Bobster2
Topic Author
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:10 am

Olbermann just delivered a stunning "special comment" in place of his usual #1 story. It was a response to Rumsfeld's speech on terrorism. The rerun is at midnight eastern time, maybe there will be a transcript.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
usnseallt82
Posts: 4727
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 4:49 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:14 am

Quoting Bobster2 (Thread starter):
Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Perhaps you could indulge us all a little more.  irked 
Crye me a river
 
Bobster2
Topic Author
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:30 am

To be honest, I missed the first part so I need to watch the rerun myself.  Smile Keith was really passionate and emotional, something that he reserves for special occasions.

I also need to find out more about Rumsfeld's speech before I can comment.

[Edited 2006-08-31 03:32:05]
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:31 am

The print version is at: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12131617/
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:30 am

"We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law."

I bet Richard Jewel takes great comfort in that line every night.


“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,”

Nor should we tolerate disloyalty when presented as dissent, NY Times.

"The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms,"

Keith, name me one single freedom that has been taken away by this administration, just one that has, by law, been taken away. Please just one will do.

Rubbish from a man who if he believes all that he has said here would be driven to run for office but won't since it is so much easier to hurl insults from the safety of a studio where he has no critisim thrown back at him.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Bobster2
Topic Author
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:31 pm

"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12427
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:44 pm

I believe this in reference to a speech by Rumsfeld to the American Legion, a group of active and retired military servicemen. Basicly he played the line that if you are't part of us, you are morally confused. Yet he has never allowed moral confusion at Abu-Graith, Gitmo, and the CIA 'secret prisons'. I am glad to see some in the Mainstream Media taking on the massive stupidity of the Bush administration.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:36 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
Keith, name me one single freedom that has been taken away by this administration, just one that has, by law, been taken away. Please just one will do.

The stance taken against a newly conjured up idea of obscenity by the Bush appointed FCC is one.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:45 am

Quoting Bobster2 (Thread starter):
Olbermann just delivered a stunning "special comment" in place of his usual #1 story

Well, at least one person watched it. That's a 0.00000000000000000002 share in the ratings.
Made from jets!
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:46 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
The stance taken against a newly conjured up idea of obscenity by the Bush appointed FCC is one.

That would be a rule not a law and are suggesting that todays rules are more restrictive than in 1966 when on I Dream of Jeanie Barbra Eden was not allowed to show her naval? Or in the 1950's when Lucille Ball and Ricky Ricardo had to sleep in seperate beds even though they were married?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
turbo7x7
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:20 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:42 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
Rubbish from a man who if he believes all that he has said here would be driven to run for office but won't since it is so much easier to hurl insults from the safety of a studio where he has no critisim thrown back at him.

Well, the president and most of his staff make speeches in front of crowds that are usually very carefully vetted. And certainly Mr. O'Reilly from the very popular and powerful Fox News channel also launches his "talking points" (or what I consider to be GOP propaganda) from the safety of a studio. . . so why can't Mr. Olbermann?
 
texan
Posts: 4061
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:18 am

Quoting Turbo7x7 (Reply 10):
so why can't Mr. Olbermann?

Because he disagrees.

We can all form are opinions about what is going on. What we know is that our Legislative Branch has given up more power to our Executive Branch than at any other time in recent memory. We know that on some issues, some branches of government are no longer being checked and balanced in the same way they used to. That much was made clear when Congress voted to give the Executive the right to make war. There are people in the Administration who are trying to circumvent the rules put in place to allow for all people in this country to be free. This would not be truly exceptional since all Administrations do this to an extent, it is just the manner in which they are doing it, the extent to which they are willing to push the boundaries.

Gilligan and I do not agree on politics very often, but he is usually respectful and respects other people's opinions. Again, I don't necessarily agree with his arguments, but he has given examples of what he believes and he stands by them.

