what mine is.


skatermom khaanoom !

by Majid on

Thanks for the link, I read a brief article about it some 11-12 months ago and I could not remember where.

Memory is the second thing to go, you know!


MSNBC should change it's name to DNC channel.

by Anonymous on

MSNBC was responsible in bringing Hillary down and they are the most hateful channel. and Hillary supporter are firing back!

Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee's platform committee Lynn Forester de Rothschild will endorse John McCain today.

Rothschild was a "Hillraiser" for Clinton, scaring up at least $100,000 for Hillary and she has called Obama "arrogant," unable to connect with regular Americans, and "elitist."

check it out :


Kaveh Nouraee

The Shows Aren't Cancelled

by Kaveh Nouraee on

MSNBC did not cancel Hardball or Countdown. What MSNBC did was to take Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann from being the lead anchors on the election coverage.

For example, whenever there will be a presidential or vice-presidential debate (assuming there are any scheduled), David Gregory will be the lead anchor. This will also be the case on election night.

Matthews and Olbermann may still be there but in a much more limited capacity.

It also bears remembering that if Tim Russert were still alive, this would have never even come up as an issue, as he was the lead anchor for the election to begin with.

Anonymous Observer

The Shows Are Still On

by Anonymous Observer on

Both shows (Mathews and Olbermann) are still on.  Am I missing something?  Are thet supposed to go off the air on a certain date?


Agha Majid, I found this.

by skatermom (not verified) on

Agha Majid,
I found this. It was however debunked. It's probably impossible to ever get an accurate read from such a test. It seems that the tests were done, particularly by this guy qualitatively. There's no real quantitative means of testing. It is a funny read nevertheless.


The right questions

by Zion on

This link asks all the questions that I have as well and shares my concerns precisely:

This is also a good one:


I wish I could find it

by Majid on

There was this article about the IQ score of the last 10 presidents of USA.

The top 5 were Republicans, starting with JFK with 165 and Bill Clinton next with 155.

The bottom five ????.......LOL

G.B. the father  with 98 and the son with 89 !!

I'm sure there's a way to find it, anybody? 


So happy this idiot is out

by skatermom (not verified) on

So happy this idiot is out too...



by IRANdokht on

Obama's IQ is 149 and anyone who's taken the IQ test can tell you that's not an easy score to get....  do you know what Bush's is?

how about compaing Palin and Biden, now that would be funny stuff! 




so happy that idiot is out...

by Anonymous on

watch the best of Obamas gaffes here:

and this is just in the last 12 months, can you imagine what fun we would have if he gets elected. Obama is dumber than Bush ...

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

Of course when defense budgets are crafted, the last thing the "bean counters" are thinking of are civilians like you and me. It just happens to be that civilians end up getting residual benefits.

Laws already exist to protect people's rights, even or gays and lesbians. The problem is that the existing laws aren't enforced, so spending tax money to enact new laws when they already exist is just a redundant waste of money and time.

I wish I had the answer to the public school question. I have a 5 year old in the public schools and I am deeply concerned about the quality of education my child will receive unless I am able to afford private education.

All the best,



Public money

by kouroshkhan (not verified) on


Thanks for breaking it down for me, though there really was no need. I never denied the role of defense industry in our daily lives to begin with. You need to keep mind is that usually when there are talks on increasing defense budget, The objective is more toward more advanced technologies that can be used in future millitary adventures.

Your concern regarding the tax money where it really belongs, is just and understood, But to suggest that the recognition of the right for gays and lesbians should remain free of Government interference is an oxymoron. One can not exist without the other and there would be no recognition, if we leave the government out of it.

I agree with you that public money is being literally wasted on public schools, but how do you think we can effectively stop that?

Knowing that a great percentage of the money goes into the coffer of school superintendents and administrators,rather than to where it should, why should we punish everyone else, including gays, and deprive them of the money that could improve their lives? As personal choices as they might seem to you, like it or not the society will see the impact as well. So we can't just let it be and ignore it.


Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

The defense industry does have an effect on the consumer industry. The defense industry utilizes state of the art technology in the design and manufacture of various equipment. These tech firms will also create civilian applications for general consumer use.

Many consumer electronics that we use daily and for the most part take for granted incorporate technology used originally in military applications. How large is the consumer electronics industry today?

In a word: MASSIVE. 

