Olberman: When mouth moves before brain thinks

[lupi]

I loved his work in the sports arena, and generally like his news show. Sometimes though you have to wonder what's the reason behind some of the material that he gives.
 
On yesterdays show (2/27) he goes into an attack on McCain after McCain commented on Obama's Iraq policy. Part of KOs diatribe involved a statement about the Bush/McCain war on Iraq failing due to their not securing Iraq's border post invasion which allowed many of the terrorist in. While I believe that "attacking" McCain based on what was just said is rather baseless as McCain's statement was factually correct, isn't this the same KO that has constantly railed against efforts to secure the US borders?
 
In another segment he verbally persecuted a Florida politician for creating a bill introducing a new personalized license plate containing a visual remembrance to the CSA. Yes KO, many Americans died in that war. Those Americans happened to die on BOTH sides on the battle lines. They were Americans before the war started and they were Americans after the war. They should be looked down on so much that the US government, the very government they were fighting; or in insurrection against as you like to say, has deemed it necessary to name numerous military installations and fighting vessels after those same very men whom lead those on the battlefield opposing that government. And is this not the same KO that in his numerous diatribes against the current Bush lead government refers to the Constitution and the ideals of the founding fathers. Well here's one perhaps you could look at a little closer the next time you'd like to express your biased opinion on this subject from those same founding fathers you like to cherry pick from when it helps you; "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

 

[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.

 

[Robor]

OOPS

 

[jonks]

Guess maybe it's cuz I'm a northerner, but I don't think it's appropriate for a servant of the US government to introduce legislation in any way sponsoring the CSA. Individual southern men may perhaps be honored for bravery, but the civil war will forever be symbolically linked to the battle over slavery, and paying homage to the nation fighting to secure the right to enslave is not going to go over well.

I don't know anything about this Florida politician, but I'd just have to take a wild guess that he's from a rural predominantly non-black district.

You quote the Decl of Ind: "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

But you snipped the preceding sentence, which 'rights' exactly are being secured?
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Holding thousands in slavery and then when the government says "no, you can't, because YOU are denying the slaves these very rights", well, you lose your moral basis for rebellion. The US was trying to secure these rights for everybody, the CSA only for some.

If an individual citizen wants to stick a CSA map on their car, that's fine. But it simply should not be something endorsed by an entity of the US government on a license plate.

 

[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?

 

[Pabster]

Olbermann is nothing but a left-wing blowhard mouthpiece.

His ratings suck, and so does he.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Olbermann is nothing but a left-wing blowhard mouthpiece.

His ratings suck, and so does he.

Nice contribution.

 

[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.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Guess maybe it's cuz I'm a northerner, but I don't think it's appropriate for a servant of the US government to introduce legislation in any way sponsoring the CSA. Individual southern men may perhaps be honored for bravery, but the civil war will forever be symbolically linked to the battle over slavery, and paying homage to the nation fighting to secure the right to enslave is not going to go over well.

I don't know anything about this Florida politician, but I'd just have to take a wild guess that he's from a rural predominantly non-black district.

You quote the Decl of Ind: "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

But you snipped the preceding sentence, which 'rights' exactly are being secured?
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Holding thousands in slavery and then when the government says "no, you can't, because YOU are denying the slaves these very rights", well, you lose your moral basis for rebellion. The US was trying to secure these rights for everybody, the CSA only for some.

If an individual citizen wants to stick a CSA map on their car, that's fine. But it simply should not be something endorsed by an entity of the US government on a license plate.

That's assuming you use the limited view that slavery was the dominant cause behind the war. Just a few decades earlier it required the assitance of sourthern congressmen to pass legislation banning the African slave trade. Just as the slavery practice was dieing out in the rest of the world it was in a similar natural decline in the US. As one who has half his family firmly entrenched in the north since they immigrated to the US, I see the results of those 60's as a case of state rights and power of the collective people, as stated in the preamble of the consitution.

You want to denounce based on morality of the situation? Seems to me everytime someone attempts to create morality legislation he and whomever supports such a measure is tossed to the collective wolves of those that either don't accept such laws as a matter of principle or those simply on the opposing political side.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pabster
Olbermann is nothing but a left-wing blowhard mouthpiece.

His ratings suck, and so does he.

Nice contribution.

Would you prefer it if he lied and said Olberman didn't suck and neither does his ratings?

 

[Skitzer]

I used to watch KO to get a perspective from both sides but eventually gave up because he is way too far out there for me.
Now I watch Hardball which I believe is a very good show and Tucker who is moderate to right for a better perspective from both sides.

I don't know what has pushed Kieth off the deep edge but he used to be relatively objective when he first started out on MSNBC. Now he is a raving lunatic!

 

[lupi]

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?