Look, this isn't going to be a perfect world. The one thing most of us can agree on is that politicians are lying scum, whether they are Republican or Democrat. Now that we've settled that, who's buying the first round?  Silly

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:54 am

NO URLS in signature
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:56 am

It's not that I don't think Olberman isn't allowed to disagree with the Administration...it's that he is a total blowhard (and in the spirit of bipartianship so is O'Reilly and even Hannity for that matter) who should have never left Southern California local sports broadcasting. I've just never liked him or his style of reporting, whether sports or politics.

Damn you ESPN for giving this guy a chance!
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:05 am

Delta,

Did you watch the video? Why is what he said "being a blowhard"? Do you understand what he's replying to? The asinine statements of Donald Rumsfeld, who bascially called those that oppose the war fascist appeasers and insulted their intelligence. Considering that the majority of Americans now oppose the war, that was quite a weighty statement. Olbermann was responding to that with some pretty good logic, at least point out where you think he was wrong rather than just calling him "a blowhard".
NO URLS in signature
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:14 am

I wasn't referring to just this one video so don't make assumptions. I'm talking about him in general and how I just don't like his style of reporting. Rummy is most definitely not on my Christmas Card list so don't attack me from that angle. I'm just saying I think Olberman sucks as a journalist.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:50 am

Quoting Turbo7x7 (Reply 10):
Well, the president and most of his staff make speeches in front of crowds that are usually very carefully vetted

You missed my point entirely.

Quoting Turbo7x7 (Reply 10):
And certainly Mr. O'Reilly from the very popular and powerful Fox News channel also launches his "talking points" (or what I consider to be GOP propaganda) from the safety of a studio. . . so why can't Mr. Olbermann?

Both of them are paid for their opinions. I don't begrudge them their freedom of speech, just how they go about using it. In the entire diatribe he (Olbermann) doesn't offer even a hint of solution, just one big rant. Nowhere does he cite even a single example of one freedom that has been diminished since the President took office, nor does he acknowledge that he is free to complain about it without fear of reprisal. About the only good thing in the whole piece was his admitance that he in no way measures up to Edward R. Murrow. At least he got that part right.

Quoting Texan (Reply 11):
Gilligan and I do not agree on politics very often, but he is usually respectful and respects other people's opinions. Again, I don't necessarily agree with his arguments, but he has given examples of what he believes and he stands by them.

Thank you and right back at ya!  bigthumbsup 
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:10 pm

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 15):
I wasn't referring to just this one video so don't make assumptions. I'm talking about him in general and how I just don't like his style of reporting. Rummy is most definitely not on my Christmas Card list so don't attack me from that angle. I'm just saying I think Olberman sucks as a journalist.

Relax first of all, I wasn't attacking you. Don't take my post as such, I wanted to know you opinion on the topic of the thread, Olberman's response to Rumsfeld. Since you called him a blowhard, I assumed that you were saying this in response to his comments, and I don't think its such an odd assumption to make in the context of this thread.

Whatever your thoughts on Olbermann, I'd like to hear your response to the actual comments he made being discussed here, rather than making a blanket statement about Olbermann.
NO URLS in signature
 
texdravid
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:41 pm

Keith Odorman can spew his nonsense all the time if he wants. I will defend that right. I also can have the right to ignore his sorry excuse of a newsman/commentator.

But hey, Odorman, you have won undying applause, love, and kisses from the Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and other leftist/socialist/communist friends. Enjoy. Hope you enjoy the foul taste.
Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:26 pm

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 18):
Keith Odorman can spew his nonsense all the time if he wants. I will defend that right. I also can have the right to ignore his sorry excuse of a newsman/commentator.

Absolutely, it is weapon in disguise to let this guy run his flap. He was great when he commentated on sports, but his show now is just a snooze. It's nice to see rights protected, especially right to change the channel.

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 18):
But hey, Odorman, you have won undying applause, love, and kisses from the Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and other leftist/socialist/communist friends. Enjoy. Hope you enjoy the foul taste.

Well, considering the dime a dozen opinion shows, he came late to the dance.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 16):
In the entire diatribe he (Olbermann) doesn't offer even a hint of solution, just one big rant. Nowhere does he cite even a single example of one freedom that has been diminished since the President took office, nor does he acknowledge that he is free to complain about it without fear of reprisal.

