Olbermann in rare form

[Spaceman Spiff]

The Congress should be criticizing as well as asking these questions of the administration. ( oh yeah the Congress is a joke bunch of spineless yes men and women) I can't stand Bush and I am registered GOP. One thing I will say for him is he does have brass balls (don't know if it is due to stupidity or determination) but he does what he wants and scerew everyone including MSNBC

I've got a relative that's pretty close to him. Bush simply doesn't care what the public thinks about him.

Not like anyone didn't know that.

[Popeman38]

Hit the nail on the head with this one. . .I would love to hear how the right tried to spin this one :laugh:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/24635229#24635229

I am saving this post from you, for the next time you lambaste any poster from the right for agreeing with Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, or Rush.

For someone who regularly weighs in with their opinion of how the right doing exactly what Olberman is doing here is marking the slow death of the Rep Party, the dripping hypocrisy from this post is delicious!

[Spaceman Spiff]

I am saving this post from you, for the next time you lambaste any poster from the right for agreeing with Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, or Rush.

For someone who regularly weighs in with their opinion of how the right doing exactly what Olberman is doing here is marking the slow death of the Rep Party, the dripping hypocrisy from this post is delicious!

No, Chommo will be here shortly to enlighten us on how this is vastly different. Something along the lines of O'Reilly, Savage and Rush regularly use strawmen when spitting their venom while Olberman used nothing but facts.

[mjah]

Or to put it another way, he'll continue letting the president speak in his own way that pisses of the left-wing Olbermann watchers.

I'll agree with that -- although the anger is in no way limited to "the left-wing Olbermann watchers."

Olbermann certainly does seem to be taking his rhetorical queues from Limbaugh and company these days. It's inevitable that with so many bozos spitting garbage from the right, you'll get folks (slowly) rising up on the left. Yang to yin. One guy paves the way, and in the process writes a tutorial for everyone else. All it takes is the first idiot.

I think this is what Al Franken was (still is?) trying to do with that radio station that nobody listened to. Provide a spicy left alternative on radio. But he didn't have the fire in the belly.

Olbermann rings more true to me than Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. on the issue of Bush's War because for the time being, he's arguing the slam-dunk side. So as I originally did with Rush, I'll reserve judgment until I see how he handles himself when his party is in the White House. Those overblown stylistic overtures are really going to get in the way when Olbermann doesn't have such easy targets as Bush, the war, and Hillary. Right now it's pretty much the perfect storm of subject matter awesomeness for him. That won't last forever...

[chomerics]

There it is. Olbermann is the left's counterpart to Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage/etc.

Not even close, he doesn't use a straw man argument and attack a fictitious person, he attacks the president for HIS actions. There is a big difference between the two, and the methodology they use.

Tell me something that he states which is NOT true.

Olbermann brings up three points.

1. Doomsday scenario. Chom, as the OP, what would your answer be to the question "If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what's the worst that could happen, what's the doomsday scenario?" To me, Bush's answer was reasonable. There is a school of thought that our enemies are emboldened by the US's lack of resolve to put troops in harm's way. I may not agree with it, but there are many who suscribe to that notion. In light of that, short of ducking the question, Bush gave what in his view is a reasonable response.

The absolute worse thing that could happen is that Iraq could turn into Afghanistan of the 90's.

To say that we will be attacked if we pull out is a farce, it is a joke, and it is insulting to the American people. This is from the same man who said we would have a "mushroom cloud" over one of our cities if we didn't invade Iraq. In Bush's world, saying that we will be attacked is the ONLY thing he falls back on. . .don't elect a democrat, they will side with the terrorists. The democrats want us to be attacked, if you elect a democrat we will be attacked.

At what point do you call him on his BS??? What would YOU say if someone said "If you elect Bush we are going to be attacked"? You would laugh in their face. . .but because of all the propaganda and brainwashing that has gone on in the past 6 or so years, when the president says something like this it sticks, because he has been saying it for the past 6 years!!!

2. WMD intelligence. I tend to agree that the Administration cherry-picked intelligence regarding WMD in support of going in to Iraq. I think that's what Olbermann's point was, though it was tough to pick up through all of his vitriolic, red-faced spittle.

No, his point was that Bush was LYING. Bush implied that the world thought the same thing as the US, which is decidedly not the case. Do you remember the vote on Iraq? yea, the one where they said they don't agree with force because we don't believe the crap you are spewing to us? Bush has a way of outright lying, and people believe him, even when all the facts prove he lied.