The crossover is there, subtle as it may be. I'm not suggesting that it's a blatant "in your face" thing. But the fact remains that many suppliers and subcontractors for the defense industry carry over their works to civilian use. Their business grows and so does the business of their suppliers and and their employees have work and more money to spend and it goes on.

Another example: the tires you may have on your car may have "run-flat" technology or may even be designed to seal themselves in the event of a puncture. Both of these technologies were originally used in military applications before finding their way to the tire rack at Costco.

To address your question on my stand on gay marriage or abortion. My point is simple. It's not the government's business, period. There should be no involvement by the government in any way shape or form. I don't want to see public funds spent on the whether or not a same-sex couple should have the right to be married when, for example, there are public schools have poorly trained teachers and not enough textbooks.

Public funds are already being misspent and wasted on a broken down public school system that is just cranking kids through their doors without truly preparing them for the real world, and now you want to start spending public money so that two guys or two women have the right to get married? Puhleeze.

As to the broken down intel, I agree...where is the sense of accountability and responsibility? I'm not arguing that with you at all. There was and still is a complete absence of it. 


Jenabe Nouraee.

by kouroshS. (not verified) on


"Other industries"? you can't be referreing to a wide range of industries, could you? I doubt if there are but a few industries out there that actually have their interets tied with the defense industry or share the same resources. Two major sectors who are totally independent of defense industry and virtually employ over a good portion of the people are Medical and food industries. How are they related?? defense is only limited to certain, fringe areas.Therefore, I seriously doubt the credibility of your claim that such a ripple effect would cross over to "OTher" industries.

Observer pointed out what you had implied in your previous writings. for instance, How could you support gay marriage yet at the same time want the Gov. to stay out of it and no piblic money spent on it? Is that even possible? Shouldn't the gov. be involved if the marriage ought to be considered official? You are all over the map with that kind of response. Sounds like you are not even sure of what you believe.

On the matter of intelligence, The fact that they blew it like anyone could have, does not hold credibility. What is that supposed to mean? where is the sense of responsibility and accountability in all of this? I guess on that basis anyone could screw things up and get away with a simple oops! we are sorry, our intel was way off! ya know, we really did not know better how to interpret things! yeah. Right.

Have fun.:)

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

Just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm offended.

The issue I took with Observer concerns the fact that statements were being attributed to me that I did not make. I don't know of anyone who likes having things said about him/her that are false.

Like I said, the intel was off. WAY off. They blew it as bad as anybody can blow it.

The defense industry is connected with other industries. Vendors and suppliers that the defense industry uses are used by other industries as well. It all connects. A ripple effect is created that crosses over into other industries.


ebi amirhosseini

It is shameful...

by ebi amirhosseini on

doesn't matter who,left or right,foxy or lefty mcnbc,each & every voice of journalism should be heard whatsoever,after all this is America & Freedom of speech should be guarranteed!

thanks for info,I'll share with friends.

best wishes



For kaveh and observer

by kouroshkhan (not verified) on

No, the war was brought on by 19 mostly Saudi a**holes who INTENTIONALLY flew jets into the WTC and the Pentagon 7 years ago today.

Thanks for seeing my points. I am sorry that you think i am being too optimistic here, But even if not "everyone" is going to fight for others' right (which is notat all what i had in mind) It is the government that needs to lend a hand to its citizens,and to really and effectively assist them beyond the protection and keeping them safe fairy tales.


I don't want to put words in your mouth and i do GET you and what you said. It really is a simplistic belief ( at best) to put the blame solely on those guys. They were the victims of an ideology that were nurtured and gained strenght, throughout years.

You insist on defending the indefensible But once again, There would be no WAR and wartime economy had we bothered to gather and process the right intelligence information. No country just HAppens! to be in a middle of a bad or wartime economy and all the superpowers who do have the technology to collect intelligence to such sophisticated levels DO possess the power to verify if before they selfishly act up on it.

Thanks very much confirming my points! Givenn that we live in a free-market economy and the way it has been designed, all of what you described, goes to show you the precise level of control the president could exert on the direction of the economy, of course with the cooperation of the federal reserve. that is econmoy 101.

I am so right in saying that you are way out of touch with the reality of life for the majority of the people. What escapes your attention kaveh is that there are a certain category o f jobs called "dead end" jobs and unfortunately after anouncing the very first round of tax cuts the number of such jobs! went up so high, which was part of a trend followed by issuing massive layoffs and cost-cutting and down-sizings orders.
that continues to this day.

