Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Whoa.
What he said:
And to finish:
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
If anything
I think that Keith Olberman is a little too faux formal at times. I know that manners are important to a lot of people, but all the "sirs" and lack of swearing make it hard for me to remember that he's talking about George fuckin' Bush. Great rant, though. It's good to see that some people in the media remember more than just last year's lies.
There seems to be some confusion about "hate speech" in the comments. While the popular definition of "hate speech" can be a bit fuzzy, I don't understand the problem. As far as I can tell, hate speech refers to bigoted or prejudicial rhetoric used to attack, discredit, or incite action against a person or group, usually based not on actions or established fact, but on superficial cultural details.
I do not agree with hate speech laws or any form of public censorship, but as I understand the term it cannot be fairly applied to Olberman's comments. It was just a bad performance review based entirely on the actions of the subject. No hate speech required.
To be fair, Limbaugh usually falls a little short of hate speech in my opinion. Bigoted, racist, superficial, irrelevant, ignorant, dishonest, and even "hateful," yes. But since he has no plans to actually DO anything about all of the societal ills he perceives, he rarely crosses the line into incitement. That is the difference between the two. Rush uses rhetoric with added bigotry. Keith uses rhetoric with added facts. I think Olberman is starting to verge on incitement, with plenty of facts based on the actions of the object of his tactics. More power to him. Don't get me wrong, I'm no hero worshiper. In the end, I don't think he'll sacrifice anything that Limbaugh wouldn't, except the time to actually study the issues, of course. He's no hero, but who is? I just think he's right
in this case, as usual.
If anyone really needs to educate themselves, watch a few Olberman
youtubes, and then look up some Rush Limbaugh. If you have to, google
"rush limbaugh hate speech" and read a few. Sure, patterns of rhetoric overlap. It's called public speaking. If you can be bothered, keep a little score pad and compare instances of critique of verifiable fact used to indict a person or group as compared to instances of racist or otherwise bigoted jokes and rhetoric used to silence or discredit a person or group without engaging any argument or using any verifiable facts at all. I If you see no difference between the two, then I don't know what to say.
Thank you, Neal
Thanks for addressing the issue honestly. I still don't agree that Rush is any closer (or any further) from hate speech for the rants he goes on than Olbermann is in this video. I don't know anything else about Olbermann's political commentaries, I'm only familiar with this video. So there may be a vast difference between the two in his other bodies of work, but I was only ever addressing *this video*.
Man, there's so much more I want to say about this, but I just don't have the energy anymore. I sincerely feel connected with most of you here about most of the issues raised. I was ecstatic to read how many of the posters here, despite being non-Theists and probably slanted more left than I am, are still pro RTBA (for instance). I thought this was a group where ideas could be discussed and questions could be raised and talked about sincerely.
I should have realized that, in this thread at least, that no dissension would be tolerated. I really wanted to discuss the few points Olbermann raised that had some meat on them. I thought there would be at least some general agreement that the rhetoric was overboard, but I didn't factor in the abject hatred of Bush among most of you. And I didn't count on the almost god-like status Olbermann must carry around here. As soon as I dared to suggest that there was a similarity between his rhetoric and Limbaugh's, I think most of you labeled me as some Bush loving, Rush worshiping neocon.
I can't remember who it was, and I'm not going to bother looking back to find out, but someone else went through this same thing recently. He dared to question the "Bush is evil" and "Bush lied to us" mantra, asking for some evidence. He got a bunch of grief over that, and snide comments and school-yard tauntings. Guess what he didn't get?
I thought his experience may have been due to some past history here I didn't know about, and maybe it still is, but after this I have to wonder.
So, fuck it. Maybe I just should ignore these "cheer leading" threads. It would be easier, but I probably won't be able to do that for long. I'll just be more prepared for the treatment next time (I hope.)
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Abject commentary
Whine, combined with sly insult, check.
Whine, with more pointed insult, double-check.
Yep, the rhetoric was overboard. Were the facts behind it? No. Showing actual film clips, pointing out that saying you’re giving up golf to be in solidarity with the parents of the dead soldiers is just completely ga-ga, is a point worth making.