Bush was lying through his teeth, he tried to force cherry picked intel to the UN. He put the poster child for good, Colin Powel to present it. It STILL didn't work, and the UN called Bush's bluff ans said BS. We invaded anyway, but to insinuate the entire world thought the same thing is an egregious lie, and outright false.

3. The give-up golf issue. This is the ultimate cheap shot at Bush, to imply that he has decided that giving up golf is his best way to show support for military families. To me, it shows Bush understands the symbolism of the Presidency and the connotation of golf as leisurely and carefree, so he made a decision to stop playing...one small gesture in acknowlegement of the symbolic power of the Office of the Presidency.

Yet he even LIED about that too :doh: furthermore, it is disgusting, and disheartening to think ANYONE would EVER equate war with giving up golf. . . I mean this is the leader of our freaking country, and he says something as outright stupid as that??? WTF??? And you turn a blind eye to it. . .

God knows Olbermann would have been the very first critic to superimpose Bush playing golf with images of military families grieving the loss of a loved one. But in twisting that small gesture so grotesquely, Olbermann exposes himself as a partisan hack every bit as poisonous to reasonable discourse as Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing radio brigade.

Funny, but when he was lambasting Clinton he was not a partisan hack, now because he is lambasting Bush he is a partisan hack? Oh I see, anyone who criticized the god almighty Bush is a partisan hack, and bush deserves no criticism. . .because he has done such a fabulous job with our country :doh:

[chomerics]

Olbermann rings more true to me than Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. on the issue of Bush's War because for the time being, he's arguing the slam-dunk side. So as I originally did with Rush, I'll reserve judgment until I see how he handles himself when his party is in the White House. Those overblown stylistic overtures are really going to get in the way when Olbermann doesn't have such easy targets as Bush, the war, and Hillary. Right now it's pretty much the perfect storm of subject matter awesomeness for him. That won't last forever...

You're the man Jamie, that was a great line :notworthy

[Spaceman Spiff]

No, Chommo will be here shortly to enlighten us on how this is vastly different. Something along the lines of O'Reilly, Savage and Rush regularly use strawmen when spitting their venom while Olberman used nothing but facts.

Not even close, he doesn't use a straw man argument and attack a fictitious person, he attacks the president for HIS actions. There is a big difference between the two, and the methodology they use.

Tell me something that he states which is NOT true.

BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! :laugh: :laugh:

[chomerics]

No, Chommo will be here shortly to enlighten us on how this is vastly different. Something along the lines of O'Reilly, Savage and Rush regularly use strawmen when spitting their venom while Olberman used nothing but facts.

Well, if you know the answer already, then why bother to post it

[chomerics]

BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! :laugh: :laugh:

Why do you get credit for sprouting the truth?

[Popeman38]

No, Chommo will be here shortly to enlighten us on how this is vastly different. Something along the lines of O'Reilly, Savage and Rush regularly use strawmen when spitting their venom while Olberman used nothing but facts.

Not even close, he doesn't use a straw man argument and attack a fictitious person, he attacks the president for HIS actions. There is a big difference between the two, and the methodology they use.

WOW. Talk about calling it! :laugh:

[chomerics]

WOW. Talk about calling it!

What is there to call when you know what the truth is?

[PleaseBlitz]

BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! :laugh: :laugh:

:fortune:

:laugh:

[ChiefBigMeat]

You're insulting a white man. Anything goes, remember?

Look, I don't think it's Obama's race which will keep the general election close. It has to do with HIM. Obama, can I keep the money I work for?

If you make less than 100K a year, you will get a tax break under his plan.

[Spaceman Spiff]

What is there to call when you know what the truth is?

I don't know what the "truth" is, but the difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to know.

I was just calling you predictable...that much, I know to be true

Why do you get credit for sprouting the truth?

Sprouting the truth? Sprouting? This isn't what happens in your pants when you see a weed leaf or a Bush-bash fest, Chommo. I do believe the correct word you were looking for is "spouting"

[Popeman38]

What is there to call when you know what the truth is?

The truth. What a novel concept. What Olberman did is no different than O'Reilly's talking points. Well, except for the length! :laugh:

Just because Olberman espouses the same POV as you does not make him a purveyor of truth. No more so than O'Reilly does.

