Olberman: When mouth moves before brain thinks

[thraashman]

Most libs have no serious problem with Keith, but we kinda think of him as our kooky uncle. He has some great points, is passionate, and isn't really wrong. But he kinda goes off the deep end and gets a bit ranty too much. His ratings suck because the people who would watch his political views, don't like the aggressive, kinda insane approach he goes with. And while he might sensationalize a bit, at least he's never dishonest, just over the top. On the other hand, it seems conservatives LOVE to listen to the kooky, wacky, insane, lying, full of shit nutjobs that they have. Hence why people like Bill O have a job.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the reason Keith O's ratings aren't that great and his rants go largely unnoticed is because liberals prefer to form our own opinions and think rationally as opposed to conservatives that prefer being led like sheep and thinking not at all if possible.

Now if you don't like what Keith says I guess you should either ignore him and be quite about it, or go follow your dishonest conservative pundits like Bill O and bah like the sheep you are the whole way.

 

[lupi]

What's not to understand. You are saying there should be no way to officially show support for the troops of your state and I'm asking how far would you take it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: lupi
What's not to understand. You are saying there should be no way to officially show support for the troops of your state and I'm asking how far would you take it.

What I'm saying is the government shouldn't commemorate a rebellion against the federal government, one that is commonly recognized to center around an issue considered to be one of the great evils of all history. I don't see how your example applies.

 

[lupi]

Herrings aside,


Let's take a unit; we'll call it the 3rd Alabama. Without looking at the details of the actual unit, I'd be willing to bet that most of the soldiers in that unit were born to American citizens, gave birth to American citizens, and were probably draftees.

Now if the state of Alabama wants to put a decal on the state issued liscense plate in memorial to those same soldiers, how is that not the moral thing to do.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: lupi
Herrings aside,


Let's take a unit; we'll call it the 3rd Alabama. Without looking at the details of the actual unit, I'd be willing to bet that most of the soldiers in that unit were born to American citizens, gave birth to American citizens, and were probably draftees.

Now if the state of Alabama wants to put a decal on the state issued liscense plate in memorial to those same soldiers, how is that not the moral thing to do.

Um, it's not immoral. Now let's take that unit, have them take up arms and declare their base separate and apart from the United States. They're killed to a man. Now you want the government of honor them somehow? It's not a morality issue, it's the question of why a government would praise sedition?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: lupi
Herrings aside,


Let's take a unit; we'll call it the 3rd Alabama. Without looking at the details of the actual unit, I'd be willing to bet that most of the soldiers in that unit were born to American citizens, gave birth to American citizens, and were probably draftees.

Now if the state of Alabama wants to put a decal on the state issued liscense plate in memorial to those same soldiers, how is that not the moral thing to do.

Um, it's not immoral. Now let's take that unit, have them take up arms and declare their base separate and apart from the United States. They're killed to a man. Now you want the government of honor them somehow? It's not a morality issue, it's the question of why a government would praise sedition?

The states came together willingly to form a union. They should have been able to freely leave. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the right to force them to stay. If a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, the government doesn't have it.

IMO, what the federal gov did was illegal and unconstitutional, no matter that it benefited the federal government.

So who's the "villian" here?

I'm of the opinion that the Civil War was our nations's biggest blunder ever.

What would have happend had they left? Not fricken much. Where was North gonna get it's raw materials and food supply from. Who was the South gonna sell to? I think we know the answers. The South wouldv'e just wandered back after everybody cooled down and some reforms were made.

Instead, we killed a shit pile of people, burned down cities and broke our Constitution (subsequent Amendments changed the original intent, removing power from states and creating a super power federal government. Exactly what we didn't need, and bringing us to the problematic situation we're in today - a corrupted class of ruling elite bribed by big corps ).

Slaver was only a part of the disagreement, tarriffs were really a big part of it. The North was taxing the living shit out of the South and seeking control of it's natural resources.

This from an abolitionist (anti-slavery) leader (Spooner):

The Northern financiers of the war who lent millions to the Lincoln government did not do so for "any love of liberty or justice," wrote Spooner, but for "the control of [Southern] markets" through tariff extortion (p. 118). Mocking the argument of the "lenders of blood money" as they addressed the South he wrote: "If you [the South] will not pay us our price [i.e., a high tariff] . . . we will secure the same price (and keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets . . ." (p. 118).

In return for financing a large part of Lincoln?s war machine, Spooner noted, "these holders of the debt are to be paid still further ? and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid ? by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves" (p. 118). The war had led to "the industrial and commercial slavery" of all Americans, North and South.