Yeah, I don’t like Charles Manson much either. Which is completely unjustified, right? Unless Charley did something worth inspiring dislike. Oh, wait ... (And just FYI: I do happen to know that “abject” here means “of the most contemptible kind.” Which seems to mean you think I’m contemptible for having a strong dislike for Bush for the things he’s done.)
Okay, now you’re just getting’ bitchy. See what Jim says below.
So you’re saying you’re not? I started to suspect you of being a Bush-loving neocon when you failed to address the point Olbermann was making, choosing instead to attack his DELIVERY. That smells strongly of neocon to me. I still can’t get over the fact that you seem to be denying that there was anything worth saying in Olbermann’s rant. I’d have a hard time participating in whatever sort of calm discussion you were envisioning until you notice, and at least acknowledge, that point.
Yep, it’s all about the “mantra.” Not one person here actually thinks about things, or weighs evidence, or comes to his/her own independent conclusions. It’s all just programmed into our dopey little heads by the religion of Must Hate Bush. ... And you wonder that I’m reacting strongly to you? Jeez.
Yet another thinly veiled insult. Nothing here, in the past year, has been objective or thoughtful, and no person has dared to disagree with any other. We’re all lockstep think-alikes, all marching along shaking our pom-poms and spouting our librool mantras. Yep.
Two weeks ago, if anybody had asked me, I would have said “Rob? Seems okay to me. Average guy, good writer, usually has something interesting to say.”
Right now, I’m leaning more toward “whiny, obtuse, suspiciously good at the insulting little digs. Prone to ‘you’re all picking on me’ mentality. Not somebody you’d want to invite over.”
For me, I’m still surprised you can’t see that Olbermann, overblown rhetoric and all, was talking about real things, showing actual film clips, etc. And making the point – which I consider undeniable – that comparing giving up of golf with losing your son is so totally clueless it’s something you’d expect to pop out of the mouth of a brainless butterfly like Paris Hilton, and not the President of the United States.
Somewhere in your head, I can’t see how you can fail to agree that if Bush is the guy who sent those boys off to die, he damned well better think more of them than he does of golf. He should damned well KNOW that getting a letter saying your son was just blown up and killed by a bomb is orders of magnitude different from casually deciding to give up golf. (Which he lied about, by the way; there’s film of him playing golf after he said that.)
And here’s the thing: For me, or anyone else here, to agree that Olbermann was making a very good point, is neither worship of Olbermann nor automatic, mindless hatred of Bush.
Paris Hilton comparing golf and dead kids is worth some censure. Bush comparing golf and dead kids is not just dismaying but scary as hell.
For somebody to point that out, even in gale-force rhetoric, is entirely acceptable.
To me, anyway.
Gotta love that ability
I don't know how many times I've said in this thread that there are points that Olbermann made that I'd like to discuss. Say I'm whining all you want, Hank, but I can't help but notice that you seem to be going out of your way to make it sound like I said just the opposite.
You're right, I didn't like Olbermann's delivery for most of that video. I'm glad you brought up the golf thing, because that's a perfect example of what I didn't like. One of the participants specifically asked Bush about why he hadn't been golfing. Bush answered the question as asked, expressing concern for the soldiers' families, with golf being a central idea in his answer because that's what the question addressed. Turning that into "Bush compared golf and dead kids" is unnecessary rhetoric.
I'm not a Bush apologist, and for the record I never voted for him, and I don't particularly like him, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here that he wasn't saying golf was his one great sacrifice for the war effort. I don't like John Kerry either, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt some time back that he wasn't saying members of the US military were uneducated goons who didn't pay attention in school.
And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt too, Hank. I'll apologize for not having made it absolutely clear that I think Keith made some good points in his speech. Forget everything I said about the Limbaugh similarities: I take it all back. I shouldn't have brought that name into it at all, and I take full responsibility for that gaffe. Please understand, too, that I am being sincere in my apology.
For what it's worth, "abject" doesn't have the meaning I thought it did. I assumed it had a meaning similar to "uncompromising", and meant to use it that way. I should have looked it up before using it, but I didn't. Again, I apologize.