They are both windbags who do nothing more than polarize this country more and more. And THAT is the truth.

To have a former TV Tabloid reporter and a former SportsCenter anchor provide your political insight is a sad commentary on the state of voters.

[chomerics]

I don't know what the "truth" is, but the difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to know.

Actually you do know what it is, you just don't want to admit it to yourself, because it would put you on my side of the isle

[chomerics]

The truth. What a novel concept. What Olberman did is no different than O'Reilly's talking points. Well, except for the length! :laugh:

I don't disagree his demeanor and tack are no different but his context is decidedly different than what Rush and Savage have to offer. If you expose the other sides lies, it doesn't make you "just like them". If you would watch different segments, and see who he goes after, you would notice that it is not just republicans, or O'Reily, it is people he deems are liars, and hurting our country. . .and yes, he goes right after Hillary as well.

What mjah said is true, we will see what he turns into when the dems have power, and who he goes after. But as for right now, he is 100% spot on.

[Popeman38]

I don't disagree his demeanor and tack are no different but his context is decidedly different than what Rush and Savage have to offer. If you expose the other sides lies, it doesn't make you "just like them". If you would watch different segments, and see who he goes after, you would notice that it is not just republicans, or O'Reily, it is people he deems are liars, and hurting our country. . .and yes, he goes right after Hillary as well.

The bolded portion of your quote is important. It doesn't matter what he deems. What he deems is important is nothing more than his opinion. And that is what makes him the same as Savage and Rush and O'Reilly. That does not constitute truth.

What mjah said is true, we will see what he turns into when the dems have power, and who he goes after. But as for right now, he is 100% spot on.

It will be interesting. But the bolded portion, again, is nothing more than his and your opinion. He spun the golf point. Bush never claimed it was a sacrifice. Read the transcript. It happened 5 years ago. Olbeman is flaming, and you know it.

[chomerics]

The bolded portion of your quote is important. It doesn't matter what he deems. What he deems is important is nothing more than his opinion. And that is what makes him the same as Savage and Rush and O'Reilly. That does not constitute truth.

Was it not true that the president used politics to go to war? Was it not true that the president cherry picked intel and tried to feed it to the rest of the world? Was it not true that the rest of the world did not believe him? What part of his rant was false? What part of his vitriolic tirade had any lies in it?

It will be interesting. But the bolded portion, again, is nothing more than his and your opinion. He spun the golf point. Bush never claimed it was a sacrifice. Read the transcript. It happened 5 years ago. Olbeman is flaming, and you know it.

You say it was not a sacrifice. . .but the way it was worded and asked, of course you assume that it is a sacrifice, how else do you interpret it? I don't want to play golf because it gives a bad impression during wartime.

What does that image infer to you, that one person is giving up something that he likes to do, golf, because of a war. he is sacrificing part of his leisure activities because we are in a war, and he says this candidly. It is the wrong answer because of how people will interpret it. The most obvious way is what is used against him.

He is admitting to a sacrifice. . .whether you believe it or not. I would EXPECT my president to recognize the pointed question and not to feed into it. I would EXPECT my president to be smarter than that, but not this guy, he is as dumb as they come, and he not only feeds into it, he gives a reason for it, and then lies about it to boot :doh:

HE is the one that ADMITTED the war had something to do with his not playing golf. It is of COURSE going to be equated as he is sacrificing up golf for war, that is the OBVIOUS path people will read into it. You should be SMART enough to realize it and answer the question in a different way, but he is not, and instead feeds into the belly of the beast.

It is his own stupidity and ignorance that placed him there, nothing more nothing less. If you care to keep a blind eye to that it is your prerogative, but don't come here and call out someone for pointing out this man is a complete buffoon. It only makes yourself look bad in the process for sticking up for such an idiot.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The truth. What a novel concept. What Olberman did is no different than O'Reilly's talking points. Well, except for the length! :laugh:

Just because Olberman espouses the same POV as you does not make him a purveyor of truth. No more so than O'Reilly does.

They are both windbags who do nothing more than polarize this country more and more. And THAT is the truth.

To have a former TV Tabloid reporter and a former SportsCenter anchor provide your political insight is a sad commentary on the state of voters.

That's the truth right there.

[Dan T.]

Not even close, he doesn't use a straw man argument and attack a fictitious person, he attacks the president for HIS actions. There is a big difference between the two, and the methodology they use.

