PDA

View Full Version : Olberman moving to Gore Network



ironhorsedriver
02-08-2011, 12:15 PM
Keith got himself a job with the Goracle.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/08/olbermann-announces-next-move/

NJCardFan
02-08-2011, 12:25 PM
Why? Were his ratings on BSNBC too high?

Gingersnap
02-08-2011, 12:52 PM
Does anybody even have a friend-of-a-friend who has watched anything on Current TV? :confused:

Adam Wood
02-08-2011, 12:53 PM
Does anybody even have a friend-of-a-friend who has watched anything on Current TV? :confused:

Nope.

noonwitch
02-08-2011, 01:05 PM
Does anybody even have a friend-of-a-friend who has watched anything on Current TV? :confused:


Not that I know of-my sister might, she listens to NPR.

namvet
02-08-2011, 01:14 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/SMPTE_Color_Bars.svg/672px-SMPTE_Color_Bars.svg.png

im sure he'll be inspiring

Apache
02-08-2011, 01:40 PM
Does anybody even have a friend-of-a-friend who has watched anything on Current TV? :confused:

Umm what's Current TV? :o

linda22003
02-08-2011, 01:56 PM
Not that I know of-my sister might, she listens to NPR.

So do I, but I have no idea what "Current TV" is.

ralph wiggum
02-08-2011, 02:12 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/SMPTE_Color_Bars.svg/672px-SMPTE_Color_Bars.svg.png

im sure he'll be inspiring


Yeah, it'll be quite the battle over ratings between Keef and the dreaded test-pattern.

Calypso Jones
02-08-2011, 02:12 PM
OH. MY. Gosh. I"ve seen it and it mostly sucks.

I predict future compensation litigation.

Apocalypse
02-08-2011, 02:28 PM
I just looked on their site.

Its on channel 358 on Direct TV

107 on Comcast

Time Warner

103 in NY
142 in LA

Dish Network; 196

Hasn't it been kinda the rule, any thing over 100 is considered the low budget stations like the movie VH1 by Weird Al.


Gore, on the conference call, suggested that Current has a larger potential audience than MSNBC

Potential is different then actual.

Just because its carried on a few mil. households does not mean they actually watch it.

Madisonian
02-08-2011, 02:35 PM
"Nothing is more vital to a free American than a free media. And nothing is more vital to my concept of a free media than news that is produced independently of corporate interference," the 51-year-old anchor said, calling the Current job "the most exciting event in my career."



In Current Media, Al Gore and Joel Hyatt have created the model truth-seeking entity. The opportunity to partner with Al, Joel and Mark Rosenthal makes this the most exciting venture in my career

What a derfwad.

Apocalypse
02-08-2011, 02:37 PM
Here is the kicker.

How long will he have that job.


More Layoffs Rumored at Current TV

Al Gore’s news outlet moving production to LA, possibly outsourcing it entirely

By JACKSON WEST
Mon, Oct 12, 2009

Don’t be surprised if you see a bunch of pink-slipped Current producers in SOMA, so be nice and buy one a drink.

San Francisco-based Current Media, cofounded by former Vice President Al Gore, is looking to lay off more local employees, according to a source familiar with its plans.

The company laid off 60 employees last year, or about 15 percent of its staff, though promised to rehire some in new positions.

Part of the losses will stem from moving all video production to Los Angeles, or even outsourcing it entirely.

The network made the news when a reporter Laura Ling and producer Euna Lee were imprisoned by North Korea, and only released after a photo opportunity was arranged for North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il with former President Bill Clinton.

Current’s original plan was to solicit content from viewers and users of its website, but it ended up producing most of its own content in-house and working with professional production companies instead.

If true, the layoffs and relocation of production would more bad news for San Francisco’s film and video scene, which has struggled to attract productions and media jobs.

It’s also bad news for Current’s investors, who had hoped to cash in with a $100 million public offering of shares, only to see those plans cancelled.

A request for comment from Current has not been returned at this time.

A network on its last leg, is hiring Keith.

Odysseus
02-08-2011, 02:42 PM
Yeah, it'll be quite the battle over ratings between Keef and the dreaded test-pattern.
My money is on the test pattern. Or the public access channels.

Seriously, when did this network even debut? I remember hearing that Gore was going to do it, and then nothing. It's the best kept secret since Obama's birth certificate.

What a derfwad.

Tell me about it. What does think Gore's company is, if not a corporation?

ralph wiggum
02-08-2011, 02:45 PM
Keith Olbermann Could Boost Ratings for Current TV Tenfold: Analyst (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/keith-olbermann-boost-ratings-current-97367)

Which is not hard to do considering their "current" level of viewership, or lack thereof:

The channel’s current average primetime viewership draws about 23,000.

ROFL!!! :D

Odysseus
02-08-2011, 03:06 PM
Keith Olbermann Could Boost Ratings for Current TV Tenfold: Analyst (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/keith-olbermann-boost-ratings-current-97367)

Which is not hard to do considering their "current" level of viewership, or lack thereof:

The channel’s current average primetime viewership draws about 23,000.

ROFL!!! :D

It gets better:


Analysts also see Olbermann's addition as a boost to Current's efforts to expand its reach. It currently is in 60 million U.S. homes via digital tiers.

20-30,000 viewers out of 60 million homes? ROFLOL!!!! If we go to the high end, that's 1 viewer per 2,000 households!


Current ad sales are likely negligible for Current, but the network would get a chance to start developing that revenue stream with higher ratings, Harrigan added.

Things must be bad if they can't even get the ShamWOW guy to buy airtime.


Meanwhile, Olbermann's getting a stake in Current is "a bit unusual in terms of a news personality," Gerbrandt said in echoing others. "We already have the precedent of Oprah Winfrey having a network named after her” and co-owning OWN, he said. “But they haven't named the network after him."

It might raise their profile if they named it after Olbermann. The Idiot Channel has a nice ring to it.

fettpett
02-08-2011, 03:55 PM
I've got this channel....didn't even know I did till looking just now....i'm going to guess that this is true for 90% of the households that it is in.

Zathras
02-08-2011, 07:13 PM
I've got this channel....didn't even know I did till looking just now....i'm going to guess that this is true for 99.99% of the households that it is in.

Fixed.

fettpett
02-08-2011, 07:22 PM
Fixed.

I thought i'd give them the benefit of the doubt and spot them 10% :D

Apocalypse
02-08-2011, 07:25 PM
I've got this channel....didn't even know I did till looking just now....i'm going to guess that this is true for 90% of the households that it is in.

Who really goes that high on their remotes.

I get up to 65 on mine and I just punch in 2 to go back down where the better stations are.

SarasotaRepub
02-08-2011, 07:28 PM
Keith Olbermann Could Boost Ratings for Current TV Tenfold: Analyst (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/keith-olbermann-boost-ratings-current-97367)

Which is not hard to do considering their "current" level of viewership, or lack thereof:

The channel’s current average primetime viewership draws about 23,000.

ROFL!!! :D


Yeah I saw that big base GoreTV has!!!:D

We actually get it on Verizon FiOS, channel 192. I just had it on. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!:D

fettpett
02-08-2011, 07:36 PM
Who really goes that high on their remotes.

I get up to 65 on mine and I just punch in 2 to go back down where the better stations are.

I have direct tv so most of my good channels are above 200....Fox and a few other channels are in the 300's

NJCardFan
02-08-2011, 09:05 PM
Hasn't it been kinda the rule, any thing over 100 is considered the low budget stations like the movie VH1 by Weird Al.

Actually, it was called UHF and it was a hilarious movie. Michael Richards was great in that.

As for Gore's network, I blow past it and have never clicked on it, not even by mistake. Now, anyone know what happened to that conservative TV channel that was starting online first?

fettpett
02-08-2011, 09:11 PM
Actually, it was called UHF and it was a hilarious movie. Michael Richards was great in that.

As for Gore's network, I blow past it and have never clicked on it, not even by mistake. Now, anyone know what happened to that conservative TV channel that was starting online first?

it's still going...never watched it but see the Facebook feed all the time. Right Network
http://www.facebook.com/rightnetwork

Articulate_Ape
02-08-2011, 09:30 PM
This is kind of like moving from Somalia to Timbuktu.

Zathras
02-09-2011, 01:19 AM
Actually, it was called UHF and it was a hilarious movie. Michael Richards was great in that.

Actually the station in UHF was channel 62.

Odysseus
02-09-2011, 01:26 PM
This is kind of like moving from Somalia to Timbuktu.

Timbuktu is actually safer than Somalia. This is more like moving from the high rent part of Mogadishu (mud hut) to the slums (cardboard box).

Madisonian
02-09-2011, 02:28 PM
Timbuktu is actually safer than Somalia. This is more like moving from the high rent part of Mogadishu (mud hut) to the slums (cardboard box).
I think Keith should spend his first week broadcasting live from Somalia and let us see the difference for ourselves. No reason he would not be safe there.
Well except for Somalian extremists, but then again, Keith should feel right at home with them.

Odysseus
02-09-2011, 02:37 PM
I think Keith should spend his first week broadcasting live from Somalia and let us see the difference for ourselves. No reason he would not be safe there.
Well except for Somalian extremists, but then again, Keith should feel right at home with them.

Kieth could teach them a thing or two about anti-American extremism and mysogyny. :D

Adam Wood
02-09-2011, 03:35 PM
I just looked on their site.

Its on channel 358 on Direct TV

107 on Comcast

Time Warner

103 in NY
142 in LA

Dish Network; 196

Hasn't it been kinda the rule, any thing over 100 is considered the low budget stations like the movie VH1 by Weird Al.In the case of DirecTV, that's not the case, because they organize their channels by the 100s. So, for example, all of the pay movie channels (HBO, Cinemax, etc.) are in the 400s, and all of the NFL Sunday Ticket stuff is in the 700s.

That having been said, there's not much I watch in the 300s. That is sort of a mish-mash of different mostly basic cable channels: Nick, WGN, Ion, MTV, BET. FNC is in the 300s, as is BSNBC, and then there's a bunch of shit no sane person watches like the Game Show Network and QVC.

Yukon
02-09-2011, 03:38 PM
Current TV is probably hoping they will boost their ratings.

Adam Wood
02-09-2011, 03:40 PM
Current TV is probably hoping they will boost their ratings.Of course they are. They might get their viewership up from 23,000 to 23,007 by bringing on Moonbatmann. Advertisers will surely flock to the coveted unemployed angry moonbat in Mom's basement demographic.

Yukon
02-09-2011, 03:43 PM
Adam,

Have you watched his show?

Adam Wood
02-09-2011, 03:49 PM
Adam,

Have you watched his show?Moonbatmann's show? I made myself suffer through most of one of his idiotic rants once. I saw no need to subject myself to any further anguish after that. The guy is a pathological liar and a hate-filled idiot with a very unhealthy obsession with Sarah Palin. There's absolutely nothing of value that he can offer to the world except for finding a tall building to throw himself off of somewhere in New York.

Yukon
02-09-2011, 03:51 PM
Adam,

Iv heard him too and I cetainly dont have a similar opinion of him as you do.

fettpett
02-09-2011, 03:52 PM
Adam,

Iv heard him too and I cetainly dont have a similar opinion of him as you do.

no shit you don't, you're one of the 7 that will boost current's ratings

Yukon
02-09-2011, 04:02 PM
no shit you don't, you're one of the 7 that will boost current's ratings

Are you critical of him because he is not a conservative?

Adam Wood
02-09-2011, 04:10 PM
Are you critical of him because he is not a conservative?I'm not. I'm critical of him because he's a liar and a hate-filled buffoon.

Yukon
02-09-2011, 04:14 PM
I'm not. I'm critical of him because he's a liar and a hate-filled buffoon.

How would you compare him to Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh?

Bailey
02-09-2011, 04:17 PM
How would you compare him to Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh?

They have many more fans and a lot more money for starters.

fettpett
02-09-2011, 05:02 PM
How would you compare him to Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh?

fact that Rush and Beck don't lie through their teeth every 10 secs, nor do they sit there and call for the death of the President or call our troops murders

Odysseus
02-09-2011, 05:35 PM
How would you compare him to Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh?

Have you ever listened to Beck or Limbaugh? If so, feel free to provide a single quote from either that is as hateful as any of the following from Olbermann:


"What would you do, sir, if terrorists were killing 45,000 people every year in this country? Well, the current health care system, the insurance companies, and those who support them are doing just that....Because they die individually of disease and not disaster, [radio host] Neal Boortz and those who ape him in office and out, approve their deaths, all 45,000 of them — a year — in America. Remind me again, who are the terrorists?"
— MSNBC's Keith Olbermann in a "Quick Comment" on Countdown, January 5, 2010.

"What was the more likely cause of the Oklahoma City bombing: talk radio or Bill Clinton and Janet Reno's hands-on management of Waco, the Branch Davidian compound?...Obviously, the answer is talk radio. Specifically Rush Limbaugh's hate radio....Frankly, Rush, you have that blood on your hands now and you have had it for 15 years."
— MSNBC's Keith Olbermann naming Rush Limbaugh the "Worst Person in the World," April 19, 2010 Countdown.

"[The Tea Party-backed Republicans are] a group of unqualified, unstable individuals who will do what they are told, in exchange for money and power, and march this nation as far backward as they can get, backward to Jim Crow, or backward to the breadlines of the '30s, or backward to hanging union organizers, or backward to the trusts and the robber barons...It is nothing short of an attempted use of democracy to end this democracy, to buy America wholesale and pave over the freedoms and the care we take of one another, which have combined to keep us the envy of the world.... If you sit there tomorrow, and the rest of this week, and you let this cataclysm unfold, you have enabled this. It is one thing to be attacked by those who would destroy America from without. It is a worse thing to be attacked by those who would destroy America from within."
— MSNBC's Keith Olbermann in a 21-minute "Special Comment" on Countdown, October 27, 2010.

"In Scott Brown, we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Countdown, January 18, 2010, the night before Massachusetts’ special election.

“...the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred — without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”
— Countdown host Keith Olbermann talking about the conservative columnist and author, October 13, 2009.

“So, besides urinating on the Constitution and the rights and freedoms every American soldier has ever fought to win and protect, the Bush administration has now decided that when its victims have actually served their sentences, doled out under its own medieval, quote, ‘justice,’ unquote, system, it still might not choose to set them free, thereby giving that Constitution and our country a second pass on the way out.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, August 7, 2008 Countdown. [MP3 audio here. WMV video here.]

“If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You’re a fascist! Get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it!...You, sir, have no place in a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The lot of you are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic to whom ‘freedom’ is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for when you want to get away with its opposite.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann addressing Bush in a “Special Comment” on Countdown, February 14, 2008.

"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....When somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation; when somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abnegating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead; this advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up! Good night and good luck."
— MSNBC's Keith Olbermann in a "Special Comment" on Countdown, May 14, 2008.

"Our third story in the Countdown, from the mindbending idea that four guys dressed as pizza delivery men were going to outgun all the soldiers at Fort Dix, to the not-too-thought-out plan to blow up JFK Airport by lighting a match 40 miles away....The so-called plot happens to be revealed the day before the second Democratic presidential debate and as the scandal continues to unfold over the firings of U.S. attorneys and their replacements by political hacks. The so-called plot is announced by the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, New York, and by the police chief of New York City, the father of a correspondent for Fox News Channel."
— MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on his Countdown program June 4, 2007, outlining his claimed "Nexus of Politics and Terror," arguing the Bush administration manipulates news about terror plots for political advantage.

