Feeling morally, intellectually confused? Oberman on Rumsfeld

[chomerics]

You agreed with Stewart so you think he "owned" those guys. Those on the right thought Stewart made an idiot of himself. I thought it was just really strange, probably because I don't watch Crossfire. Like Ax said in his post below mine, this thread is going to be nothing more than a left-wing circle jerk. I'm sure AFC & Sarge with do the same in another thread today. The thing is, the people enjoying the Oberman and Stewart stuff don't realize what they really are.

And what ARE Stewart and Oberman? Two liberal voices in a morass of right wing voices?

We don't ignore things said by AFC and Sarge, we will rip them apart, and show the flaws in their argument. If you see flaws in this argument, then by all means, rip it apart.

I was listening to republican talk radio this week. If you really want to complain about somebody, Sean Hannity is the man. Limbaugh, though obviously forcing an agenda, is a sharp, witty guy who has a talent for radio. I didn't hear him make things up. He, and all people with agenda, just spin things to their liking. Just like you spin things to your liking.

As for "spin" what is the definition of "spin", and what is the definition of "reality"? I like to think that I don't have spin in my thought process, and I only deal with facts that focus on the reality of the situation. The problem is that my version of reality differes from the right's version of reality. I believe that the right's version of reality is in fact not reality at all, but only what their party wants them to think reality is. For example, look at Iraq. My view of Iraq is that it has slowly degraded into an all out civil war. I look at the amount of killings and deaths in Baghdad and it is mindboggling to me. The right looks at Iraq like something good is happening, they point out the progress and completely ignore the sectarian violence in the streets. They never report how bad it is getting, and instead try to paint a rosy picture of everything. The right is great at staged photo-ops, things like the toppling of Saddam's statue, the Mission Accomplished speech, the Katrina speech with lights and power int he backround. They are very good at showing the American public a little snipit of what they want the American public to believe reality is, yet it is all smoke and mirrors.

Here is where I think the difference is though. If it was a democratic administration talking about Iraq, I would still have the same exact opinion. I would base my judgements on what I perceive are the facts and the situation surrounding the city of Baghdad. I think a Republican would be screaming at the top of their lungs if this was a democratic war. I think they would be screaming wag the dog, no war for oil, and calling for impeachment of the leader and death to his family.

You see, I do not look at my party first, whereas many different republicans place their party before their country. I have my OWN belief system which I have formulated through out the years, and it aligns more with the democratic party now, and it aligned more with the republican party circa 1996. My position has not changed, the parties have, and for anyone who is a true idealist, it is very comical to see the same parties arguing the same points from different sides fo the fences. It exposes the hypocrisy of the entire system, and that is what made Stewarts appearance on crossfire so great. It did the same exact thing, and exposed the entire charade as a farce.

[chomerics]

1. Liberals claimed they were for "human rights" all throuhout the 1960's-2000.

2. When a vicious dictator (who republicans supported) who murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents (with the weapons republicans gave him), started three wars (one of them with the help of republicans), attacked all of his neighbors is deposed- the liberals condemned the LIBERATOR rather than the dictator. Now, they want to leave Iraq in the hands of Al-queda terrorists- who will commence a bloodbath the day after our troops leave.

No AFC, the liberals don't want to leave Iraq in the hands of terrorists, they want to leave Iraq period!!! We should never have been there in the first place, because it was NOT part of the GWOT to begin with!!! Don't let little facts like Iraq was not working with Al Qaeda, did not have WMDs and was not a threat to the US get in the way of your straw man bashing :doh:

Can you actually make an argument where you DON'T tell everyone "what liberals believe" or "what liberals think like"? A serious question, and seeing as how you are a lawyer, you should be very well versed at debate, but your arguments always are started with "liberals think like this" when in fact, they do not. It is only to make yourself look like the sane one, which, of course, is a stretch to say the least.

Here is some more liberal morality on display:

1. Liberals claim to love and support homosexual rights, the right to freedom of speech, to assemble, to petition, and to do what they want with their bodies.

