Olbermann and Mathews dropped...

[kiff]

I didn't have much of a problem w/ Mathews, but for Olbermann... please... wait... must contain... the laughter.. LOL....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008.html?hpid=topnews

[hal]

To be more specific, they've been dropped as news anchors. They're still on the station as analysts, which is more appropriate anyways.

[kiff]

yea, I was laughing so hard I jumped the gun a bit...

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Right, because CNN and Fox News are innocent of slanting :rolleyes:

[Iron Archer]

Right, because CNN and Fox News are innocent of slanting :rolleyes:

they have people that have their own shows with their own requisite views that are not involved in covering news, unlike Olbermann, who was actually covering the RNC convention, making snide comments the whole time

[kiff]

Right, because CNN and Fox News are innocent of slanting :rolleyes:
Nah, they all have their opinions and show it from time to time, more or less. The thing about I don't like about Olbermann is that he constantly dwells on anything negative, no matter how large or small/petty. I once saw his show where he talked about Bush's golfing schedule for about 20 minutes... IMO he makes Hannity's bias look miniscule... I can handle people like Mathews because, imo, he at least attempts to be objective..

unlike Olbermann, who was actually covering the RNC convention, making snide comments the whole time

exactly...

[N1ghtmare]

they have people that have their own shows with their own requisite views that are not involved in covering news, unlike Olbermann, who was actually covering the RNC convention, making snide comments the whole time

I remember watching O'Reilly and Karl Rove sitting at the Democrat Convention making their snide remarks.

ah, they all have their opinions and show it from time to time, more or less. The thing about I don't like about Olbermann is that he constantly dwells on anything negative, no matter how large or small/petty. I once saw his show where he talked about Bush's golfing schedule for about 20 minutes... IMO he makes Hannity's bias look miniscule... I can handle people like Mathews because, imo, he at least attempts to be objective..


And I saw an episode of O'Reilly where he was complaining that some tabloid was on Palin's case. Not a newspaper, a tabloid.

[kiff]

I remember watching O'Reilly and Karl Rove sitting at the Democrat Convention making their snide remarks.

And I saw an episode of O'Reilly where he was complaining that some tabloid was on Palin's case. Not a newspaper, a tabloid.

Sure, many do, but not to the same extent as Olbermann. I mean, did O'Reilly spend 20 minutes on it?

[N1ghtmare]

He wasn't in his studio; he was at the convention, covering and commenting.

[pine]

Olbermann and Matthews will remain as analysts during major political events, and officials at both networks, who declined to be identified discussing personnel moves, said Olbermann had initiated the discussions to clarify his role. They said Olbermann's influence at MSNBC would in no way be diminished and that the shift would enable him and Matthews to offer more candid analysis during live coverage. Olbermann confirmed yesterday he had initiated the discussions.

"Phil and I have debated this set-up since late winter/early spring (with me saying, 'Are you sure this flies?' and him saying, 'Yes, but let's judge it event by event') and I think we both reached the same point during the RNC," Olbermann said by e-mail.

Olbermann was involved in several on-air incidents during the conventions that drew unwanted attention. He told morning host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, to "get a shovel" as Scarborough was defending the McCain campaign. And when GOP strategist Mike Murphy was debating Matthews, Olbermann could be heard saying, "Let's wrap him up."

It sounds like they did overstep their roles a bit as anchors. I bear no love for the Republican party, but if there's anything the news has too much of these days it's opinions. Antics like these only hurt the democrats in the long run imo because they only give fuel to the Republicans playing the victim card and whining about the media's liberal bias.

On the other hand, it's great that they will stay on as political analysts. There's gotta be somebody serious out there acting as a counterpoint to that conservative bag of hot air, Bill O'Reilly.

[Selerox]

Seems like some people were pretty happy about Olbermann. Taken from Wikipedia about 30 seconds ago :lol:

[TWD]

The sad thing about all of this is that in the end it all comes down to ratings. Did NBC suddenly realize their folly, or did they just realize that their ratings suck?

It's interesting considering that Fox is just as bias the other direction, but their ratings recently have been through the roof. I don't think it's that people want unbiased reporting. I just think that they didn't like Olbermann.