Pretty much sums up the lot. There used to be a time when pundits actually had an opinion, but nowadays the opinion seem to be scripted with a different bumper to open the show.
Made from jets!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13223
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:26 pm

I watched it when it aired, I'm a viewer of Count Down with Keith Olbermann and I am not only entertained but now inspired. Keith is a reassuring voice amongst the other loud mouth ideologues.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
PIA777
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:39 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:04 pm

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 12):
Here is the video:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/0...-hell-of-a-commentary-on-rumsfeld/

I thought it was brilliant.

Keith Olbermann is awesome. I loved him in ESPN. This was an awesome
commentary.

PIA777
GO CUBS!!
 
padraighaz
Posts: 404
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:35 pm

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
name me one single freedom that has been taken away by this administration, just one that has, by law, been taken away. Please just one will do.

Let's not ignore the elephant-in-the-room, which is of course the Patriot Act with it's hundreds of adjustments and changes to our laws and I note you are assuming no harm happens if no laws change.

There is considerable hypocrisy in the "single freedom" argument in that when abuses are brought to light, the issue becomes one where the media are unpatriotic and traitorous. So, when the abuses are unknown, it's whining; but when they surface, it's undermining the war.

Death-from-a-thousand-cuts doesn't require a single cut to be fatal.

As someone who loves aviation photography, I am saddened how paranoiac people at airports have become with 'suspicious' activities like photography. Photography during a flight was a big part of the fun of travelling for me; now because of the mess the current administration has made this is no longer possible. Rule changes? Law changes? I don't know, but the end result is the same.

There might not be any law change, but when the Secretary of State and the President imply I am unpatriotic because I ***disagree*** strongly with them, I think this is a noteworthy indication of how the winds are blowing. To the extent freedoms and rights are better served when senior statesmen have rational dialog, they are diminished by its absence.



Padraig Houlahan
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:25 am

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 17):
I wanted to know you opinion on the topic of the thread, Olberman's response to Rumsfeld.

What does it matter? I made on a comment on Olberman and not on his comments concerning Rumsfeld. I personally think the Administration does go to far in questioning anyone's patriotism if they disagree with them but that is not what I was stating. Hell, count me among the non-patriotic then because I disagree with how the war on the ground is being handled but not the intent of the invasion.

At the end of the day I think Olberman is a shitty excuse for a journalist as much as I think O'Reilly is a bad example as well. Keith never should have left SoCal sports reporting. He did get one thing right...he couldn't hold Edward R. Murrow's jock.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:28 am

Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 22):
Let's not ignore the elephant-in-the-room, which is of course the Patriot Act with it's hundreds of adjustments and changes to our laws and I note you are assuming no harm happens if no laws change.

Ah yes, the Patriot Act. Name a single change to the Constitution it has made. Just one. You are still free to do whatever it was you were doing on September 10, 2001. It gives the Government greater leeway in collecting information, but if you are not a terrorist, shipping money to terrorist organizations, or hanging out with terrorists what have you to fear? Absolutely nothing. The Patriot Act endangers fears in people like you who seem to feel that its more important to keep the government hamstrung in investigating terrorists and seem to be willing to say it's ok if some of us get blown up or killed by the odd terrorist act in the process.

Here is a link to the Secretaries speech:

http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1033

I ask that you take a few minutes to read it and then reread Mr. Olbermann's piece. Name me one place where the Secretary impugned either the morality, intelligence, or loyalty of any American. If anything it is he (Olbermann) who is being insulting by referring to the Secretary and presumably the President as "transient occupants" as though they were occupying seats in a bus terminal somewhere. He seems to forget that the majority of Americans freely elected the President to his office. Who elected Mr. Olbermann? Nobody. He is a paid commentator and his opinions are worth whatever percentage of your cable bill goes to msnbc. Tell me what is wrong with these statements:

"It's a strange time:

When a database search of America's leading newspapers turns up literally 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers who has been punished for misconduct -- 10 times more -- than the mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;
Or when a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our armed forces -- the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard -- as a "mercenary army;"
When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists; and the once CNN Baghdad bureau chief finally admits that as bureau chief in Baghdad, he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein's crimes when he was in charge there so that CNN could keep on reporting selective news;
And it's a time when Amnesty International refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay -- which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare -- as "the gulag of our times." It's inexcusable."