What sacres me is how many probably believe that.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: lupi
That's assuming you use the limited view that slavery was the dominant cause behind the war. Just a few decades earlier it required the assitance of sourthern congressmen to pass legislation banning the African slave trade. Just as the slavery practice was dieing out in the rest of the world it was in a similar natural decline in the US. As one who has half his family firmly entrenched in the north since they immigrated to the US, I see the results of those 60's as a case of state rights and power of the collective people, as stated in the preamble of the consitution.

You want to denounce based on morality of the situation? Seems to me everytime someone attempts to create morality legislation he and whomever supports such a measure is tossed to the collective wolves of those that either don't accept such laws as a matter of principle or those simply on the opposing political side.

I'm not denouncing based on morality, I'm questioning the application of the founding fathers' rationale to the leaders of the succession. I don't want a law passed that says the DMV can't issue license plates with a CSA logo. I am merely in favor of opposing legislation that would accomplish that goal. And you can argue that slavery was dying out elsewhere, but if you asked the slaves back then if they felt like waiting a few more decades while nature took its course, I don't think they'd be in favor.

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pabster
Olbermann is nothing but a left-wing blowhard mouthpiece.

His ratings suck, and so does he.

Nice contribution.

Would you prefer it if he lied and said Olberman didn't suck and neither does his ratings?

I don't care about what his opinion of KO is, as long as he tried to post something relating to the OP post about McCain or FL issue or in response to a subsequent post. And KO is the highest rated show on MSNBC, but this discussion is had in every thread where someone posts a KO story, usually initiated by Pabst claiming the thread is irrelevant due to KO's ratings. It's getting old.

 

[daveymark]

I agree, just because KO is a partisan tool blowhard doesn't mean some of the subjects he brings up aren't worth discussing. KO himself is worthless, but some of his topics are relevant.

 

[Moonbeam]

The field of vicious vituperative news has long been the providence of the Republicans so when a gifted and able shit thrower appears on the left he naturally generates a lot of resentment. If he does nothing else, he should serve to show the right what they look like.

 

[jmanny]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Guess maybe it's cuz I'm a northerner, but I don't think it's appropriate for a servant of the US government to introduce legislation in any way sponsoring the CSA. Individual southern men may perhaps be honored for bravery, but the civil war will forever be symbolically linked to the battle over slavery, and paying homage to the nation fighting to secure the right to enslave is not going to go over well.

I don't know anything about this Florida politician, but I'd just have to take a wild guess that he's from a rural predominantly non-black district.

You quote the Decl of Ind: "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

But you snipped the preceding sentence, which 'rights' exactly are being secured?
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Holding thousands in slavery and then when the government says "no, you can't, because YOU are denying the slaves these very rights", well, you lose your moral basis for rebellion. The US was trying to secure these rights for everybody, the CSA only for some.

If an individual citizen wants to stick a CSA map on their car, that's fine. But it simply should not be something endorsed by an entity of the US government on a license plate.

You do know the Cival War started more for States rights than for ending slavery, granted that was an underlying cause but not the reason it started. The South started the war more for the reason of the loss of individual states rights to govern themselves without the Federal Governement dictating what the states could/could not do. Eventually the cause of the North turned to the Slavery issue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The field of vicious vituperative news has long been the providence of the Republicans so when a gifted and able shit thrower appears on the left he naturally generates a lot of resentment. If he does nothing else, he should serve to show the right what they look like.

Except that he's telling the truth, and the right-wing ones often are not.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jmanny

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Guess maybe it's cuz I'm a northerner, but I don't think it's appropriate for a servant of the US government to introduce legislation in any way sponsoring the CSA. Individual southern men may perhaps be honored for bravery, but the civil war will forever be symbolically linked to the battle over slavery, and paying homage to the nation fighting to secure the right to enslave is not going to go over well.

I don't know anything about this Florida politician, but I'd just have to take a wild guess that he's from a rural predominantly non-black district.

You quote the Decl of Ind: "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

But you snipped the preceding sentence, which 'rights' exactly are being secured?
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Holding thousands in slavery and then when the government says "no, you can't, because YOU are denying the slaves these very rights", well, you lose your moral basis for rebellion. The US was trying to secure these rights for everybody, the CSA only for some.

If an individual citizen wants to stick a CSA map on their car, that's fine. But it simply should not be something endorsed by an entity of the US government on a license plate.

You do know the Cival War started more for States rights than for ending slavery, granted that was an underlying cause but not the reason it started. The South started the war more for the reason of the loss of individual states rights to govern themselves without the Federal Governement dictating what the states could/could not do. Eventually the cause of the North turned to the Slavery issue.

Of course, as I said:
"the civil war will forever be symbolically linked to the battle over slavery, and paying homage to the nation fighting to secure the right to enslave is not going to go over well."

No war has one cause or factor. My point is if you play word association today, when someone says "the Civil War", you're going to hear "slavery" next 9 times outta 10.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pabster
Olbermann is nothing but a left-wing blowhard mouthpiece.