[Selerox]

The sad thing about all of this is that in the end it all comes down to ratings. Did NBC suddenly realize their folly, or did they just realize that their ratings suck?

It's interesting considering that Fox is just as bias the other direction, but their ratings recently have been through the roof. I don't think it's that people want unbiased reporting. I just think that they didn't like Olbermann.

If he wants a job, he should come over here. Because we, by and large, hate Republicans. They are the people giving the US a bad name, and have been for a long, long time. He'll be among friends here.

[Zxanphorian]

Meh quite frankly I don't care. Lately I have been watching the News Hour for my news.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Meh quite frankly I don't care.
Truth.
It's still funny how all our 24 news networks are full of their share of bias; MSN, Fox (both of which made snide remarks @ the "opposite" party's convention) and even CNN, yet MSN is the first called out on it.
Comes down to money though. MSN folded under the pressure of losing finances from commercial and other supporters.

But hey I don't get my news from any of the major networks anymore. Making our news 24 hours is what ruined the US' journalistic integrity.

BBC News is where it's at now.
Doesn't get much more neutral than the BBC as far as what outlets we have available in this country. Also provides a nice worldly perspective with insight to American issues from the outside looking in.

[dotnetbeast]

Wait who are these guys?

[N1ghtmare]

Wait who are these guys?

MSNBC Liberal pundit talk show hosts.

[thewalkingman]

Wait who are these guys?

http://i38.tinypic.com/106hedy.jpg

MSNBC Liberal pundit talk show hosts.

[Vitamin-Carrot]

lol

[dotnetbeast]

MSNBC--

You lost me.

[Lizard Of Oz]

Wait who are these guys?

Keith Olbermann (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=124WAoqwKto)

Chris Matthews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSI-_uQgO94)

[das_ben]

Now, if we can cram all those other news commentators in tiny "commentary" sections, instead of having tiny islands of actual "news" inbetween the commentators, we might be on the way to an informed, instead of opinionated society.

[Iron Archer]

I think Keith Olbermann should be gang-raped.

[kiff]

I think Keith Olbermann should be gang-raped.
nah, he'd probably like it too much

[pine]

I think Keith Olbermann should be gang-raped.

Anger and hostility are common reactions in the ignorant. ;)

[Iron Archer]

Anger and hostility are common reactions in the ignorant. ;)

If that was the case, then I guess all the anger, hostility and hatred shown for George Bush are attributable to mass ignorance.

wow, tough crowd. It really was just a joke. I mean really, picture Keith Olbermann's reaction to being gang-raped--too funny. FFS he says he got upset when he saw footage of 9/11 at the RNC and apologized to the viewers. Good objectivity Keith. By contrast the DNC made virtually no mention of Islamic terorrists, for what it's worth.

[Underscore]

By contrast the DNC made virtually no mention of Islamic terorrists, for what it's worth.

hey speaking of islamic terrorists

http://blunder.ath.cx:9680/ironarchersig.png

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

By contrast the DNC made virtually no mention of Islamic terorrists, for what it's worth.

Which was a welcome breath of fresh air.

[Lizard Of Oz]

Speaking of fear mongering. Islamic Terrorist...

9/11™ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/olbermann-slams-republica_n_125525.html)

[Vitamin-Carrot]

Everyone was affected by that day ...

I still have the newspaper from that morning

[Iron Archer]

Speaking of fear mongering. Islamic Terrorist...

9/11™ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/olbermann-slams-republica_n_125525.html)

Keith Olbermann is a worthless piece of sh!t. It's a shame that worthless people like him populate the cities of this country, and this message board.

It's ok Liz, and the rest of you, go ahead and avoid terrorism and see where it gets you. Oh wait, that's true, there are people that do that for you, even though you could give a sh!t less whether there is another attack or not.

Sure, living in fear of terrorism is totally wrong, but living in utter denial of terrorism is just as bad. You call Republicans fear mongers, yet if you examined the facts, you would realize that Republicans are NOT afraid of terrorists; they are trying to emphasize the importance of being vigilant against them, and how do you fight against something that you are not willing to talk about?