Tell me something that he states which is NOT true.

Certainly the straw man is one tactic of the right wing radio brigade. So is impugning the integrity and motives of the opposition in a vitriolic fashion, so much so that it comes across as borne of blind hatred, ala Keith Olbermann in that clip.

If all sides can start from the premise that maybe, just maybe, public figures on the opposite side of the political spectrum are NOT evil beings intent on doing wrong, but people trying to do what they view as best for the country, political discourse would be much more enlightened.

The absolute worse thing that could happen is that Iraq could turn into Afghanistan of the 90's.

To say that we will be attacked if we pull out is a farce, it is a joke, and it is insulting to the American people. This is from the same man who said we would have a "mushroom cloud" over one of our cities if we didn't invade Iraq. In Bush's world, saying that we will be attacked is the ONLY thing he falls back on. . .don't elect a democrat, they will side with the terrorists. The democrats want us to be attacked, if you elect a democrat we will be attacked.

At what point do you call him on his BS??? What would YOU say if someone said "If you elect Bush we are going to be attacked"? You would laugh in their face. . .but because of all the propaganda and brainwashing that has gone on in the past 6 or so years, when the president says something like this it sticks, because he has been saying it for the past 6 years!!!

I agree with Bush that a much worse scenario is that we are attacked again. Not arguing cause/effect here, just which is the worst doomsday scenario.

Bush said nothing about "if the democrats are elected we will be attacked." But don't let that fact get in the way of your rant.

No, his point was that Bush was LYING. Bush implied that the world thought the same thing as the US, which is decidedly not the case. Do you remember the vote on Iraq? yea, the one where they said they don't agree with force because we don't believe the crap you are spewing to us? Bush has a way of outright lying, and people believe him, even when all the facts prove he lied.

Bush was lying through his teeth, he tried to force cherry picked intel to the UN. He put the poster child for good, Colin Powel to present it. It STILL didn't work, and the UN called Bush's bluff ans said BS. We invaded anyway, but to insinuate the entire world thought the same thing is an egregious lie, and outright false.

I think the lead up to war was more nuanced than "Bush was lying." But nuance doesn't play so well in an Olbermann Rant-o-Rama.

Yet he even LIED about that too :doh: furthermore, it is disgusting, and disheartening to think ANYONE would EVER equate war with giving up golf. . . I mean this is the leader of our freaking country, and he says something as outright stupid as that??? WTF??? And you turn a blind eye to it. . .

Chom, you are a really smart guy. You can't possibly believe yourself what you typed here. To me, this is an example of blind hatred clouding any reasonable judgement of a small gesture by Bush.

Funny, but when he was lambasting Clinton he was not a partisan hack, now because he is lambasting Bush he is a partisan hack? Oh I see, anyone who criticized the god almighty Bush is a partisan hack, and bush deserves no criticism. . .because he has done such a fabulous job with our country :doh:

Like I said before, I hadn't really seen much of Olbermann before this clip, so I'll take your word for it that he is indeed an equal-opportunity hack.

[chomerics]

Certainly the straw man is one tactic of the right wing radio brigade. So is impugning the integrity and motives of the opposition in a vitriolic fashion, so much so that it comes across as borne of blind hatred, ala Keith Olbermann in that clip.

Does Olbermann hate Bush, absolutely, but not because he is a republican, but because his actions have caused the hatred.

If all sides can start from the premise that maybe, just maybe, public figures on the opposite side of the political spectrum are NOT evil beings intent on doing wrong, but people trying to do what they view as best for the country, political discourse would be much more enlightened.

In an equal playing field, I agree, that is correct. We have not had an equal playing field for the past 15 years or so, and one side has dominated the rants and attacks. It is only now being used against them and they are crying foul. It is disingenuous to say the least. . .

I agree with Bush that a much worse scenario is that we are attacked again. Not arguing cause/effect here, just which is the worst doomsday scenario.

Bush said nothing about "if the democrats are elected we will be attacked." But don't let that fact get in the way of your rant.

It has been his parties mantra since 04'. Do you want me to dig up all of the quotes and references he, Cheney, and the rest of the clan has stated since 9-11 about what would happen if democrats were elected?

The democrats want to "pull out" or "cut and run", and the worse think that could happen is we would "be attacked again". Do I need to draw the lines for you, or can you not connect the dots as to how this implies that if the democrats are elected, we will be attacked.