As for my being bitchy, I guess all of us are prone to the use of rhetoric.
Hank, I am an average guy, and I try to be a good writer. I'm also obtuse at times, and probably better at insulting little digs than I should be. That's why I felt like I fit in so well here: I'm just one of the guys.
I'm abandoning this thread once I've posted this, but I will try to be clearer in future threads of my intent to discuss certain points.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Apologies here too.
Everything's okay on my end. I'm sorry for the tiff too (I can be a jerk myself sometimes), and I'm glad you're here.
Not to be disagreeable . . .
Rob, I'm not quite sure how you come to that conclusion. To the best of my knowledge he's actually only been *mentioned* like once or twice in the past (prior to this thread). Even though I was the one who posted those clips, I barely qualify as being a fan of his - I never watch his show (I don't even have cable), and couldn't tell you where you can find his writing on a regular basis. I see him post occasionally over on Daily Kos, and that's where I came across those clips.
Again, I won't speak for anyone else, but to me the incompetence and mendacity of the Bush administration seems so obvious that I have a hard time even wrapping my head around the notion that others don't see it, and asking for "proof" or "evidence" is like asking for documentation that the sky is blue and water is wet.
I understand that something like two-thirds of self-described Republicans think that he has done a great job, but look at what the rest of the country (and world) thinks: job approval rating somewhere around 20%, while 80% see the country as being seriously off the rails. The election in November is going to be devastating for the GOP for this very reason - they'll be lucky to even hold onto enough seats to mount a filibuster in the Senate.
I've said previously that I don't care to play "gotcha" here - I've had my fill of that in plenty of other places. I have better things to do with my time than to bandy around words with someone who just seems to be in denial of even basic reality.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Again
A second "Hear, hear!"
Very well said.
It's gotten to where I don't even bother engaging these jokers who have that blindness to any difference between people based on their actual actions.
I used the example earlier of a high school coach coming into the gym and seeing a big guy beating up a little guy, and he suspends them both for fighting. Whereas, if he'd only looked at the facts of the case, he might have found out the one guy was only defending himself.
I appreciate your points about "hate speech," and note that someone here used the phrase "hate spewing."
But ... I don't think you have to sink to active "hate" to create extremely negative end results. There are levels of action that convey -- or incite -- the exact same degree of emotion, without overtly displaying it. You can tell little lies for years, present constant, unceasing innuendo with a satisfied little smirk, as Rush does, and get the same result.
The people who are tone deaf to the difference between Limbaugh and Olbermann, or O'Reilly and Olbermann, or Coulter and Olbermann ... well, if they said they couldn't tell any difference between peanut butter and dog poop, I wouldn't be surprised. (“Well, where’s the difference? They’re both gooey! I just don’t know where you’re finding this huge difference all of a sudden!”) I can't see how this sort of blindness wouldn't affect one's entire mind, damping down your ability to judge differences in everything.
And apparently it does. We've often heard this defense of torture: "Saddam Hussein did it!" as if that was all you needed to know to make it acceptable in the U.S. The person who'd say such a thing is so vacantly witless, so unaware of American ideals or the reasons behind them, that I'd run ten miles to escape being in the same room where they were saying such things out loud.
I'm starting to feel that there's an extremely dangerous enemy in the world, something so malignant it can and will happily wreck the entire planet, destroying everything good, just for the hell of it.
It's humans ... but humans without the capacity to reason.
I suppose we all suffer from a lack of reason at times, but these days I seem to see more and more people who suffer from it constantly, and on a large scale. Worst of all, there's now a LOBBY, a fairly organized group that incites and encourages that type of aggressive unreason. A group with big money, with salesmen, with cheerleaders, with apologists, with large-scale media access. A group with its own President, and its own Congress. A group with an enemies list (“librools,” intellectuals, scientists, Hillary Clinton, critics, etc.) ... and a list of squeaky-clean untouchable saints (Reagan, Limbaugh, Bush himself, etc.).