[N1ghtmare]

Keith Olbermann is a worthless piece of sh!t.

Does that make Bill O'Reilly a hot carl?

[Mister_Prophet]

Wait, I'm confused. Who was denying terrorism?

[Vitamin-Carrot]

*sniff* *sniff*

I smell a lock coming

Iron your one hard up dude

[GotBeer?]

Before the lock...

Speaking of Olbermann, anyone catch his unbiased coverage of the Democratic convention? After Michelle Obama's speech, he said he didn't want to sound like a sycophant, but..."Perfect. Just perfect. It could not have been done any better." After Hillary spoke, he was the same way. After Barack, good Lord, I was expecting him to burst into tears. "Oh the glorious rapture that is my Savior Obama. It could not be any more perfect if Michelle and Hillary took turns on me with a strap-on while I knelt before my God Barack Obama in all his naked perfection." I'm pretty sure that's what he said, or at least pretty close.

[Iron Archer]

Does that make Bill O'Reilly a hot carl?

Yup.

Vitamin-Carrot, You're launching personal attacks against the wrong guy.

[hal]

Olbermann Slams Republicans
No WAY! :eek:

Incidentally, the politicization of 9/11 started just a few days later and both parties have had their turn beating the drum for their own purposes.

Iron Archer, please do not circumvent the censor bot.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

It's ok Liz, and the rest of you, go ahead and avoid terrorism and see where it gets you.

Sure, living in fear of terrorism is totally wrong, but living in utter denial of terrorism is just as bad. You call Republicans fear mongers, yet if you examined the facts, you would realize that Republicans are NOT afraid of terrorists; they are trying to emphasize the importance of being vigilant against them, and how do you fight against something that you are not willing to talk about?

What the f*ck are you talking about?

No one's denying terrorisms effects or avoiding the conflict. The platform Obama has played from day one insists he is more than willing to face the issue head on; both hardline, direct diplomacy talks and pursuing the terrorist networks who we were actually supposed to be fighting but let go.

It's the current administration that promised to catch Bin Laden and eradicate his network and then turned away completely, shifting the focus of the (falsely premised) war to an area that had nothing to do with the original mission statement.

[hal]

Please don't circumvent the censor bot

[Lizard Of Oz]

Keith Olbermann is a worthless piece of sh!t. It's a shame that worthless people like him populate the cities of this country, and this message board.

Careful there.

It's ok Liz, and the rest of you, go ahead and avoid terrorism and see where it gets you. Oh wait, that's true, there are people that do that for you, even though you could give a sh!t less whether there is another attack or not.

Sure, living in fear of terrorism is totally wrong, but living in utter denial of terrorism is just as bad. You call Republicans fear mongers, yet if you examined the facts, you would realize that Republicans are NOT afraid of terrorists; they are trying to emphasize the importance of being vigilant against them, and how do you fight against something that you are not willing to talk about?

I'll remember this every time I look at my DD214 and reflect back on years of my life I gave protecting you from terrorist and the evil empire.

I care about the terrorist threat, and that's why I wonder why the Bush administration (and congress) has done nothing to secure our boarders, ports, nuclear plants, chemical plants, and oil refineries.

I care enough about the terrorist threat that it worries me when some people use other people fears of terrorist for political gain, thereby created the "boy who cried wolf" effect.

[Iron Archer]

Careful there.



I'll remember this every time I look at my DD214 and reflect back on years of my life I gave protecting you from terrorist and the evil empire.

I care about the terrorist threat, and that's why I wonder why the Bush administration (and congress) has done nothing to secure our boarders, ports, nuclear plants, chemical plants, and oil refineries.

I care enough about the terrorist threat that it worries me when some people use other people fears of terrorist for political gain, thereby created the "boy who cried wolf" effect.

Why do you feel you have to tell me that you protected me? I served in the U.S. Army as well but I don't use that to somehow imply that my opinion matters more than someone elses. I get what you're saying about fear-mongering, but it's a catch 22 issue.