2. Liberals support Hizbullah, Hamas, and castigate Israel.(I would love to see where liberals are supporting Hezbollah and Hammas. You OBVIOUSLY must have the money trail from the DNC to Hamas right? Where is your evidence for making outlandish claims?) They actively seek to have the United States lose to Al-Queda in Iraq.(Again, where is the money from the DNC to Al Qaeda? How are liberals supporting this terrorist regime?) Because that is what happens if we "withdraw now". Taking the side of the most reactionary forces on the planet against the side of the DEMOCRACIES which actually support the rights listed in #1 above.(Democracies where peo[ple are squelshed for saying anything against their tyrannical leadership. . . Oh the irony :doh:)

Please explain this moral confusion for me.

Ummm, the only confusion is that your version of reality is not what is actually happening on the ground. It is why people, like yourself, still believe Saddam was working with Al Qaeda, and had a hand in 9-11, and had an active WMD program. It is because you believe all the right wing noise machine lies they tell you, and then you come here thinking you know how liberals think, when in fact, your arguments are reaching legendary status in terms of ludicrousness.

[alexey]

Thread: It is okay to disagree. We should be able to discuss things without screaming who's right and who's wrong.

Ax: Oh look, another "I'm right and you're wrong" thread

okay buddy.

[Midnight Judges]

Agree with Olbermann largely. Rumsfeld and the Bush administration's attempts to silence all dissent will fail and backfire this time. They are doing their best to destroy the Republican party and the more they engage in these un-Democratic tactics the harder they will fall.

[chomerics]

Agree with Olbermann largely. Rumsfeld and the Bush administration's attempts to silence all dissent will fail and backfire this time. They are doing their best to destroy the Republican party and the more they engage in these un-Democratic tactics the harder they will fall.

They've already destroyed the republican party, they just don't see it yet. The second Bush one the second term, it was the death nail in the coffin of the republicans. What has been accomplished in this second term so far, anything? Have they done anything other then Terry Schaivo?

[JohnLockesGhost]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14765.htm

Couldn't have said it better mysef

Why is it that during his whole jeremiad, he doesn't really quote Rumsfeld one time?

[Air Force Cane]

because his type relies on inuendo, talking points, sophomoric insults, and character assassination rather than studied debate? :cool:

[twa]

Does anyone else see the irony of this quote? :laugh:

We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear - one, of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men; Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were - for the moment - unpopular." And so, good night, and good luck.

Works both ways

[Larry]

No, there is no leftist equivalent of Rush. There is nobody who makes up things quite like Rush does, he is in a class by himself :laugh:

I don't know. The words that just occurred to me are "Jesse Jackson".

[Beaudry]

It's just cute to see the liberals and conservatives doing the "pot calling the kettle black" routine. It's sad that neither side realizes it.

[chomerics]

It's just cute to see the liberals and conservatives doing the "pot calling the kettle black" routine. It's sad that neither side realizes it.

And. . .um. . .do you must not see the difference in the type of arguments posed, or the type of tactics used by both sides of the fence, right?

[Ax]

It's just cute to see the liberals and conservatives doing the "pot calling the kettle black" routine. It's sad that neither side realizes it.

Oh they realize it. They'd just rather die than admit it's even remotely possible.

That's the sad part.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I just reread his little harangue and am left wondering, is this guy really a journalist? I've never had much respect for Olberman because his is a polemicist.

I'd also like to say that I would find this piece much more persuasive if he actually USED the words of Rumsfeld. Instead he seems to be saying, "This is what I say he said. This is what he is implying. These are the consequences of what he's implying. Trust me, I went to Cornell." If what Rumsfeld said is so damning, just quote him and point out the flaws. Get off your soapbox.

[Midnight Judges]

I just reread his little harangue and am left wondering, is this guy really a journalist? I've never had much respect for Olberman because his is a polemicist.

I'd also like to say that I would find this piece much more persuasive if he actually USED the words of Rumsfeld. Instead he seems to be saying, "This is what I say he said. This is what he is implying. These are the consequences of what he's implying. Trust me, I went to Cornell." If what Rumsfeld said is so damning, just quote him and point out the flaws. Get off your soapbox.

That's already been done.