I used to hope they'd see the disasters that Bush was steadily visiting on us, and CHANGE THEIR MINDS. But year after year, when I'd bring it up they'd say things like "What disaster? Can you cite facts? Can you prove it? Where's your evidence?" or "Well, I don't see how he's doing anything different from what Clinton did!"
Never, never, never is anything ever Bush’s fault. The buck never stops on the president’s desk; it’s always somebody else’s buck. Something like two-thirds of Republicans STILL think Bush is a great man, a compassionate and truthful man who has rarely, if ever, made a mistake.
The nasty thing is, that level of blindness gives them comfort, but also makes them totally defenseless against being used by the people who stand in the blind spot and pull their strings.
I read an article tonight about a young man who was a constant trouble-maker as a teenager, but who joined the Army and went off to Iraq, where he just recently threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies. The picture with the story showed his parents holding up his picture and SMILING. Their kid had turned his life around, and the picture and quotes made the parents sound like they were happy he had died. One of my coworkers remarked something to the effect that not only had they lost their own son, but they were helping to further the meme of glorious death in war, luring other people’s kids off to Iraq, so they could turn their lives around, and be heroes, and die.
Argh.
the error of equivalency
While Keith's passionate outrage was certainly at an all-time high last night, this is not the flip-side of ignorant, hate-spewing, reptilian bloviating from the likes of Limbaugh et al. The crucial difference is that Keith's righteous anger is based on a firm grasp of the TRUTH and the consequent moral revulsion that comes with that knowledge. His anger and vehemence are certainly proportionate to the indecency, injustice, and evil he rails against. The fact that he may have gotten loud and somewhat red in the face does not in any way put him in the same category as the right-wing lunatic fringe. In a culture in which the daily body count is barely noted on the evening news, I'm glad someone is reminding us of the disastrous consequences of an immoral war and expressing the appropriate horror and indignation.
...
Hear, hear!
Sorry, I just don't see a
Sorry, I just don't see a substantial difference between the way KO goes about his rants and the way Limbaugh goes about his. KO's righteous anger and his TRUTH is just like Limbaugh's righteous anger and his TRUTH, and I hear 90% rhetoric either way. I guess it depends on what POV you start from. Was KO this passionately against Bill Clinton in '98?
Just out of curiosity: can you give me an example of Rush Limbaugh spewing hate ("ignorant" and "reptilian bloviating" are in the eyes of the beer-holder)? I'd like to compare that example (preferably a sourced quote of some kind) to what KO said in the linked video to see if there is a difference. I trust it's not necessary to point out that someone saying something we might disagree with isn't the same as "hate spewing."
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
There are none so blind
Would you care to make the case that getting oral sex from a woman not your wife is somehow equivalent to ordering the country into an unjustified, preemptive attack on a virtually defenseless nation with subsequent massive (and expensive) death and destruction?
Please regale us with your argument.
That's funny
Why is it the first thing people think of when Bill Clinton's name comes up is blowjob?
I wasn't referring to the inappropriate sexual contact with that woman, Monica Lewinski, Thameron. I was referring to the bombing of Iraq. As in, I wonder if KO was this passionately against Bill Clinton in 1998 when he ordered the bombing of "strategic targets" in Iraq.
Oh, do you remember why Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq? Apparently not, since you're thinking blowjobs all the way. Republicans were thinking blowjobs too, because they claimed Clinton only did it to take heat off him during his trials and tribulations. Well, no matter; here's what Clinton had to say about why he did it:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.ht...
Now I realize that Clinton was a Democrat, and Bush is... well, Bush, so that makes all the difference. For what it's worth, the 1998 bombing was one of the few things about Clinton's presidency that I was 100% behind at the time, and I still think it was the right thing to do for the reasons he stated. And I think the US was justified in invading Iraq in 2003 for the same reasons. The timing was horrible, and the management of the war has been bungled all along, but it was still justified (in my opinion.)