If there are people that are genuinely concerned about anything and they tend to talk about it quite frequently, their opponents can always count on using the "fear-monger" label quite easily and there will be a healthy contingent of people that will go along with that position.

So I ask you, what would you have Republicans do show their concern for terrorism? How do you make it a point to remind people to be vigilant of terrorism? Would you call warnings of a coming hurricane using the words "Certain Death" to be fear mongering? Many people did not listen and look what happened to them. They are now stranded or dead. During the 90's we did relatively nothing to call attention to Islamic terrorism, and look what it got us. Liz, sorry for the previous verbal attack but c'mon, be reasonable.

[Larkin]

terrorist threat.....nuclear plants

There is more security at these facilities then any other place in the country. It was even that way before 9/11. Just so you know.

And frankly there is nothing more to do at these facilities other then having a tank out front.

The other facilities I don't have first hand experience with so I don't know for sure.

[Lizard Of Oz]

Why do you feel you have to tell me that you protected me? I served in the U.S. Army as well but I don't use that to somehow imply that my opinion matters more than someone elses...

Why I mentioned my military service...

It's ok Liz, and the rest of you, go ahead and avoid terrorism and see where it gets you. Oh wait, that's true, there are people that do that for you, even though you could give a sh!t less whether there is another attack or not.

The bolded section implies that I reap the benefit of protection without contributing. I was simply pointing out that I have and continue to contribute to not only my security, but the securlty of others.

I do not feel that it makes my opinion any more valuable than any body else.


If there are people that are genuinely concerned about anything and they tend to talk about it quite frequently, their opponents can always count on using the "fear-monger" label quite easily and there will be a healthy contingent of people that will go along with that position.

So I ask you, what would you have Republicans do show their concern for terrorism? How do you make it a point to remind people to be vigilant of terrorism? Would you call warnings of a coming hurricane using the words "Certain Death" to be fear mongering? Many people did not listen and look what happened to them. They are now stranded or dead. During the 90's we did relatively nothing to call attention to Islamic terrorism, and look what it got us. Liz, sorry for the previous verbal attack but c'mon, be reasonable.

The type of "fear mongering" I refer to is the political strategy the GOP has adopted since 09/11/2001. They claim that a vote for a Democrat is a vote FOR terrorism. The claim that to oppose them on any issue related to terrorism is to be un-American. The Bush administration has repeatedly issue false or exaggerated "Terror Threat" warnings in attempt to affect election outcomes.

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

The Bush administration has repeatedly issue false or exaggerated "Terror Threat" warnings in attempt to affect election outcomes.
And of course they've used the fear tactic to try and get away with some of the highly questionable things they've done, from wire-tapping to torture. There's a difference between informing and spin, and the Bush administration has been well past the line of acceptable spin on so many occasions ... I was always shocked they got away with linking Iraq to 9/11 for as long as they did, I thought that would really land them in it, but nope ...

[Iron Archer]

Why I mentioned my military service...
The Bush administration has repeatedly issue false or exaggerated "Terror Threat" warnings in attempt to affect election outcomes.

Do you have information on this? I'd like to read it. BTW how exactly do you exaggerate a terror threat?

I said that you seem not to be concerned about terrorism at all because you oppose virtually every measure implemented to stop it, including the monitoring of suspected terrorist communications into the US. Again, your assertion that any warning about terrorism is solely used for political gain is going to be YOUR problem because you are willingly ignoring these warnings while the wolves prepare to attack. Do you have kids? Just curious. If your kids are in the back yard and they scream would you not go to see what's going on or would you just think they are trying to annoy you?

[SlayerDragon]

Do you have information on this? I'd like to read it. BTW how exactly do you exaggerate a terror threat?

I said that you seem not to be concerned about terrorism at all because you oppose virtually every measure implemented to stop it, including the monitoring of suspected terrorist communications into the US. Again, your assertion that any warning about terrorism is solely used for political gain is going to be YOUR problem because you are willingly ignoring these warnings while the wolves prepare to attack. Do you have kids? Just curious. If your kids are in the back yard and they scream would you not go to see what's going on or would you just think they are trying to annoy you?