[Predicto]

I just reread his little harangue and am left wondering, is this guy really a journalist? I've never had much respect for Olberman because his is a polemicist.

I'd also like to say that I would find this piece much more persuasive if he actually USED the words of Rumsfeld. Instead he seems to be saying, "This is what I say he said. This is what he is implying. These are the consequences of what he's implying. Trust me, I went to Cornell." If what Rumsfeld said is so damning, just quote him and point out the flaws. Get off your soapbox.

Well, it was an editorial comment, not a news piece. Here is the relevant section of Rumsfeld's speech on which Obermann was commenting (I got it from the Department of Defense website).

I don't think Obermann misrepresented the speech. Of course, his take on the significance of the speech may be different than yours.

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.”

[JohnLockesGhost]

Well, it was an editorial comment, not a news piece. Here is the relevant section of Rumsfeld's speech on which Obermann was commenting (I got it from the Department of Defense website).

I don't think Obermann misrepresented the speech. Of course, his take on the significance of the speech may be different than yours.

You're darn right I have a different interpretation. After reading that, I can see now that Olberman's diatribe was a total mischaracterization of the speech's words and its implications. How do you gleen from that speech, "the government thinks it knows everything and if you disagree, then it will label you a traitor"? This speech is the reiteration of the White House's stance for the last three, four, or five years. Looks like Olberman was just looking for an excuse to jump down Rumsfeld's throat.

[Predicto]

You're darn right I have a different interpretation. After reading that, I can see now that Olberman's diatribe was a total mischaracterization of the speeches words and its implications. How do you gleen from that speech, "the government thinks it knows everything and if you disagree, then it will label you a traitor." This speech is the reiteration of the White House's stance for the last three, four, or five years. Looks like Olberman was just looking for an excuse to jump down Rumsfeld's throat.

I am not surprised you see it this way.

I imagine you are not surprised that I do not, either.

There is a deep divide in this country right now and we are both absolutely sure we are in the right.

[portisizzle]

I am not surprised you see it this way.

I imagine you are not surprised that I do not, either.

There is a deep divide in this country right now and we are both absolutely sure we are in the right.

Better than a country steeped in apathy.

[Predicto]

Better than a country steeped in apathy.

Gotta admit, I never thought of it that way. Hmmm.. interesting.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

because his type relies on inuendo, talking points, sophomoric insults, and character assassination rather than studied debate? :cool:

[Cdowwe]

Chom, you highlight the part about due process, but wasnt it Sarge that had that quote from you about how someone shouldnt get due process

[chomerics]

Chom, you highlight the part about due process, but wasnt it Sarge that had that quote from you about how someone shouldnt get due process

Ummmm, if you ever read the quote, you would have seen that I said IF the men are guilty. . . that kind of assumes a due process don't ya think?

[chomerics]

How do you gleen from that speech, "the government thinks it knows everything and if you disagree, then it will label you a traitor"? This speech is the reiteration of the White House's stance for the last three, four, or five years.

They are both the same thing, but of course I don't expect you to see it. The government has been saying those same words for how many years? Any time their tactics are questioned, they go off on the true hero's in the Senate. They swift boat people, and degrade their charactor, and unfortunately it works.

You are on the side of the people who will resort to anything for politics, and have no lower bounds when it comes to winning. Nothing is beneath them, they will scar the careers of true heros, and they care not for their country, but only for power. This is YOUR party now, this is YOUR side, and yes, I am completely at ease to know I am on the other side. I know for a fact that the truth is on my side, that the actual solution in in the hands of people from my side. I know reality is on my side, as the real world is the world that I live in.

I know the right is the side that continues to lie to their constituents. They will do anything to keep power, and their ship is sinking fast. I am not only happy to be a liberal, proud to be a liberal, but for the first time in my life I am starting to see the entire country start to wake up from the fog and stupor the right has had this country under since Sept 11th.

[twa]

Chom, Who are these "true heroes" and why?

[chomerics]

Chom, Who are these "true heroes" and why?

John McCain

Max Cleland

John Kerry

Jack Murtha

Every one of them has been "swift boated" by Rove & the gang, called cowards, traitors and everything else under the sun.