Spooner was right about this: The Morrill Tariff, which initially doubled the average tariff rate from approximately 15% to 32%, first passed the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859-60 congressional session, long before Lincoln?s election and any secession. Lincoln then signed no fewer than ten tariff-increasing bills so that the average tariff rate was escalated to 50?60 percent. These were not war tariffs; the average tariff rate remained in that historically high range until the income tax was finally adopted in 1913.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

The states came together willingly to form a union. They should have been able to freely leave. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the right to force them to stay. If a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, the government doesn't have it.

IMO, what the federal gov did was illegal and unconstitutional, no matter that it benefited the federal government.

So who's the "villian" here?

I'm of the opinion that the Civil War was our nations's biggest blunder ever.

What would have happend had they left? Not fricken much. Where was North gonna get it's raw materials and food supply from. Who was the South gonna sell to? I think we know the answers. The South wouldv'e just wandered back after everybody cooled down and some reforms were made.

Instead, we killed a shit pile of people, burned down cities and broke our Constitution (subsequent Amendments changed the original intent, removing power from states and creating a super power federal government. Exactly what we didn't need, and bringing us to the problematic situation we're in today - a corrupted class of ruling elite bribed by big corps ).

Slaver was only a part of the disagreement, tarriffs were really a big part of it. The North was taxing the living shit out of the South and seeking control of it's natural resources.

This from an abolitionist (anti-slavery) leader (Spooner):

The Northern financiers of the war who lent millions to the Lincoln government did not do so for "any love of liberty or justice," wrote Spooner, but for "the control of [Southern] markets" through tariff extortion (p. 118). Mocking the argument of the "lenders of blood money" as they addressed the South he wrote: "If you [the South] will not pay us our price [i.e., a high tariff] . . . we will secure the same price (and keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets . . ." (p. 118).

In return for financing a large part of Lincoln?s war machine, Spooner noted, "these holders of the debt are to be paid still further ? and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid ? by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves" (p. 118). The war had led to "the industrial and commercial slavery" of all Americans, North and South.

Spooner was right about this: The Morrill Tariff, which initially doubled the average tariff rate from approximately 15% to 32%, first passed the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859-60 congressional session, long before Lincoln?s election and any secession. Lincoln then signed no fewer than ten tariff-increasing bills so that the average tariff rate was escalated to 50?60 percent. These were not war tariffs; the average tariff rate remained in that historically high range until the income tax was finally adopted in 1913.

Fern

I don't dispute any of this, except the impossible speculation as to what would have happened had the South been allowed to succeed from the union.

My point, again, is that today we equate the civil war with slavery. Tarriffs aren't a sexy issue. Marching to freedom is. So given that simplistic understanding, having a state memorialize the losing side of a rebellion that, while it may have been exercising an opposition to unfair taxes/tarriffs, also stood for wholesale ownership of a race of people who are currently citizens of the country and states now reconciled. If 150 years ago my ancestors were considered property and the state fought to keep them that way, I'd be opposed to any sort of celebration of the people who died to keep the chains on, whether or not it was the primary cause of the rebellion.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: lupi
Herrings aside,


Let's take a unit; we'll call it the 3rd Alabama. Without looking at the details of the actual unit, I'd be willing to bet that most of the soldiers in that unit were born to American citizens, gave birth to American citizens, and were probably draftees.

Now if the state of Alabama wants to put a decal on the state issued liscense plate in memorial to those same soldiers, how is that not the moral thing to do.

Um, it's not immoral. Now let's take that unit, have them take up arms and declare their base separate and apart from the United States. They're killed to a man. Now you want the government of honor them somehow? It's not a morality issue, it's the question of why a government would praise sedition?

See Fern's reply. I think he makes it quite clear in the difference between the succession of a state and a group holding out on ruby ridge.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Nice contribution.

And deservedly so, for a guy (Olbermann) whose entire 'show' consists of the same tired old anti-Bush rants and propaganda. I'd imagine even the most far-far-far left-wing nutjob gets a bit bored with him after a bit.

Apparently not, as his ratings have been steadily climbing for the last several years. He's becoming incredibly popular actually... so much so that you see NBC in general plastering him all over everything.

Dislike him all you want, but to say that he's not popular is inaccurate.

 

[Stoneburner]

Keith Olbermann is the keith olbermann of news.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Robor
In his defense I think there's a slight difference between terrorists flooding over Iraq's borders to fight our soldiers and Mexicans flooding over the US borders to make more money.

so let's get this straight - only mexicans that want to make more money cross US borders?

I'd venture to guess the vast majority are looking for a better (way of) life. Are you saying they're terrorists?

 

[Excelsior]

Who was the South gonna sell to? I think we know the answers. The South wouldv'e just wandered back after everybody cooled down and some reforms were made.