NEWSFLASH: BROWN BEARDED GUYS WITH BOX CUTTERS ARE A SERIOUS THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF AIRPORT SECURITY NOW PROMOTED TO NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORS ON THIS MATTER.

P.S. GET REAL

The only reasons these ****ers got us is because we weren't doing a really good job. It's not as though a well-armed, well-financed military force came and attacked us. Funny how we're not even going after these people anymore. Instead, we go to war with a country who posed absolutely no threat to us at all.

[Hadmar]

the wolves prepare to attackThe wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with yellow probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with red probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with yellow probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with red probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with yellow probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with red probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with yellow probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with red probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with yellow probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with red probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with yellow probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with red probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with yellow probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with red probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with yellow probability!
The wolves are coming!
We need to prepare!
Here's a law that allows us to handle the threat of a wolf attack better!
Today we wolves will come with red probability!



Oh, look, a puppy.

[Larkin]

@SlayerDragon

Seriously shut up.

He is not even talking about that. Really, I am sick of hearing that worn out uninformed opinion put out again and again anyway. So take your stupid post and cram it.

2010. Do you know what that means?

[Lizard Of Oz]

Do you have information on this? I'd like to read it. BTW how exactly do you exaggerate a terror threat?

I said that you seem not to be concerned about terrorism at all because you oppose virtually every measure implemented to stop it, including the monitoring of suspected terrorist communications into the US. Again, your assertion that any warning about terrorism is solely used for political gain is going to be YOUR problem because you are willingly ignoring these warnings while the wolves prepare to attack. Do you have kids? Just curious. If your kids are in the back yard and they scream would you not go to see what's going on or would you just think they are trying to annoy you?

http://www.counterpunch.org/scheier04272004.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/harman-terror-attack/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30312

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2002/05/mil-020523-wwwh2my23.htm

http://nl.netlog.com/go/explore/videos/videoid=2281418

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/25/countdown-bush-used-bogus-terror-threat-to-scare-votes-for-fisa-bill/ (Bonus Olbermann appearance!)

http://homepage.mac.com/gcatalone/iblog/B946297652/C722062357/E1905819813/

(All "lefty" sites probably, but strangely, I couldn't find any "righty" sites that would give away their secrets)


1. I never asserted that "any" warning was used solely for political gain, just some of 'em. Oddly enough the "some" often occur around election time, or when Bush and Co. are in some political pinch, or are pushing for some new form of power.

2. I don't oppose wire-tapping. I oppose warrant-less wire-tapping.

3. What if my kid has a strong history of screaming to get something from me? Personally I'd impeach and ground the little punk to his room for a week without TV! I bet that would curtail the false screams of terror.

4. I approve of all measures to stop terrorism as long as those measures are constitutional in both letter and spirit and are based on facts.

.

[Iron Archer]

The wolves are coming!
snip...


Oh, look, a puppy.

funny song, I was just referring to the whole "boy cried wolf" that was used earlier. If you guys continue to call the government the boy who cried wolf, then when the **** hits the fan you're going to complain that the govt didn't warn you, when it was you that was not paying attention.


(All "lefty" sites probably, but strangely, I couldn't find any "righty" sites that would give away their secrets)

.

Oh yeah very convenient. Very credible stuff :rolleyes: Liz, you and all the lefties will never know what is really going on with these anti-terrorism efforts. For all you know, terrorist threat level warnings could have made terrorists divert their plans and pull back on carrying through their attacks. With you there is no room for giving the govt or President Bush any credit whatsoever and your bias shows, so I'm not sure you're even posting because all the "proof" you provide is clearly slanted as well, and frankly I take it all with a mountain of salt.

[Hadmar]

funny song, I was just referring to the whole "boy cried wolf" that was used earlier. If you guys continue to call the government the boy who cried wolf, then when the **** hits the fan you're going to complain that the govt didn't warn you, when it was you that was not paying attention.I don't expect anyone to warn me of terrorist attacks. That's something that takes quite a bit of luck to know about. I do expect the gov to not abuse the situation by turning society into a state of fear that allows them to pass all kind of horrible laws. That's reality though and I'm fed up of it.