Now this is the second response to focus on my asking if KO was as passionately against Clinton in 1998. One "answer" wasn't an answer at all, just a taunt. This second one was a mis-understanding, which I trust is now all cleared up (right, Thameron?) Will anyone provide me an example of Rush spewing hatred so I can compare/contrast it with Keith's passionate discourse based on TRUTH (and apparently 99.9% hate-spew free)?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Just too bad
You know, i'm very sad about the mismanagement of the Iraq war. If only it had been managed well, then the hundreds of thousands of innocents who have died wouldn't have died for nothing.
Of course, I wouldn't show any compassion for their loss. This is war, people die. Just make sure it's not our People. If it is, then torture and kidnapping and war for hundreds of years. If it's not, then don't bitch you pussy, this is war, dammit!
Oh, crap
Are you French? Well, that would explain why you're against war.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Thank the French for this country
I realize I'm late to the game. Rob, without the French assistance (remember Lafayette?) after the colonists went whining for help from them, this country would likely not even exist. Learn a little history before you start denigrating the entire population of a country.
Well thank you
Thanks for the xenophobia and the ignorance. So the French are against the War, always have been, always will be. And that explains why I disagree with the senseless deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Oh, I see...
You can rail against Americans because we "murdered" innocent people in all the wars we've been in, and say we're happy about the deaths of innocents in those wars, and I shouldn't have a problem with that. But I make one observation about the French being so bad at waging war (which isn't exactly dropping a bomb-shell, yea?) that it's no wonder they have no taste for it, and I'm the xenophobe.
You French are so funny!
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
YES!
Hardy har har...the French! Look, I'm going to go buy some Freedom Fries, NOT French fries!!! Hahaha the French, with their wine and perfume and pantyhose and "pussyness"!! I love reassuring my own manhood by pointing my finger at the French, believing in my own head that they're weak and without freedom. I love myself! Haha, you're critical of America therefore it could only mean you are French!
Haha, that guy is crazy, eh wantobe?
Yea, he's crazy alright
Where did I say the French were weak and without freedom? I never mentioned wine, perfume, or pantyhose, and never called anyone a pussy. Sounds to me like you have some issues with the French yourself, to have those kind of stereotypes so handy.
I actually assumed that he was an ultra-liberal American, the self-loathing type that goes beyond the legitimate criticisms that this country and its current administration deserve to just blaming us for everything that's ever happened in the world since the 1800s. They're a dime a dozen in these types of blogs, and that he might be French didn't even cross my mind until I went to the website associated with his nickname.
You shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
So you're against war under
So you're against war under any circumstances, right? I don't agree, but that's your opinion and I'll allow you to have it ;)
I still can't get anyone to answer my question :`(
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
War is murder
I am for self-defense. That is all. When placed in conditions of imminent death, we all try to survive. That is the only circumstance in which I would consider murder.
America has never been in such a condition, ever. As one of the founding father explained, America's situation makes her safe from external danger. It is in good terms with Mexico and Canada, and it has nothing to fear from South America.
The rest of the world would not even care about America, if it wasn't for the murderous and anti-democratic foreign policy of the last hundreds years (if not more). In a normal world, America would only be some country far-away, on the other side of the planet.
But then again, in a normal world America wouldn't be the first power either. And that would be unacceptable right ?
Oh, I agree
I actually agree with you, littlehorn. Not 100%, but substantially. Any person, or nation, should be free to defend itself from harm, to whatever extent is necessary. I also believe that any person or nation should be free to defend others who aren't able to defend themselves (like, say, the French in two separate wars). Of course, if those you attempt to defend (either individually or as a nation) show themselves to be sanctimonious shits who don't appreciate having their sorry asses pulled out of the fire, then leave them to take care of themselves the next time around.
Not that there are any sanctimonious shits who don't appreciate having their sorry asses pulled out of the fire around here, of course.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
KO
Rob, if you're talking about Olberman, he has only been doing this kind of news show for about four or five years. To the best of my knowledge there is no documentation about how he felt about the Clinton policies or actions, so no way to compare.
Hope that helps.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Thanks, Jim
It does help as far as the question of whether Obermann was as passionately against Clinton in '98. If only other responders had been as courteous.