Or this:

"One of the most important things the American Legion has done is not only to serve and assist and advocate, as you have done so superbly for so much of the past century, but also to educate and to speak the truth about our country and about the men and women in the military.
Not so long ago, an exhibit -- Enola Gay at the Smithsonian during the 1990s -- seemed to try to rewrite the history of World War II by portraying the United States as somewhat of an aggressor. Fortunately, the American Legion was there to lead the effort to set the record straight."


The whole speech was a tribute to the American Legion, with whom he was speaking to go figure, and yet Mr. Olbermann and others in the press take one line out of well over 100 and twist it to their convenience. It was a tribute to the hard working men and women of the American Legion with many references to their past and present good works but you would never know that by Mr. Olbermanns dissertation. To just read or listen to his diatribe you would have thought that the Secretary did nothing but lambaste and disparage any American that disagrees with the administrations policies. Just one line, twisted out of context at that, out of a whole speech praising a worth-wile organization for their continuing efforts to help the American serviceman and servicewomen. It's more than disingenuous, it's downright disgraceful.



What about the abuses that the media takes part in? Abuses like taking pictures of a dead child, in different poses and different scenes, and then publishing them as if they were different children? Or taking pictures of the same woman losing the same house, if it was hers to begin with, twice inside of a month? Abuses like charging someone with treason for leaking supposedly classified information? Dragging their names through the mud and basically counting down with an almost gleeful approach to the time you think they will be hauled off in irons? Then when it is shown that they not only did not do the deed, but had nothing to do with the leak you don't even feel the need to say Oops, guess we goofed? Or publishing the details of a secret program that helped to identify terrorists and their financial accomplices? Tell me that is not an abuse.

What about reporting deaths, rapes, and all sorts of other terrible things based on hearsay, then denouncing the President and his advisers for their supposed failure to act and protect, only to find out later that the hearsay reports you broadcast were actually false? How about reporting as fact, near the end of an election cycle, a document that supposedly proves that a national leader somehow falsified his military record, only to find out later that it is a forgery? Or how about covering up and refusing to investigate with the same tenacity another national leader that probably did receive an award erroneously? How about camping outside the home of man and basically charging him with murder in a bombing, only to find out that he has been cleared of all wrongdoing and actually was pretty helpful? Yet in all these cases the press refuses to admit any wrongdoing nor apologize for the damage that they might have done in the process. Is that not an abuse?

I value the freedom of the press. At the same time I loathe the people in the press since in this day an age when the facts are so easy to get, they go out of their way to either ignore or distort the facts to achieve the maximum political damage that they can. With any freedom comes responsibility. Edward R. Murrow knew that, Keith Olbermann and a majority of his colleagues, to include Bill O'Rielly, do not.


You are still free to photograph airplanes, but unfortunately due to terrorists, which you seem to be ok with allowing to roam around unchecked, you have certain areas that are no longer available to you. But that's ok to Keith, terrorists have rights too. A line from the Secretaries speech seems to fit your outlook perfectly Padraig:

"Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator's reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed: "Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!"

I prefer to look at the situation from Strother Martins character in the movie "Cool Hand Luke" "Captain road prison 36" when he said to Luke:

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."

I don't like having to send our military anywhere, nor do I like have to have increased surveillance on anyone anywhere, but some men just won't stop and it's something we have to do to protect ourselves.

Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 22):
There might not be any law change, but when the Secretary of State and the President imply I am unpatriotic because I ***disagree*** strongly with them, I think this is a noteworthy indication of how the winds are blowing.