It is funny, because this is taking nothing out of context, it is very consistent with what he has told us for the past 6 or so years, yet you act as if I am making up crap as I go along.

I think the lead up to war was more nuanced than "Bush was lying." But nuance doesn't play so well in an Olbermann Rant-o-Rama.

Here is his rant. . .

It was a Yahoo user who brought up the second topic, upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed, or punted, or gotten up and left the room, claiming he heard Dick Cheney calling him.

“Do you feel,” asked an ordinary American, “that you were misled on Iraq?”

“I feel like—I felt like there were weapons of mass destruction. You know, “mislead” is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional—I don‘t think so, I think there was a—not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was.”

Flawed?

You, Mr. Bush, and your tragically know-it-all minions, threw out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons. You, Mr. Bush, threw out every person who suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality-based intelligence needed to be listened to, and damn fast. You, Mr. Bush, are responsible for how “intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment.”

You and the sycophants you dredged up and put behind the most important steering wheel in the world propagated palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world, and punished everybody who didn‘t agree it was really chicken salad.

And you, Mr. Bush, threw under the bus all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later to point out just how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy you had embraced, and adopted as this country‘s policy, in lieu of, say, common sense.

The fiasco of pre-war intelligence, sir, is your fiasco.

You should build a great statue of yourself turning a deaf ear to the warnings of the realists, while you are shown embracing the three-card monte dealers, like Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. That would be a far more fitting tribute to your legacy, Mr. Bush, than this Presidential library you are constructing as a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might as claim was built from Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, because there will be just as many of those inside your Presidential library as there were inside Saddam Hussein‘s Iraq.

Of course, if there is one over-riding theme to this president‘s administration it is the utter, always-failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind. And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this layered, nuanced, wheels-within-wheels garbage heap that constituted his excuse for war.

“And so you feel that you didn‘t have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?”

“No, no,” replied the President. “I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction.”

People?

What people?

The insane informant “Curveball?”

The Iraqi snake-oil salesman Ahmed Chalabi?

The American snake-oil salesman Dick Cheney?

“I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

“And of course, the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes.”

Mr. Bush, you destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the Congress‘s throat, the way you jammed it down the nation‘s throat. When required by law to verify that your evidence was accurate, you simply re-submitted it, with phrases amounting to “See, I done proved it,” virtually written in the margins in crayon. You defied patriotic Americans to say “The Emperor Has No Clothes” only this time with the stakes—as you and the mental dwarves in your employ put it—being a “mushroom cloud over an American city.”

And as a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual Congressional seats in places like North Carolina and, last night, Mississippi, you can actually say with a straight face, sir, that the members of Congress, “the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes,” while you greet the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency, and your legacy.

Four thousand of the Americans you were supposed to protect are dead in Iraq, with your only feeble, pathetic answer being, “I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction.”

Please tell me what part of that is not true!

Did they ignore evidence which said there were no weapons? Did they try to shove false intel down OTHER countries throats, such as the forged Nigerian Uranium claims? Did they do what he stated?

The answer is of course yes. Please pick apart that rant and show me where he is wrong. Show me where he is being a hack, because that is the basic truth of what happened, and how it happened. There is nothing wrong with calling someone's bluff, if they are bluffing. . .

Chom, you are a really smart guy. You can't possibly believe yourself what you typed here. To me, this is an example of blind hatred clouding any reasonable judgement of a small gesture by Bush.

I absolutely believe what I typed. He stated that his quitting golf was a reaction to the war. I am not the only person who deems this "quitting" as a "sacrifice". It was stupid, idiotic and moronic to even answer the question, yet he did. he is the one who brought this on himself with a stupid answer to a farce of a question, then to top it all off he like about it.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Does Olbermann hate Bush, absolutely, but not because he is a republican,

That's a load of crap, Chom.

McCain wins this election, the rants will stay the same, Olberman will just swap out Bush with McCain. You know it and I know it.

Deep down I bet Olberman wants McCain to win. If he gets his way and Obama wins, he won't have anything left to rant about and gain ratings.

[Predicto]

Conservatives do feigned anger much better than liberals. :laugh:

[PleaseBlitz]

Conservatives do feigned anger much better than liberals. :laugh:

We already covered that in a thread.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202280

Post #2.