Eh? Not really. The states that entered the Confederate States accounted for 70% of total US exports...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Keith Olbermann is the keith olbermann of news.

Profound!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Who was the South gonna sell to? I think we know the answers. The South wouldv'e just wandered back after everybody cooled down and some reforms were made.

Eh? Not really. The states that entered the Confederate States accounted for 70% of total US exports...

Yeah, I know that, that's what the tarriffs were placed on.

And it's where the North got all it raw materials etc from.

So?

What were they gonna do, dynamite North America into two pieces and drift out into the Atlantic?

We'd all still be here. We'd all still be buying and selling from each other. Slavery would've been gone anyway, it was already on it's way out. At best the war slightly sped up it's demise.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Who was the South gonna sell to? I think we know the answers. The South wouldv'e just wandered back after everybody cooled down and some reforms were made.

Eh? Not really. The states that entered the Confederate States accounted for 70% of total US exports...

Yeah, I know that, that's what the tarriffs were placed on.

And it's where the North got all it raw materials etc from.

So?

What were they gonna do, dynamite North America into two pieces and drift out into the Atlantic?

We'd all still be here. We'd all still be buying and selling from each other. Slavery would've been gone anyway, it was already on it's way out. At best the war slightly sped up it's demise.

Fern

I think Dred Scott would disagree with you on the pace of slavery's demise. 5 years before the civil war the SC ruled 7-2 that no african american could ever be a citizen. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. True there was agitation for abolition, especially among religious groups in the north who found the practice repugnant, but no constitutional amendment would have been passed overruling Scott due to southern state's required for ratification. It would have taken a president appointing enough new justices on the court to swing the other way. Most of the south seceded after lincoln was elected. If left alone, you'd have to expect the CSA to free their own slaves and give up free labor? What evidence is there that that was likely to happen?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Most of the south seceded after lincoln was elected. If left alone, you'd have to expect the CSA to free their own slaves and give up free labor? What evidence is there that that was likely to happen?

Section of the South at that time already had slavery abolished through various agreements and compromises (northern Louisianna). Economic conditions shifted in some places rendering slavery undesirable - they weren't needed. An example is parts of NC when they shifted from tabacco to other crops (this was before the civil war).

Slavery was needed or beneficial in only a relatively few agricultural activites, most of which are restricted to fairly small amount of geographical area in the south. Check it out, you'll find many slave states split on the issue. The people from side (i.e., east) against, the other for it (because they were doing cotton, tabacco or sugar).

Also, it was only a minority of Southerners who owned slaves - the 1860 census says only 1 out 4 families had at least one slave. They were a minority, who eventually loses the argument in a democracy?

Look, slavery started in the North long before the South. They eventually got rid of it.

I just don't see it as an argument that the 25% could keep winning. It's abolishment was gonna happen. IMO, they just shoulda kept up the pressure on the South. Eventually the 75% would have turned on the 25% and abolished it.

Edit: I just wanted to add that a lot people have some perception that the South is monolithic. It's not now and it wasn't then. I've lived in FL and NC. In both states the majority of "civil war" battles I know of were fought by "neighbors". Floridians v. Floridians, and NC peeps v NC peeps. It's not like everybody was pro-slavery and wanted to secede from the Union. It was very divisive to the South.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Most of the south seceded after lincoln was elected. If left alone, you'd have to expect the CSA to free their own slaves and give up free labor? What evidence is there that that was likely to happen?

Section of the South at that time already had slavery abolished through various agreements and compromises (northern Louisianna). Economic conditions shifted in some places rendering slavery undesirable - they weren't needed. An example is parts of NC when they shifted from tabacco to other crops (this was before the civil war).

Slavery was needed or beneficial in only a relatively few agricultural activites, most of which are restricted to fairly small amount of geographical area in the south. Check it out, you'll find many slave states split on the issue. The people from side (i.e., east) against, the other for it (because they were doing cotton, tabacco or sugar).

Also, it was only a minority of Southerners who owned slaves - the 1860 census says only 1 out 4 families had at least one slave. They were a minority, who eventually loses the argument in a democracy?

Look, slavery started in the North long before the South. They eventually got rid of it.

I just don't see it as an argument that the 25% could keep winning. It's abolishment was gonna happen. IMO, they just shoulda kept up the pressure on the South. Eventually the 75% would have turned on the 25% and abolished it.

Edit: I just wanted to add that a lot people have some perception that the South is monolithic. It's not now and it wasn't then. I've lived in FL and NC. In both states the majority of "civil war" battles I know of were fought by "neighbors". Floridians v. Floridians, and NC peeps v NC peeps. It's not like everybody was pro-slavery and wanted to secede from the Union. It was very divisive to the South.