I defy you to find one single reference in that speech, written or implied, that you are some how unpatriotic because you disagree with the administrations policies. I can cite numerous examples where Mr. Olbermann, in this one single piece, does just that to the Secretary.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:44 am

Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 22):
because of the mess the current administration has made this is no longer possible

Their you have it people... completly twisted. Just SAD
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
padraighaz
Posts: 404
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:04 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 24):
Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 22):
Let's not ignore the elephant-in-the-room, which is of course the Patriot Act with it's hundreds of adjustments and changes to our laws and I note you are assuming no harm happens if no laws change.

Ah yes, the Patriot Act. Name a single change to the Constitution it has made. Just one

This is not what you asked for. Let me remind you:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
name me one single freedom that has been taken away by this administration, just one that has, by law, been taken away.

So, when you get an answer you don't like, in the best Orwellian tradition, you make up a different question and then claim the answer is wrong.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 24):
The whole speech was a tribute to the American Legion, with whom he was speaking to go figure, and yet Mr. Olbermann and others in the press take one line out of well over 100 and twist it to their convenience.

Here's the "one line" you claim was taken out of context:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator's reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!”

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?
Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?
These are central questions of our time, and we must face them honestly.

We hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless.

But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there's more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats.

It's a strange time:

When a database search of America's leading newspapers turns up literally 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers who has been punished for misconduct -- 10 times more -- than the mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;
Or when a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our armed forces -- the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard -- as a "mercenary army;"
When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists; and the once CNN Baghdad bureau chief finally admits that as bureau chief in Baghdad, he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein's crimes when he was in charge there so that CNN could keep on reporting selective news;
And it's a time when Amnesty International refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay -- which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare -- as "the gulag of our times." It’s inexcusable. (Applause.)
Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and distortions that are being told about our troops and about our country. America is not what's wrong with the world. (Applause.)

The struggle we are in -- the consequences are too severe -- the struggle too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of “Blame America First.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


One line? The degree of convenient overstatement is simply amazing here. You ignore, or don't read, the sources you lecture others to read, and you have a hair-trigger to defend the administration and the war - even to the point where you simply reframe questions after the fact in order to be able to dismiss the responses. Do you realize you do this? What do you think it says about your position if you need to resort to tactics like these to defend it?

Padraig Houlahan
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:01 am

I guess I just don't get it. I ask for simple answer and what do I get....

Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 26):
This is not what you asked for. Let me remind you:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
name me one single freedom that has been taken away by this administration, just one that has, by law, been taken away.

and you reply:

Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 22):
Let's not ignore the elephant-in-the-room, which is of course the Patriot Act with it's hundreds of adjustments and changes to our laws and I note you are assuming no harm happens if no laws change.

So let me ask again, name me one single freedom that has been taken away by this administration, just one that has, by law, been taken away.
Not an adjustment, a bonafide law. One that would directly affect a Constitutional guarantee. Let me try and help. Have you lost your freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly, or petition? How about your right to bear arms? Are you being forced to quarter troops? Are government agents search and seizing your personal belongings with random abandon? How about your right to a grand jury? Have you lost your protection from double jeopardy, self incrimination, or right to due process? How about your rights to a jury trial, to confront your accusers, or to have counsel? Perhaps there is a new law I am unaware of that calls for unusual bail or fines or calls for cruel and unusual punishment that I am not aware of. Please, enlighten all of us. Name this new law that contradicts the Constitution and has yet to be struck down. I'm all ears. But then you have already answered the question but just fail to realize it:

Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 22):
There might not be any law change, but when the Secretary of State and the President imply I am unpatriotic because I ***disagree*** strongly with them

To which I ask again:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 24):
I defy you to find one single reference in that speech, written or implied, that you are some how unpatriotic because you disagree with the administrations policies.



Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 26):
Here's the "one line" you claim was taken out of context:

No, here is the one line that Mr. Olbermann and other pundits seized on and have taken and twisted to their own means and to which the whole piece is based on:
"And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere."

Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 26):
What do you think it says about your position if you need to resort to tactics like these to defend it?