"Good evening. A President who lied us into a war and, in so doing, needlessly killed 3,584 of our family and friends and neighbors; a President whose administration initially tried to destroy the first man to nail that lie; a President whose henchmen then ruined the career of the intelligence asset that was his wife when intelligence assets were never more essential to the viability of the Republic; a President like that has tonight freed from the prospect of prison the only man ever to come to trial for one of the component felonies in what may be the greatest crime of this young century."
— Keith Olbermann on Bush commuting Lewis Libby's prison sentence, MSNBC's Countdown, July 2, 2007.

"A past President, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back....The nation’s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit....As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he [President Bush] is having it done for him, by proxy. Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon."
— Keith Olbermann referring to Bill Clinton’s interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, MSNBC’s Countdown, September 25, 2006.

"The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war on the false premise that it had something to do with 9/11 is ‘lying by implication.' The impolite phrase is ‘impeachable offense.'...When those who dissent are told time and time again — as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus — that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of that freedom, we are somehow un-American; when we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have ‘forgotten the lessons of 9/11;' look into this empty space behind me and the bipartisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me this: Who has left this hole in the ground? We have not forgotten, Mr. President. You have. May this country forgive you."
— MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on September 11, 2006 ending his Countdown with a commentary delivered from the site of the World Trade Center.

We now face what our ancestors faced at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering: A government more dangerous to our liberty than is the enemy it claims to protect us from....We have never before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow. You, sir, have now befouled that spring. You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order. You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom....These things you have done, Mr. Bush — they would constitute the beginning of the end of America."
— Keith Olbermann in a "Special Comment" on the setting up of military trials for terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, MSNBC’s Countdown, October 18, 2006.

"Karl Rove is a liability in the war on terror....In his ‘story guidance’ to Matthew Cooper of Time, Rove did more damage to your safety than the most thumb-sucking liberal or guard at Abu Ghraib. He destroyed an intelligence asset like Valerie Plame merely to deflect criticism of a politician. We have all the damned politicians, of every stripe, that we need. The best of them isn’t worth half a Valerie Plame."
— Countdown host Keith Olbermann in a July 11, 2005 posting to his "Bloggerman" page on MSNBC’s Web site.

"Can Ken Starr ignore the apparent breadth of the sympathetic response to the President’s speech? Facially, it finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler, including the glasses. If he now pursues the President of the United States, who, however flawed his apology was, came out and invoked God, family, his daughter, a political conspiracy and everything but the kitchen sink, would not there be some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?" [MP3 audio here. WMV video here.]
-- Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s The Big Show, to Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau Chief James Warren, August 18, 1998.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/01/24/worst-worst-look-back-keith-olbermanns-most-outrageous-quotes#ixzz1DVHTrsAD

Yukon
02-09-2011, 06:01 PM
fact that Rush and Beck don't lie through their teeth every 10 secs, nor do they sit there and call for the death of the President or call our troops murders

Are we talikng about the same people?

djones520
02-09-2011, 06:04 PM
Are we talikng about the same people?

Obviously not, since you have this fantasy world built up that you pull your information from.

fettpett
02-09-2011, 08:07 PM
Are we talikng about the same people?

show me where they have lied consistently and....well Odysseus already showed you Overbites bullshit

somewhere that ISN"T Media Matters or HuffandPuff or any other Soros run shit site

wilbur
02-10-2011, 08:53 AM
Have you ever listened to Beck or Limbaugh? If so, feel free to provide a single quote from either that is as hateful as any of the following from Olbermann:


They do it daily.... but here's a particularly good one:

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?" -Glenn Beck musing about what he would do for $50 million

Though you only wanted one, here's a bonus:

"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." –Glenn Beck

Odysseus
02-10-2011, 09:14 AM
They do it daily.... but here's a particularly good one:

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?" -Glenn Beck musing about what he would do for $50 million

Though you only wanted one, here's a bonus:

"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." –Glenn Beck

Not even close. Vick tortured and killed animals for his own pleasure. I've thought about killing him. As for the other, callous, insensitive, but not anywhere near as hateful as the mildest of the Olbermann quotes.

wilbur
02-10-2011, 09:53 AM
Not even close. Vick tortured and killed animals for his own pleasure. I've thought about killing him. As for the other, callous, insensitive, but not anywhere near as hateful as the mildest of the Olbermann quotes.

So what this really boils down to is:

If you happen to agree with it, it isnt hateful. If you disagree with it, its hateful.

Not that you are particularly unique in that regard... If one were to try and explain how and why modern day political discourse is such an avalanche of bullshit - I think the above would sum it up quite nicely.

But anyways, he actually was talking about Michael Moore.... not Michael Vick.

NJCardFan
02-10-2011, 11:02 AM
Keith Olbermann on Tony Snow after Snow announced he was stepping down as press secretary because of terminal cancer, specifically his comments at the 55 second mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky672siQATo


Now, Wilbur, find me anything near as hateful as this.

fettpett
02-10-2011, 11:09 AM
They do it daily.... but here's a particularly good one:

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong?" -Glenn Beck musing about what he would do for $50 million

Though you only wanted one, here's a bonus:

"When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." –Glenn Beck

oooooooohhhh you showed 2 incidents where Beck's comments are either A) sarcastic or B) is factitious or C) is like the Brett Favre retirement drama

wilbur
02-10-2011, 11:50 AM
Keith Olbermann on Tony Snow after Snow announced he was stepping down as press secretary because of terminal cancer, specifically his comments at the 55 second mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky672siQATo


Now, Wilbur, find me anything near as hateful as this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpFC9uziVhE

fettpett
02-10-2011, 11:58 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpFC9uziVhE

http://lolpics.se/pics/482.jpg


really? is that the best you can come up with? This has been beaten to death on another thread. Micheal J Fox brought it on himself for not taking his medication to make a political point. Rush jumped on him for it, NOT because he has Parkinson's but for using it to make a political point.


try again asshat

wilbur
02-10-2011, 12:03 PM
try again asshat

I fail to see any relevant difference between the types of things Rush and Beck say on a daily basis - and the types of things that Olberman says - their targets are ideological opposites, but that's it. They are all equally absurd and lecherous, quite frankly. Media scum.

And as far as I can see, the R or the D next to the names of their targets are the only thing determining whether most of you judge the speech as hateful or accurate.

Are you guys really trying to argue that its your pundits who are the good ones? Really? Really?!?

Nobody has even talked about Ann Coulter yet...

fettpett
02-10-2011, 12:12 PM
I fail to see any relevant difference between the types of things Rush and Beck say on a daily basis - and the types of things that Olberman says - their targets are ideological opposites, but that's it. They are all equally absurd and lecherous, quite frankly. Media scum.

And as far as I can see, the R or the D next to the names of their targets are the only thing determining whether most of you judge the speech as hateful or accurate.

Are you guys really trying to argue that its your pundits who are the good ones? Really? Really?!?

Nobody has even talked about Ann Coulter yet...

first of all difference is the context, Rush uses satire to mock the left and idiots on the left such as yourself that takes him seriously.

Beck...yeah he goes off on tangents that are annoying irrelevant, but w/e he's not spiteful

Culter...eh...i could take or leave her

Zathras
02-10-2011, 12:14 PM
http://lolpics.se/pics/482.jpg

Sorry Fett but, with the idiocy shown with Wilbur's lame ass postings, just 2 facepalms is not nearly enough.

For stupidity on such a scale you need....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/HeroesAtWork/facepalm.jpg

SUPER FACEPALM!!!!

wilbur
02-10-2011, 12:20 PM
Hey, here's another good one... the clip speaks for itself, but I couldnt find it anywhere without the commentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaieYO5XW7Q

Rockntractor
02-10-2011, 12:24 PM
I fail to see

Yes you do Wilbur, yes you do.

Rockntractor
02-10-2011, 12:27 PM
Hey, here's another good one... the clip speaks for itself, but I couldnt find it anywhere without the commentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaieYO5XW7Q

Even polar bears are facepalming you now Wilbur, and they were your friends.:rolleyes:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/polar-bear-face-palm_thumbnail.jpg

wilbur
02-10-2011, 12:33 PM
Yes you do Wilbur, yes you do.

Glad to see the old Rock back.. the one that actually made a play at substantive comments was rather sad!

Rockntractor
02-10-2011, 12:38 PM
Glad to see the old Rock back.. the one that actually made a play at substantive comments was rather sad!

How was treatment? Are you better now, it's not your fault.:(

txradioguy
02-10-2011, 12:43 PM
I fail to see any relevant difference between the types of things Rush and Beck say on a daily basis - and the types of things that Olberman says - their targets are ideological opposites, but that's it. They are all equally absurd and lecherous, quite frankly. Media scum.

Really? Name me one pundit on the right that has called for the death of a sitting President? Name me one conservative media person that has mocked a sitting member of Congress to their face on National TV?


And as far as I can see, the R or the D next to the names of their targets are the only thing determining whether most of you judge the speech as hateful or accurate.

More like the accuracy of what was said versus what Media matters says or some hack on MSNBC cherry picks to make it appear what was actually said was something completely different.

Or how about falsifying documents? Dan Rather ring a bell? Ok...let's talk about hateful and accurate.


Are you guys really trying to argue that its your pundits who are the good ones? Really? Really?!?

I will. But you'll run away when I hit you with the facts...as usual.


Nobody has even talked about Ann Coulter yet...

Did she tell a Congresswoman to slash her throat?

Oh wait. That was Montel Williams.

Did she play the sound of gunshots on the radio in an effort to make listeners think that someone had shot a President?

My bad that was Randi Rhodes.

Oh wait...I remember now...she hoped a tv commentator would blow his brains out on national tv so the video would go viral on YouTube.

Whoops...I was incorrect again...that was Mike Malloy.

fettpett
02-10-2011, 12:44 PM
Hey, here's another good one... the clip speaks for itself, but I couldnt find it anywhere without the commentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaieYO5XW7Q

oh christ...you're going to drop the Air America fucktards on us?

Odysseus
02-10-2011, 12:51 PM
So what this really boils down to is:

If you happen to agree with it, it isnt hateful. If you disagree with it, its hateful.

Not that you are particularly unique in that regard... If one were to try and explain how and why modern day political discourse is such an avalanche of bullshit - I think the above would sum it up quite nicely.

But anyways, he actually was talking about Michael Moore.... not Michael Vick.
Ah, my bad. Admittedly, I've also fantasized about meeting Moore in a dark alley, especially after he said the following: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win." I considered that treason. So, yeah, I do agree with Beck. I guess that makes me hateful, but in all fairness, when someone openly sides with your nation's enemies and encourages them to murder me (I was actually in Iraq when he wrote that), I consider his treason a legitimate grounds for hate. OTOH, I still submit that Beck's comment isn't as hateful as any of Olbermann's.


I fail to see any relevant difference between the types of things Rush and Beck say on a daily basis - and the types of things that Olberman says - their targets are ideological opposites, but that's it. They are all equally absurd and lecherous, quite frankly. Media scum.

And as far as I can see, the R or the D next to the names of their targets are the only thing determining whether most of you judge the speech as hateful or accurate.

Are you guys really trying to argue that its your pundits who are the good ones? Really? Really?!?

Nobody has even talked about Ann Coulter yet...
You fail to see it because you refuse to see it. The difference is that, with one exception, neither Rush nor Beck has ever come out in favor of the murder of a political opponent, ever espoused violence, ever condoned it or wished it on anyone, and in the one case that you cited, Beck didn't advocate killing Moore, he simply said that he felt that he could personally do it, and asked if that was wrong. Olbermann never questions his hate. Ever. Nor has Rush or Beck lied about the political figures that they skewer. Every statement that I cited by Olbermann is demonstrably false.

wilbur
02-10-2011, 01:12 PM
You fail to see it because you refuse to see it. The difference is that, with one exception, neither Rush nor Beck has ever come out in favor of the murder of a political opponent, ever espoused violence, ever condoned it or wished it on anyone, and in the one case that you cited, Beck didn't advocate killing Moore, he simply said that he felt that he could personally do it, and asked if that was wrong. Olbermann never questions his hate. Ever.

LOL Christ..... the bolded part speaks for itself. Yea, that's so much better, obviously... what was I thinking?

Flip the situation. Had Olberman said that about Beck, his quote would be pasted on this thread and all of you would cite it as further evidence of what a hateful weasel he is. Somewhere in there, I know you realize this is true.



Nor has Rush or Beck lied about the political figures that they skewer. Every statement that I cited by Olbermann is demonstrably false.


This isnt good - I won't be able to stop laughing for a long time because of this sentence damn it.

txradioguy
02-10-2011, 01:15 PM
This isnt good - I won't be able to stop laughing for a long time because of this sentence damn it.

Name one thing they've lied about.

C'mon...I dare ya.

Adam Wood
02-10-2011, 01:17 PM
Sorry Fett but, with the idiocy shown with Wilbur's lame ass postings, just 2 facepalms is not nearly enough.

For stupidity on such a scale you need....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/HeroesAtWork/facepalm.jpg

SUPER FACEPALM!!!!

http://i55.tinypic.com/29lmnhv.jpg

Adam Wood
02-10-2011, 01:20 PM
Name one thing they've lied about.

C'mon...I dare ya.Place your bets, folks!

Vegas numbers are running 3:1 on "fake soldiers." That's where I'm putting my money.

Odysseus
02-10-2011, 01:31 PM
LOL Christ..... the bolded part speaks for itself. Yea, that's so much better, obviously... what was I thinking?

Flip the situation. Had Olberman said that about Beck, his quote would be pasted on this thread and all of you would cite it as further evidence of what a hateful weasel he is. Somewhere in there, I know you realize this is true.
Except that had Olbermann said it about Beck, it would have been one of many vicious quotes about conservatives, whose only crime was to be conservatives. The one example that you cited by Beck was directed at a man (and I use the term loosely) who openly committed treason. Do you consider it acceptable to hate someone who has advocated the murder of Americans? Who supports and encourages terrorism directed at his own countrymen?

To put it another way, would I be hateful if I said that I regretted that Benedict Arnold died in his bed, rather than at the end of a rope? Would a Dane who loathed Vidkun Quisling, who helped give Denmark to the Nazis and administered it for them, be hateful for this one passion? Would I be hateful for wishing that Hitler had died in his crib? No? Then why am I hateful for wanting Michael Moore to suffer for his stated desire to see me (and others like me) die on a battlefield?

This is the difference. Olbermann hates people who have done him no harm. He hates people who disagree with him on matters of policy, who have run for office for a party to which he does not belong, and who have had the unspeakable gall to defend their beliefs and projects in the face of his hate. Beck hates one man who has earned this hatred, and more.


This isnt good - I won't be able to stop laughing for a long time because of this sentence damn it.

Perhaps you can cite an example between your fits of hysteria?

txradioguy
02-10-2011, 01:32 PM
Place your bets, folks!

Vegas numbers are running 3:1 on "fake soldiers." That's where I'm putting my money.

Either that or praising James Earl Ray.

wilbur
02-10-2011, 01:33 PM
Name one thing they've lied about.

C'mon...I dare ya.

Given that I'm in a thread where people are seriously trying to defend the moral merits of fantasizing about killing a public figure with one's own bare hands, over the... well... fantasizing about the death or assassination of a public figure.....

I don't know what could possibly persuade you that many of the statements of your right wing media idols are half-baked, and often misleading or even untruthful. If one has so little regard for their personal integrity as to make those sorts of rationalizations about murder fantasies... I could post all the proof in the world, I don't think it would penetrate.

In any case - you'll flip lids because of the source, but here you go:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200502180006

If you find any of those to be inaccurate, feel free to point them out. Otherwise, I'll take it that you concede to their accuracy or are ill-equipped to determine it.

fettpett
02-10-2011, 01:35 PM
Given that I'm in a thread where people are seriously trying to defend the moral merits of fantasizing about killing a public figure with one's own bare hands, over the... well... fantasizing about the death or assassination of a public figure.....