Fern

I think we're winding down here so I'll just say that in 1860 there were about 4 million slaves in the south, up from 3.2 million in 1850. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/s...-maps/slave-census.htm
Expecting that 4 million free laborers, even if owned by 25% of the population, would be set free within a reasonable number of years and not decades, I find hard to swallow. I agree it would have probably eventually petered out, but after how long? We'll never know I guess.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Who was the South gonna sell to? I think we know the answers. The South wouldv'e just wandered back after everybody cooled down and some reforms were made.

Eh? Not really. The states that entered the Confederate States accounted for 70% of total US exports...

Yeah, I know that, that's what the tarriffs were placed on.

And it's where the North got all it raw materials etc from.

So?

You asked who they were going to sell to? I simply answered with the fact that they were already selling much of their goods to other countries and not just the north.

What were they gonna do, dynamite North America into two pieces and drift out into the Atlantic?

We'd all still be here. We'd all still be buying and selling from each other. Slavery would've been gone anyway, it was already on it's way out. At best the war slightly sped up it's demise.

Fern

I am not arguing with you on anything else so I don't know why you act like I am.

I am quite in touch with the realities of the civil war. I've grown up with rednecks who say the south will rise again...with transplants who at most say "You lost the war." and the rest who don't care. I have ancestors who lived in the mountains of NC who supported the union and I have others who lived in the piedmont or TN mountains who joined the confederacy. None of them had slaves afaik, because none of them had the money to afford them. The most wealthy of my ancestors were presbyterian irish who owned thousands of acres of timber land in the Appalachians. And they happened to be the Union supporters.

So for much of them, it wasn't even about the slavery.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dislike him all you want, but to say that he's not popular is inaccurate.

He's on the least popular of the cable news networks, and his show draws fewer than a million viewers. Compared to the competition (other MSNBC shows notwithstanding) he is a needle in a haystack.

The fact of the matter is that more people watched him on ESPN, where he actually had some credibility on the subject matter.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dislike him all you want, but to say that he's not popular is inaccurate.

He's on the least popular of the cable news networks, and his show draws fewer than a million viewers. Compared to the competition (other MSNBC shows notwithstanding) he is a needle in a haystack.

The fact of the matter is that more people watched him on ESPN, where he actually had some credibility on the subject matter.

It's a different type of show then he had on ESPN. Compared to the competition in what way? Other news networks? His show's ratings regularly beat CNN, and he occasionally even beats out O'Reilly.

When you say his rating suck it is simply false.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
I am quite in touch with the realities of the civil war. I've grown up with rednecks who say the south will rise again...with transplants who at most say "You lost the war." and the rest who don't care. I have ancestors who lived in the mountains of NC who supported the union and I have others who lived in the piedmont or TN mountains who joined the confederacy. None of them had slaves afaik, because none of them had the money to afford them. The most wealthy of my ancestors were presbyterian irish who owned thousands of acres of timber land in the Appalachians. And they happened to be the Union supporters.

So for much of them, it wasn't even about the slavery.

Do you know which part of Western NC your ancestors lived in?

Sounds a lot like where I live in NC (mountains, many Union people during the cilivil war, slaves were rare, timber industry etc.).

Fern

 

[laketrout]

It's a different type of show then he had on ESPN. Compared to the competition in what way? Other news networks? His show's ratings regularly beat CNN, and he occasionally even beats out O'Reilly.

When you say his rating suck it is simply false.

Saying his show regularly beats CNN isn't saying all that much. And also, to say that he occasionally beats O'Reilly is also giving him too much credit - it takes a debate or very out of the ordinary event for him to beat FNC - and never happens on a regular day - so just be sure to put that in perspective. FNC is really the only cable news channel that competes with other cable channels outside of news. So lets just be clear about that.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: laketrout

It's a different type of show then he had on ESPN. Compared to the competition in what way? Other news networks? His show's ratings regularly beat CNN, and he occasionally even beats out O'Reilly.

When you say his rating suck it is simply false.

Saying his show regularly beats CNN isn't saying all that much. And also, to say that he occasionally beats O'Reilly is also giving him too much credit - it takes a debate or very out of the ordinary event for him to beat FNC - and never happens on a regular day - so just be sure to put that in perspective. FNC is really the only cable news channel that competes with other cable channels outside of news. So lets just be clear about that.

If we're being clear, let's look at why Fox can compete. It's the only channel catering to conservatives and feeds them the horseshit they so love the taste of, whereas the rest of the news channels split the liberal/independent audience. Fox is #1 not because it's better, it's just the only place a conservative can go without having their head explode. Lefty's have choices amongst the various liberal channels. Perhaps someday another conservative channel will arise (clearly there's a market, so where's the competition?) and Fox's numbers will halve overnight. Bye Bye #1 ranking