I'd still like to see the example of Rush spewing hate, though, to compare to Obermann's hateless, but passionate, TRUTH-based speech. I guess heathen, who made the original claim that Olbermann's rant was different in that way from Rush's broadcasts, has been too busy to provide that example, so I'd accept that example from anyone who thinks that Rush's rants are hate-filled in a way that Olbermann's isn't.
Or is the "ignorant, hate-spewing, reptilian bloviating from the likes of Limbaugh et al" thing just one of those universal truths that we Atheists are supposed to accept and support without question?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
You're welcome.
Well, I won't speak for anyone else, Rob, but I feel that there is very little that anyone is supposed to accept and support without question, be they atheist or believer.
However, that is not to say that I don't trust my own experience, nor that I wish to get into a game of "gotcha". I've listened to Limbaugh, quite a lot over the last 15 or so years. At first I was just curious about the phenomenon. And then it was to keep track of the mood of the Right, those who are his audience. I will likewise listen to others such as Mike Savage and Glenn Beck upon occasion, for the same reason. (Curiously, I don't listen to those few such personalities on the Left - I found I don't learn anything from doing so, since I read a lot of the same news sources that they draw upon.)
Anyway, I have heard many more hours of Limbaugh, et al, than I have of KO (since I don't watch TV), and it is my *opinion* that the overall veracity from those sources is not very great, and I have heard stuff expressed that can only fairly be considered hateful - but please note that I have no desire to limit such speech. Can I cite examples? Yeah, I probably could, if I wanted to dig around and document such. Will I cite examples? Nope - not worth my time nor trouble. Because, as noted above, I don't want to play "gotcha". You want that stuff, go to someplace like Media Matters or whatever site on the right which is comparable.
Hope that helps to explain where I'm coming from.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I understand, Jim
Hey, I feel ya brother (isn't that what the kids say these days?) I'm really not trying to play a game of "gotcha", and I don't care if you find something Rush says inflammatory enough to consider hate speech. As mad as I've been about an opinion he's expressed, I can't think of many things he's said I consider hate speech.
But that doesn't matter: we could argue "yes it is" and "no it's not" all day about any example you could give. My point was that in the videos you linked to, I don't see any difference between Olbermann's rhetoric and Limbaugh's. As I said, I haven't heard many things from Limbaugh that I would classify as hate speech, and by the same token I wouldn't label Olbermann's as hate speech (not in the videos, anyway.) I apply the same criteria in making that determination.
I suspect that heathen, who started me on this track in the first place, doesn't apply that same criteria. I suspect that for any example of Rush's speech that heathen would declare "hate-spewing", he would declare similar statements coming from Olbermann perfectly acceptable (again, in the linked videos). I could be wrong, though; hence the challenge.
What about you, Jim? You don't have to give a specific example, or even reply at all if you don't want to. Rhetorically speaking, of the Rush examples you have in mind that you consider hate speech, do you think Olbermann didn't make similar statements in the linked video? I'm not trying to unfairly hold you to a statement heathen made, but I am curious if you apply the criteria for "hate-speech" the same across the board.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Think harder
How about using your access to a nationwide audience to humiliate a teenage girl who was not there to defend herself? Is that hateful enough for you?
link
That was certainly mean spirited
And I wouldn't try to defend that statement for a moment. Rush later apologized, both through his show and directly to Hillary Clinton, admitting that it was completely uncalled for, and that he was ashamed for having said it.
I'd completely forgotten about that one, and thanks for reminding me. Does this one episode, from 15 years ago, make Limbaugh hate-spewing in contrast to Olbermann, who is not hate-spewing? I'm just trying to be clear about the criteria, and the difference between the two of them.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Let's talk hate speech for a moment
Do you now or have you at any time in the past ever hated someone? Anyone at all? If not please explain how have you managed to avoid this particular human emotion.
If so do you think that hatred was justified?
Do you feel that hatred is wrong under any and all circumstances?
Personally I don't think hating is wrong under all circumstances. What I think is wrong is unjustified hatred. Unjustified hatred is hating someone because of what they do with other consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes and hating someone because of their skin color. To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson if it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg then why should I hate it? Whereas hating someone because they have invaded a country which didn't attack or threaten you and did it while burdening you with a debt to tyrannical regimes who probably don't have your best interests at heart is certainly worthy of hatred.