I don't know what could possibly persuade you that many of the statements of your right wing media idols are half-baked, and often misleading or even untruthful. If one has so little regard for their personal integrity as to make those sorts of rationalizations about murder fantasies... I could post all the proof in the world, I don't think it would penetrate.

In any case - you'll flip lids because of the source, but here you go:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200502180006

find another source...I already asked you to find them in places that weren't founded by Soros and specifically said Media Matters as well

Adam Wood
02-10-2011, 01:43 PM
Given that I'm in a thread where people are seriously trying to defend the moral merits of fantasizing about killing a public figure with one's own bare hands, over the... well... fantasizing about the death or assassination of a public figure.....

I don't know what could possibly persuade you that many of the statements of your right wing media idols are half-baked, and often misleading or even untruthful. If one has so little regard for their personal integrity as to make those sorts of rationalizations about murder fantasies... I could post all the proof in the world, I don't think it would penetrate.

In any case - you'll flip lids because of the source, but here you go:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200502180006

If you find any of those to be inaccurate, feel free to point them out. Otherwise, I'll take it that you concede to their accuracy or are ill-equipped to determine it.
Medialiars? Really? You actually expect anyone to believe that claptrap?

wilbur
02-10-2011, 01:45 PM
Except that had Olbermann said it about Beck, it would have been one of many vicious quotes about conservatives, whose only crime was to be conservatives. The one example that you cited by Beck was directed at a man (and I use the term loosely) who openly committed treason. Do you consider it acceptable to hate someone who has advocated the murder of Americans? Who supports and encourages terrorism directed at his own countrymen?


Yea, you're sounding so much different that Olberman right now... That might be your spin, but get real man... maybe you don't like his ideology, maybe he is a kook.... get real.

wilbur
02-10-2011, 01:46 PM
find another source...I already asked you to find them in places that weren't founded by Soros and specifically said Media Matters as well


Yea, because its only true if a right wing pundit says it.

Be skeptical all you like, but they include transcripts - give us your analysis of them.

Adam Wood
02-10-2011, 01:51 PM
Yea, because its only true if a right wing pundit says it.

Be skeptical all you like, but they include transcripts - give us your analysis of them.No, they don't. They include carefully-crafted snippets of transcripts, specifically created to erase an important context. That's why moonbats like you are so hell-bent for leather that Rush called soldiers "fake."

wilbur
02-10-2011, 01:53 PM
I do find it rather ironic too... that the distrust of sources like media matters are in large part cultivated not by any genuine experience... but by criticisms and demonizations on the part of the pundits whom they criticize.

Personally, I find it good not to trust any of them.

txradioguy
02-10-2011, 02:07 PM
I do find it rather ironic too... that the distrust of sources like media matters are in large part cultivated not by any genuine experience... but by criticisms and demonizations on the part of the pundits whom they criticize.[quote]

Media Mutters cherry picks parts of the broadcasts to fit their target audience and how they want people to perceive the people they hate.

Which is why they can sucker fools like you into believing anything they type.

So you need to find a credible source to back up your bullshit. Not one that is so easily proven to be inaccurate and at times lying on purpose.

[quote]Personally, I find it good not to trust any of them.

Personally...I find you the living definition of the term "Libtard".

Adam Wood
02-10-2011, 02:10 PM
I do find it rather ironic too... that the distrust of sources like media matters are in large part cultivated not by any genuine experience... but by criticisms and demonizations on the part of the pundits whom they criticize.

Personally, I find it good not to trust any of them.Who the fuck are you talking about? I don't believe medialiars because I have personally caught them in a number of lies, just like I have caught Keef Moonbatmann in a number of lies, just like I have caught Rachael Maddow in a number of lies, just like so many other Leftists who have been caught in lies time and again in the past. It has nothing to do with whom they are criticizing at all. I could not care less what someone says about Rush Limbaugh if it's true. I know that as a Leftist you have a desperate need to feed your stereotype that says that I listen to Rush all day and then I listen to Hannity and then I turn on FNC and watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity all night, but that's simply not true. The funny part is that this is really fucking with your stereotyping, your labeling, your pigeon-holing, and your general feeling of self-importance because while you are so busy trying to follow the talking points you have been handed that tell you that conservatives are all stupid sheep and don't think for themselves, we're over here not fitting your bigoted little stereotype at all. That must piss you off something fierce. Makes me very happy that it does.

txradioguy
02-10-2011, 02:16 PM
Hyperbole aside, it should be said that some of Brock’s supporters genuinely believe such things. But at least so far, their faith in Brock does not appear to be shared by the mainstream press. Other than a friendly interview by the Today show’s Katie Couric, Brock has received far less attention for his new project than he received in 2002 when he published Blinded by the Right, the book in which he confessed to having lied in some of the stories he wrote for conservative publications in the 1990s.

The book did what many — even those on the left who share Brock’s contempt for conservatives — consider fatal damage to Brock’s credibility. When Blinded by the Right appeared, Timothy Noah, the liberal “Chatterbox” columnist for Slate, wrote that “Chatterbox yields to no one in his eagerness to believe the awful things Brock is now saying about himself and the conservative movement in America. But the more Brock insists that he has lied, and lied, and then lied again, the more one begins to suspect Brock of being, well, a liar.”

Now that same David Brock is trying on a new role as guardian of accuracy in media. It all seems, well, a little much. But in this year of 527s, mega-donors, and Democrats determined to “fight back,” it appears that anything is possible.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222389/real-media-matters/byron-york

And rubliw wonders why we say Media Mutters isn't credible.

:rolleyes:

txradioguy
02-10-2011, 02:25 PM
With Operation Smear Rush now (largely) complete and the damage done, "progressive" sleazemeisters are apparently ready to come clean with the truth: Limbaugh never made two key racist statements.


Those alleged remarks, which were never sourced despite being repeated on MSNBC, CNN, in many newspapers and evening newscasts, ultimately cost Rush an opportunity to bid on the NFL's St Louis Rams.

And yet, despite the candid admission by Karl Frisch of Media Matters during today's Stephanie Miller Show that no evidence could be found to support the claims, his organization's website appears silent on the matter.

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/10/media-matters-admits-rush-didnt-make.html

Odysseus
02-10-2011, 02:26 PM
Given that I'm in a thread where people are seriously trying to defend the moral merits of fantasizing about killing a public figure with one's own bare hands, over the... well... fantasizing about the death or assassination of a public figure.....

Benedict Arnold was a public figure, who almost strangled American liberty in its crib, and would have caused the deaths of every man who signed the Declaration of Independence. Would it have been wrong to hate him and wish him dead for his betrayal? Vidkun Quisling betrayed his country to the Nazis for political gain. Would a Dane have been justified in wishing him dead? Would the families of Danish Jews who were sent to the camps be justified? Michael Moore wished me dead, by hoping for the victory of the enemy that I was fighting at the time that he made his statement. Am I not justified in wishing the same for him?

Answer the questions, Wilbur.

txradioguy
02-10-2011, 02:37 PM
Besides Horowitz, Media Matters nurses a special contempt for conservative and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh. Inevitably in its zeal to shatter Limbaugh's credibility, Media Matters routinely engages in unwarranted attacks. In June of 2005, for instance, the organization lashed out at Limbaugh for his opinion on the so-called Downing Street memo, which accused the Bush administration of manipulating evidence and otherwise fudging facts in order to promulgate its policies. "Limbaugh baselessly suggested Downing Street memo 'may be a fake,'" screamed a Media Matters headline. Yet, as Media Matters was forced to acknowledge in the compass of its attack, Limbaugh's remarks, far from being "baseless," were actually derived from a report that had appeared in the Associated Press. Moreover, Media Matters itself was unsure of the veracity of the AP's account, describing it tentatively as an "apparently inaccurate AP account." This did not lead it to exonerate Limbaugh, however.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/mediamattersagendasandactivities.html

fettpett
02-10-2011, 04:35 PM
Yea, because its only true if a right wing pundit says it.

Be skeptical all you like, but they include transcripts - give us your analysis of them.

I didn't say to find a right winger, just not an obviously bias POS site like media matters or anything connected with Soros

wilbur
02-10-2011, 09:35 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222389/real-media-matters/byron-york

And rubliw wonders why we say Media Mutters isn't credible.

:rolleyes:

Wow, so National Review will publish negative things about their ideological foes? You don't say.

National Review is a pot, and Media Matters is the kettle.

Now when you think about it, where would you find criticisms of right wing media pundits like Rush, or Beck? You're going to find them in the liberal outlets. You sure as hell arent going to find their compatriotes working overtime to point out their bullshit. So you generally have to go to the liberals. And vice versa if the situation is reversed.

Sure, partisans will undoubtedly exaggerate and misrepresent many things, but they'll also catch some real genuine nuggets. With some fact checking and reasonable, smart skepticism, there is often good value from checking out places like media matters, daily kos, even Coulter or Rush - or even *gasp* CU.

So the moral of the story is... suck it up, quite whining about the source like a bitchy little girl, confront the items they list and address them - believe them or don't, but address them - I take them with a grain of salt, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that plenty of them are pretty damn genuine. And for fucks sake, quit deluding yourself that your media punditry's shit smells like roses - it doesnt smell any sweeter than Olberman's.

In my own experience, Rush has either lied or horribly misrepresented issues using his stock and trade demonizing rhetoric. Net neutrality was the most recent example (that I directly experienced) of such a debacle, where he basically made it out to be hateful liberal conspiracy to stifle speech and control the internet - fucking insane (and pretty hateful).

wilbur
02-10-2011, 09:43 PM
Media Mutters cherry picks parts of the broadcasts to fit their target audience and how they want people to perceive the people they hate.


Gee, Rush or Beck would *never* do that :rolleyes:



Which is why they can sucker fools like you into believing anything they type.


Oh the irony. Again for what its worth, I don't trust media matters anymore than I trust Rush, et al.

Adam Wood
02-10-2011, 09:47 PM
So the moral of the story is... suck it up, quite whining about the source like a bitchy little girl, confront the items they list and address them - believe them or don't, but address them - I take them with a grain of salt, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that plenty of them are pretty damn genuine.Oh. That's what you want.

OK. This is simple.


What you're busy believing from Medialiars is bullshit. There's not even a kernel of truth to their claims, which, as usual, are plucked out of context in order to serve their ludicrous agenda.



Now, since the substance of their asinine claims has been addressed, how about actually putting on your big boy jammies and coming up with some actual evidence of these people lying as you claim. Or are you just going to run away when it gets down to dealing with actual facts? That's the usual Leftist way.

wilbur
02-10-2011, 09:49 PM
Benedict Arnold was a public figure, who almost strangled American liberty in its crib, and would have caused the deaths of every man who signed the Declaration of Independence. Would it have been wrong to hate him and wish him dead for his betrayal? Vidkun Quisling betrayed his country to the Nazis for political gain. Would a Dane have been justified in wishing him dead? Would the families of Danish Jews who were sent to the camps be justified? Michael Moore wished me dead, by hoping for the victory of the enemy that I was fighting at the time that he made his statement. Am I not justified in wishing the same for him?

Answer the questions, Wilbur.

So your issue then isnt with hate, as you seem to say its perfectly OK to be hateful, just as long as you have good justification for it.

Well, while you may disagree, I'm sure Olberman feels that he has pretty good justifications for his negativity - so it doesnt seem like you should have an issue with his hateful tone per se... you should just have an issue with his level of knowledge, which you consider to be sub par and inaccurate.


And... I don't think your pundits fare better there either.

wilbur
02-10-2011, 09:51 PM
Oh. That's what you want.

OK. This is simple.


What you're busy believing from Medialiars is bullshit. There's not even a kernel of truth to their claims, which, as usual, are plucked out of context in order to serve their ludicrous agenda.



Now, since the substance of their asinine claims has been addressed, how about actually putting on your big boy jammies and coming up with some actual evidence of these people lying as you claim. Or are you just going to run away when it gets down to dealing with actual facts? That's the usual Leftist way.


Weak sauce man... weak sauce

Not to mention, aside from bare assertion, nobody has actually demonstrated the "hateful" rhetoric of olberman to be false or unjustified.... so where's that evidence?

Adam Wood
02-10-2011, 09:56 PM
Weak sauce man... weak sauce

Not to mention, aside from bare assertion, nobody has actually demonstrated the "hateful" rhetoric of olberman to be false or unjustified.... so where's that evidence?Perhaps it's time for you to re-read the thread.

Moonbatmann is an undeniably hate-filled pusbag. If you fail to recognize that, then you are either intentionally willfully ignorant or else you too are a hate-filled pusbag. Your choice which you decide to claim, but the rest of us who live in reality will decide on our own either way.

wilbur
02-10-2011, 10:07 PM
Perhaps it's time for you to re-read the thread.

Moonbatmann is an undeniably hate-filled pusbag. If you fail to recognize that, then you are either intentionally willfully ignorant or else you too are a hate-filled pusbag. Your choice which you decide to claim, but the rest of us who live in reality will decide on our own either way.

For fucks sake man. In case it seems to have escaped you, I havent been explicitly (or even implicitly) defending Olberman, at all - Let it sink in - I DON'T LIKE OLBERMAN, nor do I stand by anything he has said - I just find it a little ridiculous that people are actually holding up asshats like Limbaugh and Beck as his moral superior.

NJCardFan
02-10-2011, 11:57 PM
All you need to know is that Media Matters is owned by George Soros.

wilbur
02-11-2011, 12:11 AM
All you need to know is that Media Matters is owned by George Soros.

All you need to know about Rush Limbaugh is.... its Rush Limbaugh

txradioguy
02-11-2011, 12:38 AM
Weak sauce man... weak sauce

Not to mention, aside from bare assertion, nobody has actually demonstrated the "hateful" rhetoric of olberman to be false or unjustified.... so where's that evidence?


You never learn do you?


“What would you do, sir, if terrorists were killing 45,000 people every year in this country? Well, the current health care system, the insurance companies, and those who support them are doing just that….Because they die individually of disease and not disaster, [radio host] Neal Boortz and those who ape him in office and out, approve their deaths, all 45,000 of them — a year — in America. Remind me again, who are the terrorists?”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann in a “Quick Comment” on Countdown, January 5, 2010


“What was the more likely cause of the Oklahoma City bombing: talk radio or Bill Clinton and Janet Reno’s hands-on management of Waco, the Branch Davidian compound?…Obviously, the answer is talk radio. Specifically Rush Limbaugh’s hate radio….Frankly, Rush, you have that blood on your hands now and you have had it for 15 years.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann naming Rush Limbaugh the “Worst Person in the World,” April 19, 2010


[The Tea Party-backed Republicans are] a group of unqualified, unstable individuals who will do what they are told, in exchange for money and power, and march this nation as far backward as they can get, backward to Jim Crow, or backward to the breadlines of the ’30s, or backward to hanging union organizers, or backward to the trusts and the robber barons…It is nothing short of an attempted use of democracy to end this democracy, to buy America wholesale and pave over the freedoms and the care we take of one another, which have combined to keep us the envy of the world…. If you sit there tomorrow, and the rest of this week, and you let this cataclysm unfold, you have enabled this. It is one thing to be attacked by those who would destroy America from without. It is a worse thing to be attacked by those who would destroy America from within.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann in a 21-minute “Special Comment” on Countdown, October 27, 2010


“In Scott Brown, we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Countdown, January 18, 2010, the night before Massachusetts’ special election.


On Tuesday’s Countdown show, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann spewed bile at conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, accusing her of possessing "fascistic hatred," and comparing her to a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." During his show’s regular "Worst Person" segment, Olbermann attacked Malkin for her role in bringing attention to the recent controversy over school children in New Jersey singing a song about President Obama.