[hal]

Seriously shut up.


Lighten up. No personal attacks, please.

[Iron Archer]

I don't expect anyone to warn me of terrorist attacks. That's something that takes quite a bit of luck to know about. I do expect the gov to not abuse the situation by turning society into a state of fear that allows them to pass all kind of horrible laws. That's reality though and I'm fed up of it.

ok, so you're fed up of what's going on in Germany? Fine, deal with that. What's going on in Germany has nothing to do with what's going on in the US, as far as Democrats constant fight against anti-terrorism goes.

My problem is that the Democratic party has positioned itself to be so against the Republican party's and the Bush administration's positions concerning the global war on terror that they do not openly support most of the legislation and military actions that occur. I can tell you that for all the Democratic opposition that is constantly displayed by the media, the terrorists are ridiculing the United States because the Democrats cannot bring themselves to put aside their political party affiliation for any measure of time in order to support anti-terrorist causes.

The Democrats cannot bring themselves to be constructive and show measured criticism and instead choose to be destructive and divisive and openly reject the Republicans and the Bush administration. John McCain has had many disagreements with President Bush but he has not been disrespectful about it and has stood by his convictions on such things as torture. When Democrats decide that any mention of terror threats increasing are solely for political gain, then it just further divides the country and serves to demoralize Americans in the trust of the Federal Government.

Similarly, if your parents constantly argue and disagree with each other in front of you, you will have no respect for authority.

[TomWithTheWeather]

http://www.counterpunch.org/scheier04272004.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/harman-terror-attack/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30312

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2002/05/mil-020523-wwwh2my23.htm

http://nl.netlog.com/go/explore/videos/videoid=2281418

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/25/countdown-bush-used-bogus-terror-threat-to-scare-votes-for-fisa-bill/ (Bonus Olbermann appearance!)

http://homepage.mac.com/gcatalone/iblog/B946297652/C722062357/E1905819813/


1. Don't know
2. Bias Left
3. Bias Right
4. Non-partisan as far as I can tell
5. Don't know, Dutch news aggregator?
6. Bias Left
7. Bias Right

[Hadmar]

ok, so you're fed up of what's going on in Germany? Fine, deal with that. What's going on in Germany has nothing to do with what's going on in the US, as far as Democrats constant fight against anti-terrorism goes.

My problem is that the Democratic party has positioned itself to be so against the Republican party's and the Bush administration's positions concerning the global war on terror that they do not openly support most of the legislation and military actions that occur. I can tell you that for all the Democratic opposition that is constantly displayed by the media, the terrorists are ridiculing the United States because the Democrats cannot bring themselves to put aside their political party affiliation for any measure of time in order to support anti-terrorist causes.

The Democrats cannot bring themselves to be constructive and show measured criticism and instead choose to be destructive and divisive and openly reject the Republicans and the Bush administration. John McCain has had many disagreements with President Bush but he has not been disrespectful about it and has stood by his convictions on such things as torture. When Democrats decide that any mention of terror threats increasing are solely for political gain, then it just further divides the country and serves to demoralize Americans in the trust of the Federal Government.

Similarly, if your parents constantly argue and disagree with each other in front of you, you will have no respect for authority.I can't comment on the internal dem vs rep fights. Abusing terrorism is nothing that doesn't happen in the USA though. As far as authority goes, it needs no infighting to lose all respect for it. The crap that came from above since the towers fell is absolutely enough for that.

[Lizard Of Oz]

... John McCain has had many disagreements with President Bush but he has not been disrespectful about it and has stood by his convictions on such things as torture...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17torture.html

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

I bet if we keep arguing in circles and linking to random articles which supposedly prove a factual point that we'll eventually all come to an agreement.

That's how this works, right?

[Iron Archer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17torture.html

can I just call you Luv_Studd now, since you've resorted to posting links without much of any explanation to follow? ... now don't say that's name calling... lol... What are you trying to say, in a nutshell?

Anyways, thread sufficiently derailed and diverted I suppose.