So unless you are the Dalai Lama (which I will assume you are not) why don't we stop with the whole "oooh you're a hater" shtick and stick to whether or not the hatred is justified. In Mr. Olberman's case I clearly think his rancor is well founded. If you want some good reasons then have a look.
For my own part I have passed from the borders of hatred and have ventured deep into the continent of loathing for many of the reasons Keith cited and so much more. But hey if you love Jorj and his fun clan then this will have been the best eight years of your life. Go and celebrate with a full tank of gas!
Gotta love that jawbone action!
Easy there, big fella
I think I've made perfectly clear the point I was getting to, and though you've missed it entirely, you've done a good job of proving it here. You say Limbaugh's hate speech is unjustified but Olbermann's hate speech is justified. That's your opinion, and that's fine. Other people will think the exact opposite, and some (like me) won't see hatred on either side, but a lot of empty rhetoric getting in the way of a few good points. I don't care what your criteria is for labelling something "hate speech" or "justified" verses "non-justified", as long as you apply it consistently. I don't get the sense that you are doing that, but hell, I barely know you.
But this is obviously causing you great distress, so I'd suggest you not read any more of my postings in this thread. You're in danger of going completely bonkers.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
So now you are a psychologist?
Any more analysis you'd care to do? You seem to know so much more about me than I know about myself. It's truly amazing, and while I might be in danger of bonkerhood if you see no difference between 'librool' Limbaugh and Olberman clearly you speak as someone who is already well established in Bonkerville.
And I'd suggest you de-sphincterfy your cranium.
Happy motoring.
Well . . .
...cynical sort that I am, I think that Limbaugh is mostly just a shrewd businessman who knows what to say to keep his audience interested and stay on the air. Actually, I think much the same about almost any such "entertainment" personality - they figure out a niche, an angle, and work it for all that it is worth, using hype and generating hatred in order to laugh all the way to the bank.
Olbermann? I dunno. He seems to be genuinely outraged. Largely I agree with him. But he may just be playing a role. While I keep my guard up, I am not under the illusion that I am immune to manipulation.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Well...
...cynical sort that I am, I suppose that answers THAT question.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Well yea man
Yea right. Reminder: Clinton ordered the removal of the inspectors, not Saddam Hussein. Then claimed Saddam Hussein had ordered them out. Clinton was afraid the lack of the results of UN inspections would lead to a lifting of the sanctions on the Iraqi Regime so he made this little play. As the 2003 US inspections showed, it was all BS.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of...
Okay ? Clinton WANTED to strike Iraq and then he removed the UN inspectors. End of story.
The timing and management is very important, when innocents die. That's what makes it OK. When your government killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Japan, the timing and management was great and so you are happy and so it was OK.
"Was KO this passionately
"Was KO this passionately against Bill Clinton in '98?"
Jesus effing Christ! Talk about tone deaf to world events.
You remind me of the gym teacher who walks in on a big kid beating the hell out of a little one, and who suspends both of them for fighting.
Jesus effing Christ! Talk
Jesus effing Christ! Talk about not answering the effing question.
You remind me of the poster who would rather try to score a few points with a pithy comment than answer an honest question.
I'm supposed to know what KO said 10 years ago? I'd never heard of him before 2 years ago, and didn't know he did anything other than a sports show on ESPN until 6 months ago (give or take.)
But thanks for the input, Hank.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Oh, Boy
Okay, he certainly makes some good points, but what some may call "passion" I see as just the different side of the same coin called "rhetoric" that Limbaugh uses. I guess that's his job, just as it's Limbaugh's, but I don't like it regardless of who's using it.
I'm sure he feels better after his ranting, though.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Amen brother
In all sincerity I have to say "Amen brother."
I was astonished.
KO posted an item in advance of this over at dKos, and I thought "hmm...this could be interesting." Then following, someone posted the YouTube of it, and I was honestly astonished at both the passion and the deftness of the commentary.
That's a keeper. "Amen, brother," indeed.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Post new comment