Shall I continue?

txradioguy
02-11-2011, 12:39 AM
All you need to know about Rush Limbaugh is.... its Rush Limbaugh

And that you so far have come up with zero to prove he's either a) hateful or b) a liar.

Adam Wood
02-11-2011, 12:42 AM
For fucks sake man. In case it seems to have escaped you, I havent been explicitly (or even implicitly) defending Olberman, at all - Let it sink in - I DON'T LIKE OLBERMAN, nor do I stand by anything he has said - I just find it a little ridiculous that people are actually holding up asshats like Limbaugh and Beck as his moral superior.Then maybe you shouldn't have dragged him in here as somehow trying to prove the rest of us as your moral inferior. That's what you get for playing the deflection game. Sucks to be you.

wonderdog123
02-11-2011, 04:03 AM
Not shocked. He's more @ home there. More liberal for him.

wilbur
02-11-2011, 09:03 AM
You never learn do you?


“What would you do, sir, if terrorists were killing 45,000 people every year in this country? Well, the current health care system, the insurance companies, and those who support them are doing just that….Because they die individually of disease and not disaster, [radio host] Neal Boortz and those who ape him in office and out, approve their deaths, all 45,000 of them — a year — in America. Remind me again, who are the terrorists?”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann in a “Quick Comment” on Countdown, January 5, 2010


“What was the more likely cause of the Oklahoma City bombing: talk radio or Bill Clinton and Janet Reno’s hands-on management of Waco, the Branch Davidian compound?…Obviously, the answer is talk radio. Specifically Rush Limbaugh’s hate radio….Frankly, Rush, you have that blood on your hands now and you have had it for 15 years.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann naming Rush Limbaugh the “Worst Person in the World,” April 19, 2010


[The Tea Party-backed Republicans are] a group of unqualified, unstable individuals who will do what they are told, in exchange for money and power, and march this nation as far backward as they can get, backward to Jim Crow, or backward to the breadlines of the ’30s, or backward to hanging union organizers, or backward to the trusts and the robber barons…It is nothing short of an attempted use of democracy to end this democracy, to buy America wholesale and pave over the freedoms and the care we take of one another, which have combined to keep us the envy of the world…. If you sit there tomorrow, and the rest of this week, and you let this cataclysm unfold, you have enabled this. It is one thing to be attacked by those who would destroy America from without. It is a worse thing to be attacked by those who would destroy America from within.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann in a 21-minute “Special Comment” on Countdown, October 27, 2010


“In Scott Brown, we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives.”
— MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Countdown, January 18, 2010, the night before Massachusetts’ special election.


On Tuesday’s Countdown show, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann spewed bile at conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, accusing her of possessing "fascistic hatred," and comparing her to a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." During his show’s regular "Worst Person" segment, Olbermann attacked Malkin for her role in bringing attention to the recent controversy over school children in New Jersey singing a song about President Obama.

Shall I continue?

Yes, I read them the first time around. Unfortunately, you still arent comprehending the point, which is not to defend Olberman, but to point out that neither you nor anyone else here has met the same burden of proof in regard to him, that you want to require of me in regards to Rush. That's the kind of bias I have been talking about in this thread.

But you demand proof of Rush's lies - I provided a list of a few possibilities - though admittedly from a biased source (but that's all there is likely to be, as I explained). Then, as I expected, many complain that my source is biased and untrustworthy... so what do you do? Of all places, you copy and paste a snippet from the National Review - The National fucking Review - as you lecture us about biased and untrustworthy sources. Brilliant!

Though despite the source, I'm at least willing to entertain the possibility that what they say is true - just like I'm willing to entertain the possibility that what MM says is true, in regards to Rush. That's called good skepticism.

I'm merely pointing at that none of you have actually demonstrated the truth or falsity of Olberman's claims. There's a different standard of proof that you seem to require when somebody criticizes people with R's in front of their name... but don't seem to care when there is D.

If there are lies in the above quotes, you et al. certainly have not established that. Either you're not sharing some knowledge you have about the factual claims embedded in the Keiths inflammatory rhetorical quotes above - or your simply begging he question that they are false. Either way though, I have no real stake in the matter of whether they are false or true. I've never said I trust Olberman.


And as an aside, most of the quotes above are really just opinion and rhetoric. There are a few factual claims hiding in them, here and there, but as a whole they are really fairly factually empty, so there really isnt a lot to either claim as true or false, contained within them. So if you're going to demonstrate that there are falsehoods in them, you need to first identify the factual claims and separate them from the opinion and rhetoric (and this sort of basic practice is something I'm not even sure you are able to competently do). Then you need to provide information that shows them false.

wilbur
02-11-2011, 09:04 AM
Then maybe you shouldn't have dragged him in here as somehow trying to prove the rest of us as your moral inferior. That's what you get for playing the deflection game. Sucks to be you.

I didnt. Yukon did.

Odysseus
02-11-2011, 09:15 AM
So your issue then isnt with hate, as you seem to say its perfectly OK to be hateful, just as long as you have good justification for it.

Well, while you may disagree, I'm sure Olberman feels that he has pretty good justifications for his negativity - so it doesnt seem like you should have an issue with his hateful tone per se... you should just have an issue with his level of knowledge, which you consider to be sub par and inaccurate.

And... I don't think your pundits fare better there either.
I love how you evade the questions. I asked you if it was acceptable to hate those who have done you harm, or who have done great harm to those you love, and you go abstract. You seem to have a problem whenever you are asked about any visceral response, be it love or hate. When asked if you love America, you duck and weave like a boxer, but you never actually admit to anything as primitive as love. It appears to be the same with hate, or any strong emotion.

Again, the question that you don't seem to want to answer: Is it acceptable to hate someone who has deliberately and maliciously wronged you? Is it wrong for a Jew to hate Hitler, or a Cambodian to hate Pol Pot, or even an American Soldier to hate Michael Moore for openly supporting the people who are trying to kill him? Is hate ever justified in the arid, bloodless world that you seek to occupy?

Or, since you prefer hypotheticals to reality, and intellectual games to honest discourse, let's go to fiction. Was Edmond Dantes right to hate the men who condemned him to the Chateau d'if? Was Hamlet correct to hate his uncle for killing his father?

And, no, our pundits are not as hateful as Olbermann. Olbermann's show has a regular segment, "The Worst Person in the World," which is the closest thing we have to Orwell's Two-Minutes' Hate in real life, and whose victims are there solely because Kieth doesn't like their politics. And before you say it, no, Bill O'Reilly's "Pinheads or Patriots" is nowhere near as vicious as Olbermann's rants.

For fucks sake man. In case it seems to have escaped you, I havent been explicitly (or even implicitly) defending Olberman, at all - Let it sink in - I DON'T LIKE OLBERMAN, nor do I stand by anything he has said - I just find it a little ridiculous that people are actually holding up asshats like Limbaugh and Beck as his moral superior.

So, you don't like Olbermann, but you make sure that when his hateful rhetoric is documented, you do your best to "prove" that he is no worse than the other side, but that this does not constitute a defense? And yet, in creating equivalence, you are downplaying Olbermann's viciousness by exaggerating everyone else's, even to the point of citing leftwing sites that fabricate quotes and controversies to make your case.

Funny how you deny being a leftist, but support leftist causes and personalities.

Adam Wood
02-11-2011, 09:55 AM
I didnt. Yukon did.My apologies. You are correct. You just came along and picked up the football after Yukon stalled out with no ammunition.

wilbur
02-11-2011, 10:13 AM
I love how you evade the questions. I asked you if it was acceptable to hate those who have done you harm, or who have done great harm to those you love, and you go abstract. You seem to have a problem whenever you are asked about any visceral response, be it love or hate. When asked if you love America, you duck and weave like a boxer, but you never actually admit to anything as primitive as love. It appears to be the same with hate, or any strong emotion.


Actually, it was your move from the clear and intentional words of Glenn Beck that described his desire to choke the life out of MM, to Jews and Nazi's (as if the two are equivalent) that got all abstract.

As it is, I don't necessarily think hate is wrong - it can be a useful motivator. But either way, we're back to the point - its not Keith's hate you should be taking issue with.

Take the first Keith quote - IF what Keith says is true, that 45,000 deaths per year are caused by some particular flaw in our medical system wich his ideological foes are interested in preserving, is he right to hate them? Well, it certainly looks like you are committed to answering that with a resounding "yes".

So then your beef with him is about the analysis of factual matters, not his hate.



And, no, our pundits are not as hateful as Olbermann. Olbermann's show has a regular segment, "The Worst Person in the World," which is the closest thing we have to Orwell's Two-Minutes' Hate in real life, and whose victims are there solely because Kieth doesn't like their politics. And before you say it, no, Bill O'Reilly's "Pinheads or Patriots" is nowhere near as vicious as Olbermann's rants.


Well, Keith is a little more articulate, and wields a bigger vocabulary than either Rush or Beck - but that's about the only difference.



So, you don't like Olbermann, but you make sure that when his hateful rhetoric is documented, you do your best to "prove" that he is no worse than the other side,

No, I'm doing my best to show you that they're all hateful assholes - and accuracy and truth are the least of their concerns.

wilbur
02-11-2011, 10:21 AM
Oh, here's another interesting quote that captures some of Rush's hateful rhetoric and just pure unabashed deplorable scientific incompetence to boot:



Liberalism: A genetic defect. Why not? In fact, liberals are descended from pond scum. They say so. They claim it to be true. They insist, they teach that they are descended from pond scum. “What do you mean by that, Rush?” Well, very simple, folks. They don’t believe in creation. They believe in evolution. And they were swimming around in some primordial soup as amoebas or some other fishy life form. They were swimming around in the algae, swimming around in the pond scum.

....

The best argument against evolution is liberals. Liberalism and liberals themselves are the best argument against evolution. So why is it so hard to believe they have a genetic defect when they insist and they teach that they are descended from pond scum?

And the write up on is even from a fan!

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/rush-limbaugh-on-evolution-again/

NJCardFan
02-11-2011, 10:29 AM
You know Wilbur, I love how you completely blew by my post about Olbermann mocking Tony Snow after he resigned his position as press sec'y. Snow gave up the post because he had terminal colon cancer and wanted to spend his last months with his family but Olbermann openly mocked him. I've never seen Beck, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh openly mock a dying person. Obermann did. And before you decide to trot out the Michael J. Fox thing, remember this, Fox was using his disease as a political weapon and deserved to be mocked for it.

txradioguy
02-11-2011, 10:44 AM
Oh, here's another interesting quote that captures some of Rush's hateful rhetoric and just pure unabashed deplorable scientific incompetence to boot:



Liberalism: A genetic defect. Why not? In fact, liberals are descended from pond scum. They say so. They claim it to be true. They insist, they teach that they are descended from pond scum. “What do you mean by that, Rush?” Well, very simple, folks. They don’t believe in creation. They believe in evolution. And they were swimming around in some primordial soup as amoebas or some other fishy life form. They were swimming around in the algae, swimming around in the pond scum.

....

The best argument against evolution is liberals. Liberalism and liberals themselves are the best argument against evolution. So why is it so hard to believe they have a genetic defect when they insist and they teach that they are descended from pond scum?

And the write up on is even from a fan!

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/rush-limbaugh-on-evolution-again/

As opposed to this:

"the extra-chromosome right wing."

txradioguy
02-11-2011, 10:46 AM
Oh, here's another interesting quote that captures some of Rush's hateful rhetoric and just pure unabashed deplorable scientific incompetence to boot:



Liberalism: A genetic defect. Why not? In fact, liberals are descended from pond scum. They say so. They claim it to be true. They insist, they teach that they are descended from pond scum. “What do you mean by that, Rush?” Well, very simple, folks. They don’t believe in creation. They believe in evolution. And they were swimming around in some primordial soup as amoebas or some other fishy life form. They were swimming around in the algae, swimming around in the pond scum.

....

The best argument against evolution is liberals. Liberalism and liberals themselves are the best argument against evolution. So why is it so hard to believe they have a genetic defect when they insist and they teach that they are descended from pond scum?

And the write up on is even from a fan!

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/rush-limbaugh-on-evolution-again/

How exactly is that hateful or inaccurate? Especially in light of the mountains of evidence we've presented that shows much more accurate portrayals of hateful speech from the left?

txradioguy
02-11-2011, 11:01 AM
• "I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out." (Ed Schultz)

• "Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 14 who came from Saudi Arabia?" (Mike Malloy)

• "[Dick] Cheney, by the way, looks very ruddy. I couldn’t get over that. Like, he must have feaster on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. He must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood." (Mike Malloy)

■ Conservatives Want You to Die: “If, in fact, the GOP doesn’t like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?...When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot ‘em! Kill them!...Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” (Montel Williams)

■ Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: “[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps....This is an evil bitch from Hell.” (Mike Malloy)

■ Dick Cheney Should Die: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country....Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” (Ed Schultz)

■ Rush Limbaugh Should Die: “I’m waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he’s choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.” (Mike Malloy)

■ Michele Bachmann Should Die: “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” (Montel Williams)

“He’s a fat conservative butthead/Sick Republican sleazeball/Fearmongering scumbag/ Egotistical asswipe/Mean-spirited, hog-wallowing, fat conservative putz/With the face of a horse’s ass/Mega dildos, Rush!”
— From a Randi Rhodes Show parody song attacking Rush Limbaugh, May 18, 2010.

“Now, you don’t believe, gentle listener, that these Free Republic, Limbaugh, Drudge Report suck-heads are not completely mad? They’re completely insane? And you know who is the perfect personification of this madness, is their new darling, Sarah Palin....I can look at Sarah Palin and look at her eyes and see a total collapse of anything that even resembles reality. This is a woman who is absorbing more and more and more of her own life force, if you know what I mean by that. She is eating herself alive. She honestly is starting to believe what the brain-dead teabaggers and birthers and, and — ‘Obama’s health care plan is to murder old people’ — what — the adulation and the praise and the cheering that they heap on this crazy psychopath, when she makes a public speech. And I’m hoping, I’m praying, while I — I don’t pray — while I hope that Rush Limbaugh will choke to death on his own throat fat, I also hope that Sarah Palin will drive herself completely, completely into madness, and I think the possibility truly exists.”
— Mike Malloy, The Mike Malloy Show, July 28, 2009

“Republicans are evil sons-of-bitches. The Republican Party needs to be murdered. It needs to — it’s like if you had a nest of rats in your house, or a hornets nest under the eaves at your barn or your house, and you knew they were going to do harm to you, your family, your kid — if you live on the farm, your livestock, whatever. What would you do? Of course — you’d get an exterminator and you would murder the nest and get rid of it. Just get rid of it. This is what America needs right now; they need to have the Republican Party eliminated, totally, completely. It is destructive, it is negative, it is sick. [laughs] A mercy killing is what’s needed here.”
— Mike Malloy, The Mike Malloy Show, February 4, 2009.

“For the people who give a damn about what I say about the Republican Party being murdered, of course it needs to be murdered. It needs to be ended. It is a force for destruction in this country unlike anything that’s ever been domestic. It really is. The commies, the spies sent by the Germans, the freaks, even [Rush] Limbaugh — the head of the Republican Party — is not as damaging as these Republican officeholders....The Republican Party needs to be executed. Rush Limbaugh needs to choke to death on his own fat....The Republican Party needs to be beheaded. It needs to be taken out on some dark moonless night in the middle of a corn field and decapitated.”
— Mike Malloy, The Mike Malloy Show, February 18, 2009.

“I have a good news to report: Glenn Beck appears ever closer to suicide. I’m hoping that he does it on camera. Suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies towards self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glenn Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, that it’s on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular little piece of video for months.”
— Mike Malloy, The Mike Malloy Show, August 4, 2009.