[SlayerDragon]

can I just call you Luv_Studd now, since you've resorted to posting links without much of any explanation to follow? ... now don't say that's name calling... lol... What are you trying to say, in a nutshell?

Anyways, thread sufficiently derailed and diverted I suppose.

If you read the article, his post is self-explanatory. I know that's a lot of words, but you can get through it. I BELIEVE IN YOU!

(P.S. It's about how McCain voted against a bill that would force the CIA to follow the same standards as the Army in interrogation, i.e. no use of physical force. Hope this helps.)

[Iron Archer]

If you read the article, his post is self-explanatory. I know that's a lot of words, but you can get through it. I BELIEVE IN YOU!

(P.S. It's about how McCain voted against a bill that would force the CIA to follow the same standards as the Army in interrogation, i.e. no use of physical force. Hope this helps.)

I did end up having to wade through all the text, I was just trying to understand WHAT exactly he wanted to convey by posting a link. Lots of info there. :o

[Lizard Of Oz]

can I just call you Luv_Studd now, since you've resorted to posting links without much of any explanation to follow? ... now don't say that's name calling... lol... What are you trying to say, in a nutshell?

Anyways, thread sufficiently derailed and diverted I suppose.


The link leads to that commie/pinko/leftist rag the "New York Times". The article explains that Mr. McCain voted against a Bill that included a provision that would outlaw torture.

The Bill in question was HR 2082 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2082/text) and McCain voted "NAY" (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-22).

I quote the appropriate section of said Bill:


SEC. 327. LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.

(a) Limitation- No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not later authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.

(b) Instrumentality Defined- In this section, the term `instrumentality', with respect to an element of the intelligence community, means a contractor or subcontractor at any tier of the element of the intelligence community.

In A Nutshell: Mr. McCain has indeed changed his position (notice I didn't use the inflammatory phrase "flip flop") on torture. He now approves whole heartily!

[Iron Archer]

Liz, from the article you posted...

“None of those techniques would entail violating the Detainee Treatment Act, which said that cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited.”

Mr. McCain said the vote was consistent, noting in a statement he submitted to the Congressional Record that when Congress voted in 2005 to apply the Army Field Manual to the entire Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the C.I.A.

Mr. McCain, according to a Senate aide of his, believes that while the C.I.A. should be — and is — prohibited from using cruel and inhumane and degrading tactics, it should have the flexibility to use acceptable tactics that are not listed in the Field Manual.

Mr. McCain, in his statement to the Congressional Record, faulted the Bush administration for declining to declare waterboarding illegal. He said Congress intended to outlaw the practice when it passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006 and was even reassured by the administration that it had been.

“Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard,” Mr. McCain said in the statement. “Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. government, prohibited waterboarding.”

“It is unfortunate,” he continued, “that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to nonmilitary intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law — that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.”

[Lizard Of Oz]

Maybe I should have included the title of the bill...

"H.R. 2082: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008"

I think you need to check the dates of those quotes. I believe you'll find that they precede the Feb. 13 2008 vote on HR 2082.

[SlayerDragon]

Basically what is happening is that they have the CIA doing this crap to circumvent laws and rules against the military performing physical torture. That's pretty awesome isn't it?

[Iron Archer]

SlayerDragon et al, why don't you be intellectually honest and use the relativistic morality that you're so fond of.

[SlayerDragon]

SlayerDragon et al, why don't you be intellectually honest and use the relativistic morality that you're so fond of.

What are you even trying to say?

[Underscore]

relativistic morality

:confused:

http://blunder.ath.cx:9680/torture.png

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

What are you even trying to say?

:lol: yeah...

"In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth."

so like, do more of that, is what he's saying. and like, be true to yourself, homie.

I guess this just became a philosophical argument :p

[Iron Archer]

If we were analyze SlayerDragon in a quarantined environment, we could observe the behavior of his body hair and predict the future, or perhaps bring phil back to life and then all children would be happy.

[das_ben]

You're not funny.

[SlayerDragon]

If we were analyze SlayerDragon in a quarantined environment, we could observe the behavior of his body hair and predict the future, or perhaps bring phil back to life and then all children would be happy.

You're spiraling. :eek: