First Olbermann goes after Rumsfeld, now he nails Fredo

Hey, another liberal who doesn't tolerate dissent! An oxymoron ... or maybe just a moron ...

At least you didn't tell me to go get shot in the head, so kudos for that.

 

Find me any moment =at which Olbermann was as truthless as O'Reilly was in claiming his show won a Peabody award. Then, we'll talk.
Find me the millions that Olbermann's sexual-harassment has caught MSNBC and we can have a long chat.

 

Here is what Bush said:

I think Olbermann, who has had some good points against the administration, is grasping at straws here. In the excerpt, given in full context, simply discusses AQ's strategy for removing America as a factor in their global chessboard. In the statement, he only sets out OBL's aims and beliefs -- that OBL can bring our "weak and decadent" nation to its knees and that a propaganda campaign is part of that goal. Bush never holds the media complicit in OBL's plan and never returns to the topic. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-4.html for the full transcript).

The first half of Olbermann's takedown of Rummy was very well done. The second half, where he went from comparing the Bush Admin. to Chamberlain to comparing them to the Nazis, was way off the deep end. This one is just taking an inference and making a mountain out of flatland.

 

Throw all of O'Reilly's bullshit out the window, and Olbermann is still 10X the writer he is.

(and, for the record, I'm not allowing that false equivalency to stand -- I disagree -- I'm just choosing to make another point)

So what does that say about the right-wing viewers of Fox News, Lyman?

 

This is totally different from every other political thread on this board. Very unique arguments being made here.

 

pallister --

Just don't click on it. Poof! it disappears from your conciousness like so much fluff.

 

It's not "false equivalency," Zeke. They're two sides of the same coin.

But because Keith is your guy, you can't see that. He is no better than Mr. O, now matter what Fenian_Blowhard pontificates (and boy, does he love to do that).

 

Lyman:
Since we're into name calling, seems to me it's the right-wing neo-cons who are the ones who won't tolerate dissent or questions. All the administration wants is blind faith so that their obvious lies won't be discovered.

 

Yeah, like the pack of lies that foreign terrorists perpetrated 9-11. We all know that the U.S. government did it. :

 

Oh, but it's so hard to resist, Zeke. Surely, you're not saying I shouldn't even get involved if I don't agree with the majority, are you? The implication that anyone who doesn't agree with the liberal majority is a puppy killing Nazi that shouldn't speak his/her mind is nothing new. I'm used to that. But not even click?

You've got to admit these threads aren't started for spirited debate; they're started for the majority to pat each other on the back and attack the Lymans of the board when they offer an opposing opinion. It's the same M.O. on every one. I just like having a little fun with that every once in a while. Better than getting all worked up for no reason.

 

Pallister --

For the love of God, you raving idiot.

You post that nothing's different on here. I tell you that you don't have to read the thread if you don't feel it offers you anything new.

And from that, you manage to kick-start your right-wing martyr complex. And post something that we've all read on here a thousand times before. I hope the irony does not escape you.

By all means, offer something of substance to propel the discussion forward, rather than some tired and off-point recycled tripe.

And Lyman, while I'm sure you would like there to be an equivalence, that dog just won't hunt.

Olbermann's thoughts are considered. He might deliver them with passion bordering on vehemence, but he's not yelling. He's not ranting and raving. He's not having guests on and shouting them down.

All of which are near-nightly occurrences on O'Reilly's telecast. So while you might find a common ground in their political opposition, they're certainly not both equal blowhards.

And I wouldn't belabor the point, except I think the false equating of discourse is one of the biggest problems we face in regards to promoting a more productive discourse. Which would, if nothing else, really make pallister happy.

This is the part where I'm expected to wrap things up with a nice little graf about how a better political discourse, a more honest exchange of ideas would make our society much better. I don't think it would. But it would make it a more interesting place to live, and I wouldn't have to hear people ignore what other people actually said and instead respond with things like, "Oh yeah, you'd like it if people who disagreed with you never got to talk."

I'd welcome some honest discourse from the other side. Which I think Pope offered above, and which I know Lyman is capable of offering.

So c'mon, Lyman. Do better than Olbermann=O'Reilly. Or at least cite some evidence toward such a thesis.

 

Zeke, you speak of "false equating of discourse." I get the impression you think this is strictly a "right-wingers are blowhards but left-wingers are logical and correct" argument. Can you cite me a case of the reverse? Can you name a right-of-center radio/TV personality who fits your criteria?

I've already stated I'm not fond of O'Reilly. He and Olbermann preach to the choirs, albeit different ones. And just because Olbermann doesn't yell as much as O'Reilly, that doesn't mean his report isn't just as loaded.

At least O'Reilly doesn't try to pass himself off as a straight newsman (as in "objective," not heterosexual, although we know he definitely is that).

Oh, and if you were offering a sorta-left-handed compliment, thanks. (Of course, it would be a LEFT-handed compliment, wouldn't it?