“The Limbaugh story — I got my hopes up, I really did....What’s the matter, Rush — a little too much Viagra? Those 14-year olds really wear you down, won’t they? Oh, my God, what a joke that was! If Limbaugh would have died, I would have demanded to see the death certificate because, after all, it is Hawaii....I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!”
— Mike Malloy on the January 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show, talking about Rush Limbaugh going to the hospital after suffering chest pains.

Host Ed Schultz: “Speaking of sports, [Fox News hosts Bill] O’Reilly, [Glenn] Beck and Geraldo [Rivera] go to a Yankees game this weekend and somehow they ended up in the front row. How in the heck did they ever manage that, Steph?”
Radio host Stephanie Miller: “Ah, Ed. You know if ever there was a time I wish the Yankees would bring back Bat Day, and give a bunch of drunken New Yorkers bats, that would have been the day.”
— Exchange on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, July 23, 2010.

http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2010/RealRadioHatemongers/BabyEatingNazis.aspx



On May 12, New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin wrote a piece criticizing Air America, saying he had listened to the liberal radio network one day for 10 hours.
"The queen of venom, Randi Rhodes, followed [Al] Franken in the host slot," Goodwin wrote. "Her imitation of a cracker military type telling a soldier to 'insert this fluorescent light bulb into that man's buttocks' was revolting. She compared U.S. prisons in Iraq to the 'Nazi gulag' and said, 'The day I say thank you to Rumsfeld is the same day I'll say thank you to the 12 people who raped me.'

Goodwin then notes Rhodes compared Bush and his family to the Corleones in the "Godfather" saga.

A review of the show's recording reveals Rhodes said the following in a discussion with a caller:

"The Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn't his father or his brother … take him out for a little fishing, and let him say some Hail Marys – he loves God so much. … You know, Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee – pow [gunshot sound] – works for me.


http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30069#ixzz1DfNRGOG5



And there's plenty more where that came from. Now do you obtuse Libtards REALLY want to try and play this game?

Odysseus
02-11-2011, 11:12 AM
Actually, it was your move from the clear and intentional words of Glenn Beck that described his desire to choke the life out of MM, to Jews and Nazi's (as if the two are equivalent) that got all abstract.

As it is, I don't necessarily think hate is wrong - it can be a useful motivator. But either way, we're back to the point - its not Keith's hate you should be taking issue with.

So, hate is okay if it is useful? Then the hate that Hitler espoused, being useful to his aims, was not wrong? The hatred that communists espouse towards capitalists, which furthers their power over them, is okay because it serves a useful end? Olbermann's hatred of conservatives advances the power of the media and the ruling elites, which includes him, so his hate is justified because it serves his end.


Take the first Keith quote - IF what Keith says is true, that 45,000 deaths per year are caused by some particular flaw in our medical system wich his ideological foes are interested in preserving, is he right to hate them? Well, it certainly looks like you are committed to answering that with a resounding "yes".

So then your beef with him is about the analysis of factual matters, not his hate.

My beef is with both, since his analysis drives his hate. And we both know that what Kieth says is absolutely false. He's using hate to delegitimze his ideological opponents and support arguments that cannot be justified by facts. He substitutes emotion for reason, and then serves up hate for the reasonable.


Well, Keith is a little more articulate, and wields a bigger vocabulary than either Rush or Beck - but that's about the only difference.
If you consider an encyclopedic knowledge of profanity and tourette's syndrome indicators of articulation and vocabulary, you are correct. Olbermann also foams at the mouth and suffers from hydrophobia.


No, I'm doing my best to show you that they're all hateful assholes - and accuracy and truth are the least of their concerns.

Your best has been found wanting.

wilbur
02-11-2011, 11:28 AM
So, hate is okay if it is useful? Then the hate that Hitler espoused, being useful to his aims, was not wrong?


Hate is OK if its useful for something good. You know, like guns, knives and nuclear bombs.



My beef is with both, since his analysis drives his hate. And we both know that what Kieth says is absolutely false.

So Rush's untruths demand rigorous proof from impeccable sources, but Keiths require only bare assertion.... nice!



He's using hate to delegitimze his ideological opponents and support arguments that cannot be justified by facts. He substitutes emotion for reason, and then serves up hate for the reasonable.


Wait, are you talking about Rush here too, or Beck? Coulter maybe? It works for them all.

wilbur
02-11-2011, 11:30 AM
How exactly is that hateful or inaccurate? Especially in light of the mountains of evidence we've presented that shows much more accurate portrayals of hateful speech from the left?


Oh brother.....

wilbur
02-11-2011, 11:37 AM
And there's plenty more where that came from. Now do you obtuse Libtards REALLY want to try and play this game?

Do you really have to ask? For your reading pleasure:



I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for."

- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95


"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. This is not a message of hate; this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."

- Pat Robertson, speaking of organizers putting rainbow flags up around Orlando to support sexual diversity, Washington Post, 06-10-98. For the record, Orlando remains undestroyed by meteors.


"Environmentalists are a socialist group of individuals that are the tool of the Democrat Party. I'm proud to say that they are my enemy. They are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans."

- Rep. Don Young (R-AK), Alaska Public Radio, 08-19-96


"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."

- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton, as reported by journalist Steve Miner of KSUB radio who overheard his conversation, 11-01-98


"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."

- Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95



"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02



"Homosexuals want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."

- Pat Robertson again, The 700 Club, 01-18-95



"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01


"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02


And... as you say... theres MUCH more where that came from. So yea... that's so much better, what was I thinking!?

txradioguy
02-11-2011, 01:13 PM
Do you really have to ask? For your reading pleasure:

Yes I do. Because NONE of the weak bullshit you come up with rises to anywhere near the level of violence and outright calls for murder that the left eschews on a nightly basis.

No where on the right do you see commentators hoping for the suicide or violent death of a talking head on the left.

You don't hear Fox News commentators or Rush Limbaugh saying that (Liberal idiot) feasts on the blood of babies or should commit suicide.

Where have you seen a conervative commentator refer to a black politician on the left as a "house negro"?

Answer: Never. And you never will.

Your attempt to equivicate thehatred murderous calls from the left with anything the right has said...has resulted in the normal giant fail on your part rubilw.

Bring your A game next time clueless.



"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01

That's more in reference to how despots (the Clinton's) handled us common folk who dared disagree with them.

And he is simply saying that Chelsea is guilty by association.

Certainly Derbyshire is not calling for Chelsea's death.

Your reading comprehension sucks.


"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02


Do you even KNOW who John Walker is? Do you know what he did? Damn right that traitor should have ben executed for treason.

As for her comment about the NY Times. Can't argue there either as the "paper of record" has done everything it could over the last 12 odd years to undermine this country's efforts to fight the war on terror by broadcasting every clandestine operation we've tried on the front page of their paper. From tracing al-Qaeda bank accounts to telling the world we could spy in their internet sites to conspiring with Wiklileaks...the NY Times has the blood of dead American soldiers and innocent civilians in two countries...if not more on their hands.



And... as you say... theres MUCH more where that came from. So yea... that's so much better, what was I thinking!?

And not a one of what you posted came with a link to allow independent verifiation of the veracity of the claims.

What were you thinking indeed!

:rolleyes:

wilbur
02-11-2011, 01:52 PM
And round and round we go... you asked for some quotes, I gave them... and confronted with them you make excuses and rationalizations for your own buddies for partaking in the same nonsense as your ideological foes. It has nothing to do with the actual content or meaning of the words - its about who said it, plain and simple.

Its obvious to every reasonable person here, that had ANY of those quotes on my list been uttered by Olberman or any other democrat - they would have been on your list and you'd be using them as proof of what hateful monsters they are.. But since they werent, you excuse them.


I understand you'll never admit it out loud, but you know its true. You know it. I know that you know it. I know that you know that I know.

And so does everybody else.

Yukon
02-11-2011, 01:58 PM
I've thought about killing him.



Odysseus,

You should be carful when you threatened to kill someone, even in jest. Surely you are aware of the Patriot Act which was crafted into law by G Bush, Junior? This act makes comments like yours not only racist but illegal.

Im bringing this to your attention my friend because I dont want to see you get in trouble with the CIAstapo.

fettpett
02-11-2011, 02:03 PM
Odysseus,

You should be carful when you threatened to kill someone, even in jest. Surely you are aware of the Patriot Act which was crafted into law by G Bush, Junior? This act makes comments like yours not only racist but illegal.

Im bringing this to your attention my friend because I dont want to see you get in trouble with the CIAstapo.

why do you care so much about American Law...something you don't really understand either

Yukon
02-11-2011, 02:05 PM
why do you care so much about American Law...something you don't really understand either

I studied criminal law.

fettpett
02-11-2011, 02:09 PM
I studied criminal law.

North Montana law...Not American

txradioguy
02-11-2011, 02:13 PM
I studied Sharia criminal law.

Fixt.:cool:

Madisonian
02-11-2011, 02:16 PM
I studied criminal law.
Sure you did. Right between recess and blankie time.
Did you get your cookie and milk today.

txradioguy
02-11-2011, 02:20 PM
And round and round we go... you asked for some quotes, I gave them... and confronted with them you make excuses and rationalizations for your own buddies for partaking in the same nonsense as your ideological foes.

No I asked you to provide examples from commentators from the right who were calling for the same violent acts to include murdering a President and/or VP...calling for the deaths of conservative commentators and spewing anti-Semetic crap.

You could do none of that...as usual.



It has nothing to do with the actual content or meaning of the words - its about who said it, plain and simple

Nope. I can't stand Pat Buchannan...detest Ron Paul and I think Pat Robertson is an idiot.


Its obvious to every reasonable person here, that had ANY of those quotes on my list been uttered by Olberman or any other democrat - they would have been on your list and you'd be using them as proof of what hateful monsters they are.. But since they werent, you excuse them.

That might be your rational for what makes the list and what doesn't. But not mine. And judging from the comments here...not anyone elses but yours.

You seem to be spitting into the wind on this issue...losing badly but claiming victory.

Typical Lib.

What you've attempted to post as hate speech is not even close...no matter who says it.

What I posted clearly is hate speech and incitement of violent acts and somehow you're disminssing it as no big thing.

Now who is deciding what passes muster and what doesn't based on partisian petty crap?
I understand you'll never admit it out loud, but you know its true. You know it. I know that you know it. I know that you know that I know.


And so does everybody else.

Only if by "everyone else" you mean you and your shadow.

Take a look around you rubliw...no one else is agreeing with you.

Odysseus
02-11-2011, 02:57 PM
Hate is OK if its useful for something good. You know, like guns, knives and nuclear bombs.

The end justifies the means, in other words? Hate is good if it's used to motivate people to confiscate property in support of global warming, but not good if it's used to motivate people to confiscate property in support of the Third Reich? That's idiotic, even for you. By that logic, irrational hate, such as racism, is perfectly acceptable if it is harnessed in a good cause. Muslim hatred of infidels, and the slaughter resulting from that hate, will eventually give us a unified world under one government, and theoretically, an end to war. Does that good justify the hatred and violence that will precede it?

Guns, knives and even nukes don't hate. They aren't even instruments of hate. They are tools, and like all tools, they can be used to create or destroy. The moral component is derived from what is done with them, not with what they are.


So Rush's untruths demand rigorous proof from impeccable sources, but Keiths require only bare assertion.... nice!

They demand any proof from an objective, or at least rational source. Media Matters exists solely to slander the political opponents of George Soros. They are no more reliable than Pravda or Isvestia were during the days of the Soviet Union. They have a documented history of fabricating quotes or taking them so far out of context as to completely distort the original meaning. Olbermann's quotes are documented, and his irrationality is obvious.


Wait, are you talking about Rush here too, or Beck? Coulter maybe? It works for them all.
Wilbur, it's bad enough that you are wrong, but you are tedious, as well. If you must be wrong, at least try to be entertaining. It's not like you have any informational value here, so you might as well amuse.

Adam Wood
02-11-2011, 02:58 PM
Odysseus,

You should be carful when you threatened to kill someone, even in jest. Surely you are aware of the Patriot Act which was crafted into law by G Bush, Junior? This act makes comments like yours not only racist but illegal.

Im bringing this to your attention my friend because I dont want to see you get in trouble with the CIAstapo.These are always fun.

OK, lawyer boi, tell the class precisely how the Patriot Act makes Odysseus' comment illegal. Then, tell everyone exactly what was changed by the Patriot Act.

Note: you may cite only the law itself. You may not cite blogs or other such moonbat rantings. Go get the actual law from law.cornell.edu or some actual reputable source showing the actual law. Then use that to show us stupid knuckledraggers just exactly what the Patriot Act does.

wilbur
02-11-2011, 02:59 PM
No I asked you to provide examples from commentators from the right who were calling for the same violent acts to include murdering a President and/or VP...calling for the deaths of conservative commentators and spewing anti-Semetic crap.

You could do none of that...as usual.


Hahaha, the first quote I pasted in this fucking thread was Glenn Beck describing how he'd like to choke the life out of Michael Moore you dubmass.

No, none of that at all man... heh.




What I posted clearly is hate speech and incitement of violent acts and somehow you're disminssing it as no big thing.


Again - idiot - pay attention. I'm not dismissing it, I don't like any of it, and I think its all rediculous. I'm not saying everybody does it so its all OK. I'm saying it all stinks like shit, so quit the bullshit act that yours doesnt.


If you are serously trying to gain some moral highground by claiming that your own team simply fantasizes about choking the life out of their ideological foes, while the other claims you eat babies and should die - well fuck, what prize do you think your going to get if you win the argument?

Maybe Charles Manson wasnt quite as bad as Jeffery Dahmer but some peoples standards, but that doesnt make Charles Manson a wonderful guy.

wilbur
02-11-2011, 03:32 PM
The end justifies the means, in other words?

Yes, the ends do justify the means, in my opinion. Its called consequentialist ethics. The typical meme among most people is that such a principle is abhorrent - but most people don't really think it through.

So I'm always happy to clear up some confusion... if you want, we can even take this to another thread.



Hate is good if it's used to motivate people to confiscate property in support of global warming, but not good if it's used to motivate people to confiscate property in support of the Third Reich?

First of all - I never claimed "hate is good if its used to motivate people to confiscate property in support of global warming", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

But either way, if the "confiscating of peoples property in support of global warming" is good, then some hate that motivated it might be as well. I'm not saying it is good, but IF it were, then that hate might be too.



That's idiotic, even for you. By that logic, irrational hate, such as racism, is perfectly acceptable if it is harnessed in a good cause. Muslim hatred of infidels, and the slaughter resulting from that hate, will eventually give us a unified world under one government, and theoretically, an end to war. Does that good justify the hatred and violence that will precede it?


Ok, so you are now on record as claiming that Muslim conquest and a unified Islamic government is a good cause. Call me crazy, but I disagree - I don't believe that is a good thing. So why on earth would I consider the hate that enabled it, a good thing?

Of course, hate itself is generally a pretty undesirable sensation - and can lead to many bad consequences itself. So generally we'd only use it to bring about some good if it were necessary, and there were no other way.



Guns, knives and even nukes don't hate. They aren't even instruments of hate. They are tools, and like all tools, they can be used to create or destroy. The moral component is derived from what is done with them, not with what they are.


Right, and apply that principle to negative emotions like hate, and you'll be getting somewhere. It might be true that hate, like some forms of suffering, are necessary for greater goods.

And really man, I can't keep up. First you make moves to justify the hatred that you or Beck might feel towards MM as rational and good (or at least understandable) - or the hate that a Jew might feel for a Nazi - now seem to be moving towards the point that hate is just wrong by its very nature. You seem to be going in contradictory directions.