What do you think it says when you can't even begin to defend statements made by Mr. Olbermann and instead have to try an impugn my posts and insinuate that I am some how less than intelligent enough to think for myself?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:34 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 9):
That would be a rule not a law and are suggesting that todays rules are more restrictive than in 1966 when on I Dream of Jeanie Barbra Eden was not allowed to show her naval? Or in the 1950's when Lucille Ball and Ricky Ricardo had to sleep in seperate beds even though they were married?

Said rules are promulgated with the force of law and said rules are an exercise of legislative power delegated by Congress under the APA. The financial consequences of the recent changes by the FCC are significantly worse than pre-Bush.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
padraighaz
Posts: 404
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Watch Keith Olbermann - Special Comment

Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:25 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 27):
No, here is the one line that Mr. Olbermann and other pundits seized on and have taken and twisted to their own means and to which the whole piece is based on:
"And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere."

Nonsense. When you write:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 24):
Olbermann and others in the press take one line out of well over 100 and twist it to their convenience. It was a tribute to the hard working men and women of the American Legion with many references to their past and present good works but you would never know that by Mr. Olbermanns dissertation.

You are implying:

1. That the critics focused in on an insignificant part of the talk which is not the case and I demonstrated this by showing how there were pages of non-american-legion specific content.

2. You are implying the critics cherry picked a single line out of a context otherwise dominated by the american legion to distort. This is not the case since there was plenty of context.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 27):
What do you think it says when you can't even begin to defend statements made by Mr. Olbermann and instead have to try an impugn my posts and insinuate that I am some how less than intelligent enough to think for myself?

Again, throwing up a distraction since I did not address the details of Olbermann's commentary, which ironically only re-enforces my earlier comments on the manner in which you debate.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 27):
Quoting Padraighaz (Reply 22):
Let's not ignore the elephant-in-the-room, which is of course the Patriot Act with it's hundreds of adjustments and changes to our laws and I note you are assuming no harm happens if no laws change.

So let me ask again, name me one single freedom that has been taken away by this administration, just one that has, by law, been taken away.

Which again, ignores my commentary that freedoms can be eroded without laws or constitution being changed. In another thread cases like the internment of japanese americans happened without a constitutional change, so a static constitution is not a guarantee of unchanging rights.

As for the specifics of the Patriot Act, here are issues that have been raised concerning it:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John Whitehead, Esq., Founder and President of The Rutherford Institute, writes in 06/13/05 paper entitled "How Liberty Dies: The Patriot Reauthorization Act" for the Rutherford Institute:


"At a massive 342 pages, the Patriot Act violates at least six of the ten original amendments known as the Bill of Rights --- the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments---and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth as well...


While it remains questionable whether the Patriot Act has really succeeded in protecting Americans against future acts of terrorism, the[] highly controversial additions to the Act will unquestionably succeed in gutting the Fourth Amendment. Of all the protections found in the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment stands as the final barrier between the privacy rights of Americans and the potential for government abuse of power. But if law enforcement officials can search your home and your records without having to go through a judge, then the concept of a man's home being his castle will become as antiquated as the Model T."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Bob Barr, former U.S. Congressman (R-GA), writes in his 12/06/05 statement entitled "Problems With the USA Patriot Act":


"Many of the [USA PATRIOT Act's] provisions are non-controversial and have had a positive impact on the government's ability to fight acts of terrorism. However, there are a number of provisions that raise serious questions of constitutionality...

If we were to take the position, reflected in provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, that the government can invade our privacy and gather evidence that can be used against us based on no suspicion whatsoever that we've done anything wrong, but simply because the government wants to gather evidence as part of some generalized, 'anti-terrorism' or 'foreign intelligence' investigation, then we will have rendered that Fourth Amendment principle essentially meaningless."
(12/06/05), Bob Barr
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now these are just a few of the many criticisms of the Patriot Act you can find on the Internet. While the Act has its defenders, it certainly has its critics, and it is disingenuous on your part to glibly dismiss their concerns that the act is too broad and grants too many powers to the government and law enforcement agencies. Again, serious freedoms can be eroded without constitutional change and this is a very self-serving acid test for you you try and expect others to meet.

Padraig Houlahan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alberchico, rfields5421 and 15 guests