What you are not taking into consideration is that there really is no connection between the defense industry and many other sectors of the economy. How can the potential for growth be "exponential", god knows. Especially when these contractors and subcontractors and factory workers are Basically converted into Seasonal workers, temporary workers if you will, with no real benefits whatsoever,and after they are done with the job we are left with a handful of engineers and technitians. there is no consistecny here.

Kaveh, please don't take my comments out of context. I saw how offended you got when you read observer;s commments so please don't try that on me. it won't do you any good. trust me.
I agree with you that there are perhaps many irresponsible people out there who don't want to get off the wrong path they are on and bring things upon themseleves, but let us not over-generalize. The majority want to work and be constructive and just don't have the means.that is where the Gov. comes in to give them the means and provide them with the resources they need to climb up the ladder.

Have a good one.

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

You must not have paid attention.

Where did I say money spent on the war was not a great loss? Show where I made such a statement.

Where did I say I don't want to spend money on gay marriage applications? I don't want to see public money spent on issues that are a matter of personal values. I don't object to gays marrying.

When did I say I want the government to intrude upon a woman's right to their own bodies? Again, show me where I said it.

Stop attributing things to me that I did not say.

I have only the best wishes for everyone's health, happiness and prosperity in the world. But I am not going to feel sorry for anyone who doesn't want to get up, get an education and work to become self-sufficient and self-reliant.

You want a better quality of life? Go out and get it. No one will hand it to you.

Kaveh Nouraee

Ey Baba

by Kaveh Nouraee on

I don't follow any stream media, whatever that's suppposed to be.

I'll be happy to have a discourse with you. Just provide something more substantive than the usual partisan political rubbish. Before you question my grasp of reality or my exposure to the truth, back up what you have to say. Don't just talk trash for the sake of getting attention, because you won't get anywhere.



by ey baba (not verified) on

The war was brought on by the 19 Saudis? so why did Iraq get attacked?

you are so naiive and so brainwashed by the stream media that no comment and no reply on this site can help you open your eyes to reality.

The government is hired and elected by people to do its job in protecting people's lives and well being. You are saying it's not anybody's mommy but you seem to think it's everybody's boss. It's supposed to serve the people not send them to war to fill certain people's pockets. Get real for Pete's sake. People who talk like you are mostly the ones who have never been exposed to the truth. You have the opportunity to learn the truth. Observe what's going on and learn how wrong the information that they've been feeding you is.

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

No, the war was brought on by 19 mostly Saudi a**holes who INTENTIONALLY flew jets into the WTC  and the Pentagon 7 years ago today.

I never said we HAD TO deal with a wartime economy. We just happen to be in the middle of one.

Maybe you didn't get what I said. The intel was way off. The intel at the time was deemed credible. I must emphasize it so that you do not try and put more words in my mouth.

Those complex factors that I'm talking about that you deem to be readily under the control of the commander-in-chief are in fact beyond his/her control or reach. That happens to be part of the specific design of a free market economy.

Economic advisers are at the disposal of the president as the various institutions and entities that play a greater and more direct role in the United States economy are subject to federal laws and regulations. They are also on hand to advise the White House on the economic trends and day to day movements of other countries, both those with active trade relationships with the United States and those who don't.

Tax cuts indeed increase cash flow and the creation of more jobs. But who are you to determine what is "meaningful work"? When you got your first job, was it as CEO of the company or was it an entry level position? When you start school, do you start with kindergarten or do you go straight to a doctoral thesis? The effects sought by tax cuts and other measures are never instant, no matter how much we would all like for them to be. That's why its referred to as "trickle down" and not Niagara Falls.

Do I really think that an increase in defense spending should take the place of social programs?

You bet I do.

Defense spending creates JOBS. Real jobs. Engineers (many of whom are Iranian), designers, draftsmen, factory workers, both union and non-union, subcontractors, and so on. And they all have families. They will have money to spend and that will keep the growth momentum going and create new forward momentum in other industries. The benefits are exponential.

Social programs? Some fat lazy piece of garbage in public housing who dropped out of school, birthin' babies from the time they were 15, has 3 kids from different guys, with one of them probably in jail, getting food stamps and a welfare check, month after month after month.

Oh yeah, THAT leads to prosperity.

And whoever told you the government's role is to play mediator or referee or umpire between the public and private sector sold you a bill of goods.

The government is NOT an employment agency. It is NOT a babysitter, or a parent. You're an adult. Be accountable and take responsibility for yourself and your actions and stop thinking that the government is "mommy" who will kiss your boo-boos and make it all better.