They demand any proof from an objective, or at least rational source. Media Matters exists solely to slander the political opponents of George Soros. They are no more reliable than Pravda or Isvestia were during the days of the Soviet Union. They have a documented history of fabricating quotes or taking them so far out of context as to completely distort the original meaning. Olbermann's quotes are documented, and his irrationality is obvious.


And Rush, Beck et al don't? C'mon dude, give it up. Yea, all the left outlets are controlled by billionares conspiring against you... but all the right media outlets and personalities are fighting for what's right and true. The more and more we talk, the more I pity you for being such a patsie.

Odysseus
02-11-2011, 07:14 PM
Yes, the ends do justify the means, in my opinion. Its called consequentialist ethics. The typical meme among most people is that such a principle is abhorrent - but most people don't really think it through.
Or have thought it through and still find it abhorrent. But, it does explain a lot about you.

One of the arguments against consequentialism is that it makes no distinctions between good and evil. Good is subjective, and therefore, conflicting. In your philosophy, any means is acceptable for resolving these conflicts, since the only thing that matters is the end. Thus, all moral or ethical constraints fall before the ultimate good of the strongest, most violent or ruthless faction or individual. A consequentialist would not have a problem with cheating, lying or stealing, if it put him ahead of his peers, so long as he knew that he would not get caught. A consequentialist party would resort to any means to impose its will, as we have seen in the run up to the Obamacare votes.


So I'm always happy to clear up some confusion... if you want, we can even take this to another thread.
No confusion. I figured you for a utilitarian, but it's not often that someone admits to a philosophy that is as morally bankrupt as yours.


First of all - I never claimed "hate is good if its used to motivate people to confiscate property in support of global warming", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

You claimed that hate is good if it leads to a good end, or words to that effect. But what you and I see as good ends may be radically different, so employing hate as a tool of political expediency, rather than as an honest expression of emotion based on real commitment to ideas or people, simply turns the national debate into a shouting match and a race to the lowest attack, which is where we find Olbermann.


But either way, if the "confiscating of peoples property in support of global warming" is good, then some hate that motivated it might be as well. I'm not saying it is good, but IF it were, then that hate might be too.
So, you are in favor of demagoguery if it serves your purposes?


Ok, so you are now on record as claiming that Muslim conquest and a unified Islamic government is a good cause. Call me crazy, but I disagree - I don't believe that is a good thing. So why on earth would I consider the hate that enabled it, a good thing?
I don't consider it good, either, but the jihadis do. Therefore, they would consider the hate that enabled it a good thing. Their version of good justifies all manner of horrors. What moral argument do you have to oppose theirs, if the only thing that matters is achieving what you consider good? If anything, the jihadis embody your ethos, since their fundamental definition of what is good is that which advances Islam, and that which is bad is anything that prevents its advance. Thus, murder, deceit, treachery and torture are justified if they advance the will of Allah. People have no rights except those that Allah has said that they have, and even then, they may be abrogated if the person demanding the rights goes against the interpreters of the holy faith.


Of course, hate itself is generally a pretty undesirable sensation - and can lead to many bad consequences itself. So generally we'd only use it to bring about some good if it were necessary, and there were no other way.

Why? You find hate undesirable, but others do not. Olbermann fairly wallows in it, or seems to, since if he were using it to bring about what he considered some good, he'd feel perfectly justified in acting the part and trying to whip up others. In fact, it would be impossible to tell if he were acting or were really sincere when frothing at the mouth, another flaw in the kind of situational ethics that you espouse.


Right, and apply that principle to negative emotions like hate, and you'll be getting somewhere. It might be true that hate, like some forms of suffering, are necessary for greater goods.

Ah, the "greater good." The rallying cry of tyrants everywhere.


And really man, I can't keep up. First you make moves to justify the hatred that you or Beck might feel towards MM as rational and good (or at least understandable) - or the hate that a Jew might feel for a Nazi - now seem to be moving towards the point that hate is just wrong by its very nature. You seem to be going in contradictory directions.
I didn't say that it was wrong. Real hate, the "deep, enduring, intense emotion expressing animosity, anger, and hostility towards a person, group, or object" (the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology), is not a tool (unless you are a fraud), but a visceral reaction to something that repels, disgusts or enrages us. Hatred reveals character. A man who hates strangers for no reason but that he doesn't like their skin color is a monster. A man who hates those who have tried to harm him is rational. Olbermann hates people who disagree with him, but who have done him no harm. Limbaugh treats people who disagree with him as an amusement, and subjects them to ridicule, but Olbermann sees his adversaries as evil and worthy of nothing but destruction. If he means it, he's a monster. If he doesn't, he's a demagogue. Glenn Beck doesn't hate liberals, but he is frightened by their actions, and that is what comes across in his show. His only expression of hate, for Michael Moore, was about a man who had betrayed his nation, and clearly enjoyed it. I hate Moore for the same reason, and one other, which is that if he had his way, my wife would have been a widow and my children left fatherless. Again, I consider the hatred of such a man to be moral, ethical and logical.


And Rush, Beck et al don't? C'mon dude, give it up. Yea, all the left outlets are controlled by billionares conspiring against you... but all the right media outlets and personalities are fighting for what's right and true. The more and more we talk, the more I pity you for being such a patsie.

If Rush or Beck have fabricated quotes, then you'd be able to provide them, wouldn't you? And yet, you don't...

BTW, I meant what I said about hatred revealing character. You can tell a lot about someone by who or what he hates. So, tell me, Wilbur, since you are so sure that your character is infinitely superior to ours, exactly who or what do you hate?

txradioguy
02-11-2011, 11:10 PM
Hahaha, the first quote I pasted in this fucking thread was Glenn Beck describing how he'd like to choke the life out of Michael Moore you dubmass.

And again...as has been pointed out...you were taking what he said out of context.



Again - idiot - pay attention. I'm not dismissing it, I don't like any of it, and I think its all rediculous. I'm not saying everybody does it so its all OK. I'm saying it all stinks like shit, so quit the bullshit act that yours doesnt.

You are doing exactly that. But you are doing it by equivocation. It's ok that people like Mike Malloy say this absolutely horrible stuff...because the people I don't like...Rush and Beck say some things that I THINK are just as bad."

That is precisely what you're doing.


If you are serously trying to gain some moral highground by claiming that your own team simply fantasizes about choking the life out of their ideological foes, while the other claims you eat babies and should die - well fuck, what prize do you think your going to get if you win the argument?

You mean besides the fact I've proven you completely wrong...again?

wilbur
02-12-2011, 12:13 AM
Wow Ody, you are so off the mark, I don't know where to begin. Its blown even before the end of the first sentence.

Consequentialists most certainly do make distinctions between moral goods and moral evils. No clue what you're talking about there....

Consequentialists begin by trying to define a principle (or principles) describes what the greatest end is (ie, what is morally good). Sure, there is conflict and debate about what that principle should be, and whether it is objectively real or subjective.. but uh, you'll literally find the same type of debate raging in every single area of moral philosophy. Modern consequentialists come in many different flavors, but my particular flavor holds that maximizing the well-being of creatures with minds, as that principle. So, when deciding between different courses of actions, I can say - "what action generally contributes to the well-being of creatures with minds"?

And no - consequentalism doesn't hold that any old means are acceptable as long as they can bring about some narrowly defined goal of their own choosing. As a consequentialist, you don't just get to go, "Hey, I want X, therefore I can kill, rape and steal to get it if I want". That's absurd.

Consequentials must sum *all* of the positive and negative consequences of an action in their moral calculations. This is where almost all the typical, ill-considered objections to "the ends justify the means" fail - objections like yours. Things like lying, stealing, cheating, can all come with negative consequences which are invariably brushed under the rug in these shallow objections. Often you alienate others, harm yourself or others psychologically, contribute to degradation of a system of rules and rights which ultimately benefit you and the rest of the people for whom you also want to maximize well-being, or you even materially deprive someone of something they value, when committing many of those acts - those are ends too, and so they must be considered.

Notice how hard it actually is to describe why something like stealing is actually wrong... without describing its negative consequences or just flat out asserting that its wrong with no explanation. A consequentialist has to count those negative consequences. It only sounds like the "ends justify the means" leads to atrocities... till you realize that atrocities are consequences too.

However, a consequentialist might easily know when to lie or cheat. A consequentialist in Nazi germany would have had no problem lying to the German soldiers at his door in order to protect the Jews he had hidden in his basement. Lying may have some bad consequences, but in this case it would be the obvious moral course of action. One who is concerned with categorical imperatives (ie, the intrinsic nature of the act) is faced with a bigger dilemma.

Also notice just how hard it is to think of an act which has only positive consequences, but is evil. Notice how hard it is to think of an act which has only evil consequences, but is good. If you can rise to either of those challenges and name an act which fits either of those bills, I'll stop being a consequentialist right now, this instant.

Odysseus
02-12-2011, 09:46 PM
Wow Ody, you are so off the mark, I don't know where to begin. Its blown even before the end of the first sentence.

I guess that's why you felt safe ignoring the last sentence, which is a question that I'll ask for the third time: What do you hate, Wilbur?


Consequentialists most certainly do make distinctions between moral goods and moral evils. No clue what you're talking about there....

Consequentialists begin by trying to define a principle (or principles) describes what the greatest end is (ie, what is morally good). Sure, there is conflict and debate about what that principle should be, and whether it is objectively real or subjective.. but uh, you'll literally find the same type of debate raging in every single area of moral philosophy. Modern consequentialists come in many different flavors, but my particular flavor holds that maximizing the well-being of creatures with minds, as that principle. So, when deciding between different courses of actions, I can say - "what action generally contributes to the well-being of creatures with minds"?
And what defines a mind? We know that chimpanzees can sign when they have been taught the language, as can gorillas. OTOH, infants lack that capacity. Thus, by your own "reasoning", and infant's well-being has less moral worth than a chimp's.


And no - consequentalism doesn't hold that any old means are acceptable as long as they can bring about some narrowly defined goal of their own choosing. As a consequentialist, you don't just get to go, "Hey, I want X, therefore I can kill, rape and steal to get it if I want". That's absurd.

Is it? Why can you not kill, rape or steal if it accomplishes the highest good? A prime example is your ideal that the highest good is the well-being of creatures with minds. But not all minds are equal, are they? Albert Einstein was smarter than the guy who cleaned the sewers in front of his house, or the driver of the bus that he took to work, so obviously, the well-being of Einstein was a greater moral good than the well-being of Ed Norton or Ralph Kramden, regardless of how hard they worked to achieve theirs.


Consequentials must sum *all* of the positive and negative consequences of an action in their moral calculations. This is where almost all the typical, ill-considered objections to "the ends justify the means" fail - objections like yours. Things like lying, stealing, cheating, can all come with negative consequences which are invariably brushed under the rug in these shallow objections. Often you alienate others, harm yourself or others psychologically, contribute to degradation of a system of rules and rights which ultimately benefit you and the rest of the people for whom you also want to maximize well-being, or you even materially deprive someone of something they value, when committing many of those acts - those are ends too, and so they must be considered.

But no one person, or group of people, can sum up *all* of the positive and negative consequences of an action in their moral calculations, just as no one can sum up all of the positive and negative consequences of an action in economics, physics or any other field. The economy of the USSR demonstrates the former, Heisenberg, the latter. Instead, we have to assume that there are things which are unknown to us, and therefore our calculations must be based, not on omniscience, but on broad principals derived from moral codes. Thus, lying, cheating and stealing are not avoided because they may come back to bite you, but because a moral creature treats those with whom he interacts in the manner that he would want to be treated, until his experience with an individual forces him to reciprocate in kind.


Notice how hard it actually is to describe why something like stealing is actually wrong... without describing its negative consequences or just flat out asserting that its wrong with no explanation. A consequentialist has to count those negative consequences. It only sounds like the "ends justify the means" leads to atrocities... till you realize that atrocities are consequences too.

But I can describe why stealing is wrong without describing its consequences. I do not steal because I do not wish to be stolen from. I assume that others have the same right to keep and own property, and I respect it because I want my rights respected in the same way. I don't have to go through a convoluted exercise to justify my good conduct, I simply treat others as I hope to be treated, and if I am not treated that way, then I reciprocate. But, if a man can steal without any repercussions, if there is no way that he will be caught, no chance or risk, your moral code has nothing to tell him, whereas mine does.


However, a consequentialist might easily know when to lie or cheat. A consequentialist in Nazi germany would have had no problem lying to the German soldiers at his door in order to protect the Jews he had hidden in his basement. Lying may have some bad consequences, but in this case it would be the obvious moral course of action. One who is concerned with categorical imperatives (ie, the intrinsic nature of the act) is faced with a bigger dilemma.
But someone who followed the Golden Rule would also know that it was right to lie to the Nazis. He would be treating the hidden Jews the way that he would want to be treated, and treating the Nazis the way that he would expect them to treat him.


Also notice just how hard it is to think of an act which has only positive consequences, but is evil. Notice how hard it is to think of an act which has only evil consequences, but is good. If you can rise to either of those challenges and name an act which fits either of those bills, I'll stop being a consequentialist right now, this instant.

Actually, it isn't that hard at all. Good acts with horrible consequences happen all of the time. Neville Chamberlain sought peace, but his attempt to mollify Hitler ensured war. Hamlet's revenge upon his father's murderer was a good act that had only evil consequences. As for evil acts that produced great good, the Islamic conquest of the Christian kingdoms of the Levant was evil, but it ended European isolation, encouraged travel throughout the world, created a demand for exotic products from the orient, and led to the age of exploration.

But, getting back to the topic of the previous post, which you ignored to go off on a tangent, what do you hate, Wilbur? If you won't answer, just say so, but don't waste my time with these distractions.

wilbur
02-13-2011, 11:14 PM
Is it? Why can you not kill, rape or steal if it accomplishes the highest good?

The highest good?!?! Maybe if those actions produced the highest good and there were no better alternatives, then one might be obligated to commit them. But a consequentialist wouldnt be killing somebody because they desired their shoes or iPod and knew they wouldnt get caught - that's not the highest good. More will touch on this later in the post.



And what defines a mind? We know that chimpanzees can sign when they have been taught the language, as can gorillas. OTOH, infants lack that capacity. Thus, by your own "reasoning", and infant's well-being has less moral worth than a chimp's.

...

A prime example is your ideal that the highest good is the well-being of creatures with minds. But not all minds are equal, are they? Albert Einstein was smarter than the guy who cleaned the sewers in front of his house, or the driver of the bus that he took to work, so obviously, the well-being of Einstein was a greater moral good than the well-being of Ed Norton or Ralph Kramden, regardless of how hard they worked to achieve theirs.

Well according me, obligations certainly will vary depending on the nature of the mind in question. We won't have all the same obligations towards animals that we have towards humans, for example. But I don't think I'd say we have more moral obligations to Einstein that we do to Joe Schmoe. Naming IQ or mathmatical and scientific prowess as the morally superior abilities of the mind is not something my principle does or entails.


But no one person, or group of people, can sum up *all* of the positive and negative consequences of an action in their moral calculations, just as no one can sum up all of the positive and negative consequences of an action in economics, physics or any other field. The economy of the USSR demonstrates the former, Heisenberg, the latter. Instead, we have to assume that there are things which are unknown to us, and therefore our calculations must be based, not on omniscience, but on broad principals derived from moral codes. Thus, lying, cheating and stealing are not avoided because they may come back to bite you, but because a moral creature treats those with whom he interacts in the manner that he would want to be treated, until his experience with an individual forces him to reciprocate in kind.

Uh well, there's no argument from me that we aren't omniscient, and therefore won't always know all the consequences of our actions. But we aren't omniscient when discovering, deriving, or applying broad moral principles either. So we do the best we can, no big deal. This is either a fatal problem for every moral theory, or for none. Finite knowledge doesn't stop physicists from doing physics, or economists from doing economics. Just the same, it doesn't stop a consequentialist from doing their honest best to evaluate the possible consequences of their actions.

As it is, broad moral principles are not off limits to consequentialists either. In fact, I would say broad moral principles have their best justifications rooted in consequentialism. How else can you claim that the golden rule is a just and good moral principle, if not for the effects it produces in the world? How else can you say natural rights are good or evil if not for the prosperity and well being that results from valuing them? If natural rights or the golden rule produced nothing but pain and misery, we'd be calling them morally abhorrent - and rightly so.

Consequentialists recognize broad moral principles for what they are - useful heuristics. They are cognitive shortcuts for moral reasoning that are known to produce good consequences across a variety of situations, most of the time. However, we all know that sometimes principles fail to produce good results in many edge cases... and so in those edge cases, the consequentialist *may* violate those principles if it really seems necessary to produce a good. The principle "lying is wrong" may be good most of the time, but it fails in the Nazi/Jew example. Since the consequentailist is aware of why this rule is justified, he has a reliable framework to determine when it might actually be wrong, in the few situations that it is.


But I can describe why stealing is wrong without describing its consequences. I do not steal because I do not wish to be stolen from. I assume that others have the same right to keep and own property, and I respect it because I want my rights respected in the same way. I don't have to go through a convoluted exercise to justify my good conduct, I simply treat others as I hope to be treated, and if I am not treated that way, then I reciprocate. But, if a man can steal without any repercussions, if there is no way that he will be caught, no chance or risk, your moral code has nothing to tell him, whereas mine does.

This is false for at least three reasons.

First (as I explained above), broad moral principles find their best justifications under consequentialism. If you don't justify those broad moral principles, they are simply arbitrary (and that's not morality).

Second, because you're acting like a consequentalist without even realizing it. You believing adhering to the golden rule will contribute to the ongoing prosperity of a society of people who also follow similar rules. That's a consequence you're concerned with, buddy. And consequences provide good reasons for consequentialists to behave, even when no one is looking.

Thirdly, in my form of consequentialism I am not just concerned with consequences for my own well being. I am concerned with consequences for every being which has a mind, as I said earlier. So I have reason to behave even when nobody is looking, if I think my actions will unnecessarily harm another mind.



But someone who followed the Golden Rule would also know that it was right to lie to the Nazis. He would be treating the hidden Jews the way that he would want to be treated, and treating the Nazis the way that he would expect them to treat him.


If you are following the golden rule here, you face a dilemma. Most people probably don't like to be lied too, so you really wouldn't want to lie to the Nazi's. But if you were in the Jews position, you surely would want someone to save you. So how do you resolve this dilemma? You start thinking about the probable consequences of the two alternatives, and which ones are more desirable. Whoa, you just became a consequentialist without even knowing it.

In fact, I'd argue that most people are consequentialists without even knowing it. It tends to be how our moral intuitions operate almost all of the time. Consequentialism is how we decide to go to war, enact public policy, and choose between competing alternatives in just about every single area of our lives.


Actually, it isn't that hard at all. Good acts with horrible consequences happen all of the time. Neville Chamberlain sought peace, but his attempt to mollify Hitler ensured war. Hamlet's revenge upon his father's murderer was a good act that had only evil consequences.

These are just problems of knowledge and hindsight. If Neville had perfect knowledge of all the true outcomes of his decisions, he might have been obligated to act differently. But he did the best he could. In retrospect we might analyze the situation and decide the actions were morally bad - but we couldn't say he acted immorally, given the information he had at the time. In other words, its additional knowledge that could have produced a better world, not a different moral theory.


As for evil acts that produced great good, the Islamic conquest of the Christian kingdoms of the Levant was evil, but it ended European isolation, encouraged travel throughout the world, created a demand for exotic products from the orient, and led to the age of exploration.

Same as above. The other issue here is that you are only considering a couple neat little goods that arose from the bad, but arent considering the sum of all the consequences, good and bad - and that's the crucial point you need to get here.

Also, consequentialists are concerned with choosing the optimal path to their good consequences. If there is another course of action that would have produced European worldiness, travel, demand for oriental goods, etc, that didnt require war and genocide (ie, big producers of bad consequences), then they would be obligated to choose it instead. So this is all just a horribly shallow analysis.

So by this point, I hope its clear that consequentialism is not this horrible monster that you think it is, that will result in people cheating and stealing all the time for shallow, self-serving reasons. Its just not the case, in any way shape or form. Almost all of us are consequentialists whether we realize it or not.


But, getting back to the topic of the previous post, which you ignored to go off on a tangent, what do you hate, Wilbur? If you won't answer, just say so, but don't waste my time with these distractions.

Honestly, I don't know if hate anybody. I really don't. My anger usually quickly dissolves into pity and/or frustration. Maybe I can say I hate things like diseases, injustice etc.. Maybe the media might qualify, if that wasnt already evident by this thread.

wilbur
02-14-2011, 05:41 PM
Actually, I have thought of something I hate.....

Parents who bring their infants to late night R-Rated movies.

Had to deal with that shit the other weekend and it was ridiculous. The kids had to be under four years old. I did manage to peg one of the parents in the head though with some theater garbage, after they were just sitting there while their kids were crying.

Thankfully after that they got the message.. they took them out of the theater.

The others in the theater clapped.

Madisonian
02-14-2011, 05:50 PM
Actually, I have thought of something I hate.....

Parents who bring their infants to late night R-Rated movies.

Had to deal with that shit the other weekend and it was ridiculous. The kids had to be under four years old. I did manage to peg one of the parents in the head though with some theater garbage, after they were just sitting there while their kids were crying.

Thankfully after that they got the message.. they took them out of the theater.

The others in the theater clapped.

Smelling a bouncy here...

Rockntractor
02-14-2011, 05:51 PM
Actually, I have thought of something I hate.....

Parents who bring their infants to late night R-Rated movies.

Had to deal with that shit the other weekend and it was ridiculous. The kids had to be under four years old. I did manage to peg one of the parents in the head though with some theater garbage, after they were just sitting there while their kids were crying.

Thankfully after that they got the message.. they took them out of the theater.

The others in the theater clapped.

Did you go to the movie by yourself?

Zathras
02-14-2011, 07:30 PM
Did you go to the movie by yourself?

Nope, wilbur was the one making a fuss and his parents took him out of the movie to the applause of the rest of the audience.

wilbur
02-14-2011, 07:37 PM
Heh - always interesting to see what actually passes for wit at the ol' CU

Madisonian
02-14-2011, 07:46 PM
Heh - always interesting to see what actually passes for wit at the ol' CU
Being that you are a charter member of the Witless Protection Program, why am I not surprised.

Rockntractor
02-14-2011, 07:47 PM
Heh - always interesting to see what actually passes for wit at the ol' CU

Did you buy something special for your right hand for valentines day, maybe a new leather jacket or something?:confused:

Articulate_Ape
02-14-2011, 07:48 PM
Heh - always interesting to see what actually passes for wit at the ol' CU

We'd all call you a wit, but we'd only be half right.

Rockntractor
02-14-2011, 07:56 PM
This would make a lovely valentine gift for your hand, when you want rough sex just wear the left glove on your right hand.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Leather_gloves.jpg

fettpett
02-14-2011, 08:07 PM
This would make a lovely valentine gift for your hand, when you want rough sex just wear the left glove on your right hand.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Leather_gloves.jpg

ouch

Odysseus
02-15-2011, 05:10 PM
The highest good?!?! Maybe if those actions produced the highest good and there were no better alternatives, then one might be obligated to commit them. But a consequentialist wouldnt be killing somebody because they desired their shoes or iPod and knew they wouldnt get caught - that's not the highest good. More will touch on this later in the post.
But to a jihadi, the advance of Islam is the highest good, and the Qur'an explicitly compels rape, murder and theft, provided the victims are infidels.


Well according me, obligations certainly will vary depending on the nature of the mind in question. We won't have all the same obligations towards animals that we have towards humans, for example. But I don't think I'd say we have more moral obligations to Einstein that we do to Joe Schmoe. Naming IQ or mathmatical and scientific prowess as the morally superior abilities of the mind is not something my principle does or entails.

Why? If it's the presence of a mind that is the defining term, and we've established that other primates have minds, then why don't we have the same obligations to them? After all, a chimp and a five-year-old have roughly the same cognitive abilities. What, in your morality, is the distinction between the two?


Uh well, there's no argument from me that we aren't omniscient, and therefore won't always know all the consequences of our actions. But we aren't omniscient when discovering, deriving, or applying broad moral principles either. So we do the best we can, no big deal. This is either a fatal problem for every moral theory, or for none. Finite knowledge doesn't stop physicists from doing physics, or economists from doing economics. Just the same, it doesn't stop a consequentialist from doing their honest best to evaluate the possible consequences of their actions.
But finite knowledge does impact on those physicists and economists who don't know the limits of their knowledge. Socialism is the expression of economists attempting to solve an infinite set of problems with finite knowledge and capabilities, with the predictable results.


As it is, broad moral principles are not off limits to consequentialists either. In fact, I would say broad moral principles have their best justifications rooted in consequentialism. How else can you claim that the golden rule is a just and good moral principle, if not for the effects it produces in the world? How else can you say natural rights are good or evil if not for the prosperity and well being that results from valuing them? If natural rights or the golden rule produced nothing but pain and misery, we'd be calling them morally abhorrent - and rightly so.
But if the ends are the only result that matter, then would a system that provides more prosperity for some be a higher good? Isn't the definition of what is good just a matter of taste without universal guides?


Consequentialists recognize broad moral principles for what they are - useful heuristics. They are cognitive shortcuts for moral reasoning that are known to produce good consequences across a variety of situations, most of the time. However, we all know that sometimes principles fail to produce good results in many edge cases... and so in those edge cases, the consequentialist *may* violate those principles if it really seems necessary to produce a good. The principle "lying is wrong" may be good most of the time, but it fails in the Nazi/Jew example. Since the consequentailist is aware of why this rule is justified, he has a reliable framework to determine when it might actually be wrong, in the few situations that it is.

No, because the highest good is the preservation of innocent human life. It would be wrong to tell the Nazis where the Jews are hiding, but it would not be wrong to tell a police officer where a felon has hidden himself after committing a crime. And the reason that we preserve innocent life is that we are all equally entitled to that life, it is our one true birthright, in the most literal sense. It is a rights-based concept, not a consequence-based concept.


This is false for at least three reasons.

First (as I explained above), broad moral principles find their best justifications under consequentialism. If you don't justify those broad moral principles, they are simply arbitrary (and that's not morality).
This is your opinion, not a fact.


Second, because you're acting like a consequentalist without even realizing it. You believing adhering to the golden rule will contribute to the ongoing prosperity of a society of people who also follow similar rules. That's a consequence you're concerned with, buddy. And consequences provide good reasons for consequentialists to behave, even when no one is looking.

But I don't care about the prosperity of society. I care about my personal integrity and honor, which demands that I treat others the way that I have described. And while I do consider the consequences of my actions (as any sane person must), they are not the sum total of my motives, for very often, when I lack full knowledge of even the possibility of the different consequences that could result from a given choice, I find that I must act, not blindly, but within the constraints of my moral guidance and honor code.


Thirdly, in my form of consequentialism I am not just concerned with consequences for my own well being. I am concerned with consequences for every being which has a mind, as I said earlier. So I have reason to behave even when nobody is looking, if I think my actions will unnecessarily harm another mind.

In your form? Those goal posts seem to be a bit mobile for my taste. And the operative term is unnecessarily. What constraints are there if you feel the need to harm a mind for your own gain?


If you are following the golden rule here, you face a dilemma. Most people probably don't like to be lied too, so you really wouldn't want to lie to the Nazi's. But if you were in the Jews position, you surely would want someone to save you. So how do you resolve this dilemma? You start thinking about the probable consequences of the two alternatives, and which ones are more desirable. Whoa, you just became a consequentialist without even knowing it.
No, I think about my honor code, which states that I shall not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do. I have no moral obligation to liars, cheats and thieves, and the Nazis, having lied about Jews, cheated them of their most basic rights and robbed them of everything, including their lives, meet the criteria for being treated as moral lepers.


In fact, I'd argue that most people are consequentialists without even knowing it. It tends to be how our moral intuitions operate almost all of the time. Consequentialism is how we decide to go to war, enact public policy, and choose between competing alternatives in just about every single area of our lives.
So, Churchill's decision to oppose Hitler when Germany was triumphant on the continent, and was actually demobilizing forces in 1940, was based on his belief that Britain would be victorious, alone? No, it was a moral stand against an evil that Churchill refused to accommodate. As for our public policy, the one thing that doesn't seem to animate the choices made by our governing class are the consequences of those choices. The dollar's impending collapse is the most obvious example of an impending train wreck that cannot be avoided on the current course, and it's not like history doesn't provide us with numerous examples of how that wreck will come, but those consequences aren't as critical to Mr. Geithner as getting his boss reelected is, so his greatest good isn't exactly the same as ours, now is it? But, a moral compass that demands that one protect those who cannot protect themselves, in this case generations of Americans who will be impoverished by the collapse of the US economy, would demand that this generation of leaders make the necessary spending cuts to ensure a sustainable future. My morality condemns them. Yours is too subjective to condemn.


These are just problems of knowledge and hindsight. If Neville had perfect knowledge of all the true outcomes of his decisions, he might have been obligated to act differently. But he did the best he could. In retrospect we might analyze the situation and decide the actions were morally bad - but we couldn't say he acted immorally, given the information he had at the time. In other words, its additional knowledge that could have produced a better world, not a different moral theory.
In the case of Chamberlain, who spent his last months in Churchill's war cabinet, where he fought to support the new government and atone for his tragic error, that is true. But Chamberlain was an honorable man who was wrong, and was capable of admitting it in the face of a history that condemned him, and thus had the character to try to make it right in the time that he had left. Compare him to Jimmy Carter, whose foreign policy was just as disastrous as Chamberlain's, but who has spent the subsequent decades blaming everyone but himself for his own stupidity. Carter was no less mistaken about the nature of the world than Chamberlain, but he lacked the character and moral compass to correct his mistakes and support his successors.

Odysseus
02-15-2011, 05:11 PM
Honestly, I don't know if hate anybody. I really don't. My anger usually quickly dissolves into pity and/or frustration. Maybe I can say I hate things like diseases, injustice etc.. Maybe the media might qualify, if that wasnt already evident by this thread.
No, because you don't hate the media(:rolleyes:), although you do seem to hate Rush, Glenn and those other conservatives who you constantly bring up whenever someone criticizes a leftist. But really, "diseases?" "Injustices?" Throw in traffic and rude people and you've got the makings of a Playboy centerfold's turn offs. Is that all the depth of feeling that you can muster in a world as full of horrors as ours? Do you feel no hatred for the suicide bomber who targets a group of children at play? Or his comrade, who follows up by detonating himself at the funeral of one of the young victims of the first bomber? How about Michael Moore, who loathes America and seeks its downfall (oh, wait, I forgot, you don't care much for America, so Moore probably doesn't bother you much, either)? Is there no person who has outraged you and made you want to see him/her dead? Is your soul that arid and lacking in any emotion?

This is the crux of your problem, that you pretend to be above emotion, and do everything in your power to maintain an illusion of detached, logical rationality. It is this vanity that makes you absurd.

Actually, I have thought of something I hate.....

Parents who bring their infants to late night R-Rated movies.