His ratings suck, and so does he.

Nice contribution.

People use essentially the same rhetoric in anti-Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly rants. If you're going to fault Pabster, fault them all.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The field of vicious vituperative news has long been the providence of the Republicans so when a gifted and able shit thrower appears on the left he naturally generates a lot of resentment. If he does nothing else, he should serve to show the right what they look like.

Except that he's telling the truth, and the right-wing ones often are not.

You mean that truth isn't the sole providence of those who scream and shriek the loudest? I don't believe that. It couldn't be.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Olbermann is nothing but a left-wing blowhard mouthpiece.

His ratings suck, and so does he.

EVERYthing about your post is faulty.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: jmanny

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Guess maybe it's cuz I'm a northerner, but I don't think it's appropriate for a servant of the US government to introduce legislation in any way sponsoring the CSA. Individual southern men may perhaps be honored for bravery, but the civil war will forever be symbolically linked to the battle over slavery, and paying homage to the nation fighting to secure the right to enslave is not going to go over well.

I don't know anything about this Florida politician, but I'd just have to take a wild guess that he's from a rural predominantly non-black district.

You quote the Decl of Ind: "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

But you snipped the preceding sentence, which 'rights' exactly are being secured?
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Holding thousands in slavery and then when the government says "no, you can't, because YOU are denying the slaves these very rights", well, you lose your moral basis for rebellion. The US was trying to secure these rights for everybody, the CSA only for some.

If an individual citizen wants to stick a CSA map on their car, that's fine. But it simply should not be something endorsed by an entity of the US government on a license plate.

You do know the Cival War started more for States rights than for ending slavery, granted that was an underlying cause but not the reason it started. The South started the war more for the reason of the loss of individual states rights to govern themselves without the Federal Governement dictating what the states could/could not do. Eventually the cause of the North turned to the Slavery issue.

Of course, as I said:
"the civil war will forever be symbolically linked to the battle over slavery, and paying homage to the nation fighting to secure the right to enslave is not going to go over well."

No war has one cause or factor. My point is if you play word association today, when someone says "the Civil War", you're going to hear "slavery" next 9 times outta 10.

So on 9-13-01 everytime someone in the US saw another of Middle Eastern descent they should be able to call the police on that person because of their association to that individual?

Makes it sooo much easier than remembering all the young boys in grey at
Antietam, Vicksburg, Chickamagua, Manassas, Seven Pines, Shilo and countless other places.

I guess since over 50% of the population states they are against the current conflicts our military is involved in we should begin to shun any acknowledgement of supporting them now too.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: jmanny
You do know the Cival War started more for States rights than for ending slavery, granted that was an underlying cause but not the reason it started. The South started the war more for the reason of the loss of individual states rights to govern themselves without the Federal Governement dictating what the states could/could not do. Eventually the cause of the North turned to the Slavery issue.

Of course, as I said:
"the civil war will forever be symbolically linked to the battle over slavery, and paying homage to the nation fighting to secure the right to enslave is not going to go over well."

No war has one cause or factor. My point is if you play word association today, when someone says "the Civil War", you're going to hear "slavery" next 9 times outta 10.

So on 9-13-01 everytime someone in the US saw another of Middle Eastern descent they should be able to call the police on that person because of their association to that individual?

Makes it sooo much easier than remembering all the young boys in grey at
Antietam, Vicksburg, Chickamagua, Manassas, Seven Pines, Shilo and countless other places.

I guess since over 50% of the population states they are against the current conflicts our military is involved in we should begin to shun any acknowledgement of supporting them now too.

You've lost me.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: jmanny
You do know the Cival War started more for States rights than for ending slavery, granted that was an underlying cause but not the reason it started. The South started the war more for the reason of the loss of individual states rights to govern themselves without the Federal Governement dictating what the states could/could not do. Eventually the cause of the North turned to the Slavery issue.

Of course, as I said:
"the civil war will forever be symbolically linked to the battle over slavery, and paying homage to the nation fighting to secure the right to enslave is not going to go over well."

No war has one cause or factor. My point is if you play word association today, when someone says "the Civil War", you're going to hear "slavery" next 9 times outta 10.

So on 9-13-01 everytime someone in the US saw another of Middle Eastern descent they should be able to call the police on that person because of their association to that individual?

Makes it sooo much easier than remembering all the young boys in grey at
Antietam, Vicksburg, Chickamagua, Manassas, Seven Pines, Shilo and countless other places.

I guess since over 50% of the population states they are against the current conflicts our military is involved in we should begin to shun any acknowledgement of supporting them now too.

You've lost me.

He is going down a slippery slope.

no worries...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The field of vicious vituperative news has long been the providence of the Republicans so when a gifted and able shit thrower appears on the left he naturally generates a lot of resentment. If he does nothing else, he should serve to show the right what they look like.

In other words, sometimes the best way to fight fire is with fire.