Kourosh khan

by observer only (not verified) on

The answer to your questions:

yes he does think like GWB does. He doesn't think the money spent on an unnecessary war was too great a loss, but to print out different marriage applications for the gays is money he wouldn't want to spend.

He does think that the government should be small, unless it's to spend large amounts of money on wars and military purposes, or intruding on women's right to their own bodies: God forbid! small government like this one, with extra offices of national security and homeland security, wire-tapping the citizens, checking people's connections and communications, drilling more so the oil companies don't lose their edge, building walls on the borders and building bridges to nowhere that cost 230 million dollars of taxpayers money that was spent in Alaska... that's the kind of small government they're promoting.

I think you are too optimistic about people's real agenda. Not everyone is going to fight for the people's rights and well being, they don't care what kind of jobs people will have and what quality of life they may deserve.


Think again.

by Kouroshkhan (not verified) on

for KAveh Noraee.

The war Was INTENTIONALLY Brough about by The W. based on false intelligence, so To say that we HAD TO deal with the wartime economy is such nonsense. IF the folks in higher places had their Sh**t together, perhaps they would never have allowed bunch of lies and false information take the place of reality in their minds and would never invade Iraq to begin with.
"Right intentions" are created when one acts on creditable and reliable intelligence, and pays attention to the facts, not one's gut feelings. You can't put the cart before the horse.
those complex factors that according to you dominate and control the economy, are well within the reach and control of the commander-in-chief. Why else would a president have all sorts of economic advisors and committees at his disposal?
You really spin a good yarn there, by bringing up the trickle-down theory. Tax cuts for the rich may increase the market cash flow, and ultimately lead to job creation, But what kind of jobs are we talking about here? what percentage of these jobs constitue meaningful work?
Judging by the tone of your postings, you seem a bit out of touch with the reality and the fact that most of these jobs don't even offer real benefits to the takers.
I remember that in the midst of all the hype for globalization, so many editorials were run in conservative journals, on behalf of the Rich
against the idea of paying even 10 bucks an hour! Imagine that. IS there any doubt left that the new tax cut would do nothing to improve the overall economy?

DO you really think that increase in defense budget should take the place of social programs such as welfare? Do you really think that brings more prosperity for the citizens?
One of The main government's role is to play the mediator between the public and the private sector, to help them get jobs, meaningful ones hopefully and to effectively protect them, so they won';t lose their homes and livelihood, based on some ingenious scheme crafted by a CEO
, who lines his pocket with some Million dollar Bonus, but leaves average working sticks high and extremely dry.

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

How is it that the mainstream media is all of a sudden controlled by Christians when for God knows how long the accusation has been that the mainstream media has been controlled by the Jews?

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

Yes, the budget deficit increased under W. Yes, there was a surplus during Clinton's administration. W has also had to deal a Democratic Party controlled Congress and what is considered a wartime economy, while Clinton had a peacetime economy with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress.

We can go around and around for eons and get nowhere. While the majority of the people do their best to try and pin the economy or the deficit on the president, the fact is that the budget deficit and the economy are dictated by factors that are much greater and far more complex than a Texas simpleton or an Arkansas skirt chaser.

No, there were no WMDs in Iraq. There was truly faulty intel. There might have been WMDs at one point, but by the time the proverbial s*it hit the fan, they disappeared. This entire operation was motivated by the right intentions, which was a result of this faulty intel.

Getting rid of Saddam had the unintended side effect of doing Iran a favor. That animal was not happy unless he was gassing Kurds, or invading Kuwait claiming it was part of Iraq or invading Iran and doing the same. The big screw-up was not having an exit strategy in place. They knew how to go in, but not how to get out.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving a tax cut to the rich, so long as it is balanced for all income brackets. It is Economics 101. The rich have the money. They are the ones who create and supply jobs. The less they pay in taxes, the more cash they put into circulation. The more cash they put into circulation, the more people are working and the stronger the overall market becomes over time. The "trickle-down" theory in economics truly works.

Yes, there are extremists who want to see Iran invaded. A small, yet loud group. Lots of hot air that has only served to add to global warming. They all talk about invading Iran, but listen to them carefully. They have no strategy, no cohesiveness, no nothing. Why? Because it's all political posturing. Imagine a member of the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood who goes around yelling, " I hate ni**ers" and such. You know what will happen if they found themsleves in a neighborhood, say a bar with 20 black people inside?

That cracker will wet his pants from fear. The point is, it's all for show. The American people love to hear this BS.

What else can you expect from a country that has NASCAR as its biggest sport?

McCain, like Obama, is applying for a job. The voters are the Human Resources Department. We've all appliled for a job at one time or another. We have all put all sorts of embellishments in our resumes and have at one time or another bullshitted our way through an interview. Those who say they haven't are unemployed liars.

The deficit can be paid while cutting personal income and other nonsense taxes. Spending has to be cut drastically. Defense spending needs to increase. Spending on domestic programs, especially social programs that just don't work needs to be cut. Welfare? Cut it. So much money is being wasted on paying people to do nothing. Cut government payrolls. So many departments can be integrated, because so many of them are redundant. Why pay 1000 people in two agencies when you can get the same job done with 750 in one agency with less overhead? Government needs to be run like any other business. Lean and profitable (which for the government means on budget as it's not a for-profit entity). If this gvernment were a publicly traded company the SEC would shut it down and Congress would be in jail for embezzlement and money laundering.

The reason I don't believe in spending public money on abortion or gay marriage because personal behavior should not be funded or regulated by the government. Government's responsibility is to provide and ensure protection against threats to public safety through the infrastructure and public safety services.

Anything else is pork.

I hope this helps clear up where I see things.



by Arjang1212 (not verified) on

Kaveh, let's say I am delusional. But you still did not get the gist of argument which I was trying to make, and that is why the budget deficit increased while Bush the second became president.
As you know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And there was not any link between Al-Qaida and Saddam. Therefore, the war with Iraq was not necessary, and US policy makers knew about this. However, the republican president wanted to go to Iraq no matter what. They created unnecessary war which cost a lot; meanwhile they gave tax cut to the rich. As result of this US accrued huge amount of debt.

Now you are saying that McCain will not attack Iran. But aren't the right wingers who are supporting him, want him to attack Iran. Why is Joe Lieberman who is Democrat supporting McCain? Is n’t Lieberman one of the proponents of Iran war as well as Iraq war in the senate?
Have you seen McCain’s advertisement about Iran, and how Iran is such big threat to the world!? I mean one of the main principles which McCain is running for the presidency is getting into confrontation with Iran.

If he gets elected, and war with Iran happens, how are US tax payers going to pay for it. Let's say I am still delusional and that war does not happen, how are we going to pay this deficit with tax cuts or no tax cuts which Republicans are proposing.

In your other post you were complaining about paying for abortions and gay marriages, but those are nominal to the war spending which Republicans are calling for.

Kaveh Nouraee

IRANdokht jaan

by Kaveh Nouraee on

I'm hardly the GOP spokesperson. If I were, then someone owes me a lot of back pay. LOL

We all know that the U.S. and Iran have had this bizarre relationship for decades now. They act like a divorced couple that still love each other but cannot stand each other at the same time. It's like watching Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor.

(I know the modern version is Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee, but, hey, I'm old school and I can't stand tattoos).

When it comes to each other, the US and IRI just love trash talking. It's a game to them.

The IRI knows they lack the ability to engage in long term combat, either offensively or defensively. So much of their equipment has been rendered unusable because of a lack of spare parts.

The US is actually even less prepared. They are hopelessly short on personnel, ammunition, materiel, everything needed to sustain combat action. 

We both know Barack will not engage Iran in combat. Neither would McCain. His voicing support for current operations doesn't automatically mean he's ready to go into Iran. It's political suicide. The public won't stand for it. Even W, the doofus that he is, knows that. Otherwise he would have ordered a strike a while back. The GOP, like the Democrats, want to control both houses of Congress as well as the White House. A strike on Iran would effectively destroy any chance of that happening for generations.

The tough talk is just that...tough talk. Two blowhards having what we called a d**k measuring contest. They're doing that because that's really all they can get away with.

It's geopolitical poker. The US and the IRI are playing head to head and the river card is turned up. Neither side has crap.


Kaveh jan

by IRANdokht on

Since apparently you are the GOP spokesperson on this site, would you mind telling us if they have no plan to attack Iran why is it that they keep threatening Iran verbally every chance they get?

Is that going to gain anything except empowering the IRI regime by playing with Iranians patriotic feelings?

I am curious to know what the GOP's plans are and why they're talking tough if (as you keep repeating so confidently) they have no plan to do it.