Had to deal with that shit the other weekend and it was ridiculous. The kids had to be under four years old. I did manage to peg one of the parents in the head though with some theater garbage, after they were just sitting there while their kids were crying.

Thankfully after that they got the message.. they took them out of the theater.

The others in the theater clapped.

Okay, so when I gave an example of objects of hatred, I cited mass-murderers, traitors to the nation and others who sought to do harm through deliberate acts of morally debased conduct. You cited people who annoyed you in a movie theater. Do those parents, whose only crime was to disturb your evening out, briefly, really warrant hate? A man who argues for compassion for death row inmates but hates people who couldn't get a sitter, strikes me as someone whose priorities are hopelessly skewed. But that's what comes of not having a moral compass, but just a collection of consequences.

wilbur
02-17-2011, 02:35 PM
At this point I think the original claim that the 'ends justify the means' is morally abhorrent, has been sufficiently dealt with.

But I do acknowledge that I'm fighting against the conventional wisdom on this matter. The problem is that most of us have been conditioned to equate the phrase "the ends justify the means", with things that are contrary to its actual meaning.... like committing evil, destructive deeds for selfish, petty reasons.

That misunderstanding is unfortunate, because one can only do such evil, destructive things for selfish, petty reasons when NOT considering (and/or caring about) the consequences of one's actions. One can only murder, rape, or steal by flat out ignoring the devastating consequences.

But, alas... the well has been poised already - so maybe it just needs to be rephrased in such a way as to avoid the automatic rejection.

Consider this more neutral way of saying the same thing: "One's choices are justified by the foreseeable consequences". So how bout it? Do you still find that morally abhorrent? Does anyone else? I doubt it. But essentially, it means the same thing.

Now, in regard to your remaining criticisms, it would behoove you to consider if your own claims are similarly vulnerable. What happens when you apply the point that, "to a jihadi, the advance of Islam is the highest good", to your own moral ideology? You find that you are in the same position. The Jihadi can disagree and choose to live according to his own twisted principle - it may be that he's concerned with consequences... or with his own personal honor code (though that is also a consequence of sorts). The Jihadi doesnt have to care about your principles any more than he cares about my evaluation of consequences. So everybody comes out the same here.

As for your problem about finite knowledge... is it possible to wrongly determine the consequences of your actions? Of course. But it is equally trivial to wrongly determine how one should apply a moral principle in a given situation. After all, they are called moral dilemma's for a reason. So again, we come out the same. This is neither and advantage, nor disadvantage for consequentialism.

Furthermore, I'd say your valuation of a personal honor is most definitely subjective... which is fine, but you seem to think consequentialism was subjective (it is in some ways, not in others), and that that made it abhorrent. Well, you're in the same boat apparently. Though again, I'd still say this is thinking like a consequentialist. You use slightly different criteria in judging your actions, but youre looking at consequences just the same - you're concerned with how your actions affect your character.


Why? If it's the presence of a mind that is the defining term, and we've established that other primates have minds, then why don't we have the same obligations to them? After all, a chimp and a five-year-old have roughly the same cognitive abilities. What, in your morality, is the distinction between the two?

Well, what is good for the well-being of a chimp does not necessarily overlap with what is good for the well-being of a five year old child. So it only makes sense that our moral obligations towards each should differ. There's SOME overlap, I'm sure, but really not that much. The presence of a mind is what necessitates moral obligations... but what exactly those obligations might be follow from the basic facts about an entity's nature (including, but not limited too, facts about the nature of its mind).



No, because the highest good is the preservation of innocent human life. It would be wrong to tell the Nazis where the Jews are hiding, but it would not be wrong to tell a police officer where a felon has hidden himself after committing a crime. And the reason that we preserve innocent life is that we are all equally entitled to that life, it is our one true birthright, in the most literal sense. It is a rights-based concept, not a consequence-based concept.

Why is that the highest good? Perhaps because preserving human life tends to prevent holocausts? That's consequentialism.

Why do we care about rights? Because they also tend to prevent holocausts, and promote well-being. I love rights, and I'm a consequentialist.

Anyhow, that's all for now.

Odysseus
02-17-2011, 05:47 PM
At this point I think the original claim that the 'ends justify the means' is morally abhorrent, has been sufficiently dealt with.
And if it hasn't, you'll pretend that it has, anyway, because declaring victory is as good as actually winning.


But I do acknowledge that I'm fighting against the conventional wisdom on this matter. The problem is that most of us have been conditioned to equate the phrase "the ends justify the means", with things that are contrary to its actual meaning.... like committing evil, destructive deeds for selfish, petty reasons.
Poor, poor Wilbur... fighting against the conventional wisdom... Let's take a moment to compose ourselves in the face of your sacrifice. :rolleyes:


That misunderstanding is unfortunate, because one can only do such evil, destructive things for selfish, petty reasons when NOT considering (and/or caring about) the consequences of one's actions. One can only murder, rape, or steal by flat out ignoring the devastating consequences.
Or by considering the consequences to be a higher good. For example, rape is currently on the rise in Sweden, and has been for quite a while. Why is that? From an article on the subject:


An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are “asking for rape.” Apparently, he’s not the only one thinking this way. “It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.” It was no coincidence that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped in Rissne – this becomes obvious from the discussion with Ali, Hamid, Abdallah and Richard. All four have disparaging views on Swedish girls, and think this attitude is common among young men with immigrant background. “It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…… girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get fucked to pieces.”

The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as “their women,” the women who “belong” to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hand. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men—his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us—our future booty. No wonder there is a deep and increasing suspicion against Muslims in the Swedish and European public.
So, rape advances Islam, and is thus the highest good in the eyes of a European Muslim. A case of the end justifying the means. A thief who steals because he is hungry justifies it by placing his immediate needs over the rights of his victims, but it also erodes the moral compunction against theft, and eventually, that thief will find ways to justify theft when his belly is full. A Nazi will justify the Holocaust because in his mind, the highest good is a Judenrein world. Any evil can be justified if the ends are seen as lofty enough.



But, alas... the well has been poised already - so maybe it just needs to be rephrased in such a way as to avoid the automatic rejection.

Consider this more neutral way of saying the same thing: "One's choices are justified by the foreseeable consequences". So how bout it? Do you still find that morally abhorrent? Does anyone else? I doubt it. But essentially, it means the same thing.
And is therefore still abhorrent.


Now, in regard to your remaining criticisms, it would behoove you to consider if your own claims are similarly vulnerable. What happens when you apply the point that, "to a jihadi, the advance of Islam is the highest good", to your own moral ideology? You find that you are in the same position. The Jihadi can disagree and choose to live according to his own twisted principle - it may be that he's concerned with consequences... or with his own personal honor code (though that is also a consequence of sorts). The Jihadi doesnt have to care about your principles any more than he cares about my evaluation of consequences. So everybody comes out the same here.
Ah, but my principles would demand that I leave him alone unless he intends to act against me. My principles do not demand the subjugation of those who do not attack or threaten me, his do.


As for your problem about finite knowledge... is it possible to wrongly determine the consequences of your actions? Of course. But it is equally trivial to wrongly determine how one should apply a moral principle in a given situation. After all, they are called moral dilemma's for a reason. So again, we come out the same. This is neither and advantage, nor disadvantage for consequentialism.
This is an assertion, not a fact. Moral dilemma's exist because of conflicting goods or evils, not because the principles are wrong.


Furthermore, I'd say your valuation of a personal honor is most definitely subjective... which is fine, but you seem to think consequentialism was subjective (it is in some ways, not in others), and that that made it abhorrent. Well, you're in the same boat apparently. Though again, I'd still say this is thinking like a consequentialist. You use slightly different criteria in judging your actions, but youre looking at consequences just the same - you're concerned with how your actions affect your character.
To say that I weigh the consequences of an action is not the same as to say that the consequences, in and of themselves, are the only justification for an action.


Well, what is good for the well-being of a chimp does not necessarily overlap with what is good for the well-being of a five year old child. So it only makes sense that our moral obligations towards each should differ. There's SOME overlap, I'm sure, but really not that much. The presence of a mind is what necessitates moral obligations... but what exactly those obligations might be follow from the basic facts about an entity's nature (including, but not limited too, facts about the nature of its mind).
I asked for the distinction between the two. You equivocate. What are the obligations that we have towards a chimp vs. a child? Whose interests do you place first?


Why is that the highest good? Perhaps because preserving human life tends to prevent holocausts? That's consequentialism.
No, that's just silly. A holocaust is a collection of atrocities, and as such, is only more repugnant than an individual act by virtue of volume. An individual Nazi who shot a Jew in a forest has committed a singular act. The Holocaust was an aggregation of such acts, on a scale never seen before, but the morality of each individual act is no different, had they been committed in isolation or as part of a larger whole. A child gassed and cremated is a horror, and the multiplication of the horror does not change the nature of it, only the scale. Thus, preventing a holocaust is not simply an end in itself, but a corrollary.


Why do we care about rights? Because they also tend to prevent holocausts, and promote well-being. I love rights, and I'm a consequentialist.
We care about rights because we seek to balance the competing interests of individuals so that we can interact in safety. Preventing holocausts is one example of the benefits of rights, but rights are an end in themselves.

wilbur
02-18-2011, 01:31 AM
Good lord man, this is getting so incredibly daft, I don't even know where to begin.


And if it hasn't, you'll pretend that it has, anyway, because declaring victory is as good as actually winning.

I'm pointing out that you have failed to demonstrate your affirmative claim - that "the ends justify the means", is morally abhorrent.



Or by considering the consequences to be a higher good. For example, rape is currently on the rise in Sweden, and has been for quite a while. Why is that? From an article on the subject:

So, rape advances Islam, and is thus the highest good in the eyes of a European Muslim. A case of the end justifying the means. A thief who steals because he is hungry justifies it by placing his immediate needs over the rights of his victims, but it also erodes the moral compunction against theft, and eventually, that thief will find ways to justify theft when his belly is full. A Nazi will justify the Holocaust because in his mind, the highest good is a Judenrein world. Any evil can be justified if the ends are seen as lofty enough.


Actually, reading that passage, it looks like the Muslims are doing what they can to uphold the divine principles of Allah - I don't know why or how you keep associating their actions with consequentialism.

I think your logic goes a little like this:

1) Islam is abhorrent
2) Consequentialism is abhorrent
3) Therefore, Muslims are consequentialists

The biggest problem with your little theory is that Muslims are generally NOT consequentialists. They, like you, would find consequentialism morally abhorrent. They are typically divine command theorists... something they share with your average American Protestant. They are primarily interested in following the moral proclamations of their deity, no matter what the consequences.

Like the Christians, Muslim's admire Job.



And is therefore still abhorrent.


Way to restate your conclusion without argument. Good work!



Ah, but my principles would demand that I leave him alone unless he intends to act against me. My principles do not demand the subjugation of those who do not attack or threaten me, his do.


So what? My consequentalism would demand that I respect his rights as well. You made a stink about how a Jihadist could take a perverted, twisted form consequentialism and suit it to his own needs. So I ask you... what moral theory is NOT vulnerable to the exact same situation? There isnt one, duh.

Go tell a Jihadist he has to obey your moral code about the golden rule. How do you think that is going to play out?



This is an assertion, not a fact. Moral dilemma's exist because of conflicting goods or evils, not because the principles are wrong.

Moral dilemma's exist because for at least a couple reasons:

1) The moral theory in play may, in fact, be wrong or misguided
2) Our finite knowledge limits our ability to see what the most moral choice is (even if our moral theory is true).


To say that I weigh the consequences of an action is not the same as to say that the consequences, in and of themselves, are the only justification for an action.

I asked for the distinction between the two. You equivocate. What are the obligations that we have towards a chimp vs. a child? Whose interests do you place first?

We've been over this before. Please read the relevant wikipedia article so that you finally comprehend the nature of what equivocation means.

But, lets put it this way - if you were wandering through a remote region in the rainforest and happened upon a chimp all by himself... you would have no moral obligation to help him. If instead, however, you met a five year old human boy all by himself, you would have an obligation to at least find out what he's doing there, and then to lend your help depending on his circumstances. This disparity is due to the nature of the two beings. One is completely self-sufficient in the jungle with the cognitive abilities of a five year old - the other would probably die a quick death in the jungle with the same cognitive abilities.



No, that's just silly. A holocaust is a collection of atrocities, and as such, is only more repugnant than an individual act by virtue of volume. An individual Nazi who shot a Jew in a forest has committed a singular act. The Holocaust was an aggregation of such acts, on a scale never seen before, but the morality of each individual act is no different, had they been committed in isolation or as part of a larger whole. A child gassed and cremated is a horror, and the multiplication of the horror does not change the nature of it, only the scale. Thus, preventing a holocaust is not simply an end in itself, but a corrollary.

Why is it just "silly" to say that "preserving human life" prevents holocausts?



We care about rights because we seek to balance the competing interests of individuals so that we can interact in safety. Preventing holocausts is one example of the benefits of rights, but rights are an end in themselves.

Those are consequences!

AmPat
02-18-2011, 09:34 AM
Odysseus,

You should be carful when you threatened to kill someone, even in jest. Surely you are aware of the Patriot Act which was crafted into law by G Bush, Junior? This act makes comments like yours not only racist but illegal.

Im bringing this to your attention my friend because I dont want to see you get in trouble with the CIAstapo.

Actually for the record Yucky One, GW Bush did not "craft" it into law, he signed the DIMoRAT legislation into law. Aside from your above education, although latent in light of your banning, GW Bush did sign it into law. So what?

The law is potentially intrusive and it would be better to not have had to pass such a law. However, people like Ody have no fear of it as he is not a criminal type. You OTOH, have criminal tendencies as evidenced by your illogical fear of an AMERICAN law. :rolleyes: Or else you were attempting to make another clumsy, (and stupid) attack on GW Bush for no apparent reason?:cool:

AmPat
02-18-2011, 09:42 AM
I failto see any relevant difference between the types of things Rush and Beck say on a daily basis - and the types of things that Olberman says - their targets are ideological opposites, but that's it. They are all equally absurd and lecherous, quite frankly. Media scum.

And as far as I can see, the R or the D next to the names of their targets are the only thing determining whether most of you judge the speech as hateful or accurate.

Are you guys really trying to argue that its your pundits who are the good ones? Really? Really?!?

Nobody has even talked about Ann Coulter yet...
You should have stopped right there.

You are making yourself appear more and more foolish with eveyr single response. You either face the fact that the liberals are much more vehement and hateful than conservatives, or you risk replacing the now banned fools as the "Worst Liar On The Board.":cool:

wilbur
02-18-2011, 10:42 AM
You should have stopped right there.

You are making yourself appear more and more foolish with eveyr single response. You either face the fact that the liberals are much more vehement and hateful than conservatives, or you risk replacing the now banned fools as the "Worst Liar On The Board.":cool:

Sorry, for the sake of my own personal integrity, I refuse to play the absolutely idiotic game of trying to split hairs so absurdly and self-servingly as to transform quotes like the one in my sig into something cheeky and fun, so that I can feel good and self-righteous about demonizing my ideological foes for doing the same exact shit. I'm not that much of a hypocritical whore.

AmPat
02-18-2011, 11:19 AM
Sorry, for the sake of my own personal integrity, I refuse to play the absolutely idiotic game of trying to split hairs so absurdly and self-servingly as to transform quotes like the one in my sig into something cheeky and fun, so that I can feel good and self-righteous about demonizing my ideological foes for doing the same exact shit. I'm not that much of a hypocritical whore.

I don't know what level of "whore" you are, whore is a level you may have all to yourself. As for what you actually are by revelation of your own words, you are a quibbling little liar who is worse than professional DIMRAT liars. They get paid to lie for their masters, you do it for free.:cool: