Olbermann's Special Comment on GOP Fearmongering

I never fail to fall in love with Olbermann.

‘To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear'

By this definition, the people who put these videos together: first, the terrorists and then, the administration, whose shared goal is to scare you into panicking instead of thinking, they are the ones terrorizing you.

By this definition, the leading terrorist group in this world right now is al Qaeda, but the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party.

Click to expand...

Here's the link, it's sad that this makes so much sense

Kasmos, I watched this last night and loved it. So true.

However, I wouldn't be aps if I didn't point out that titles of threads under "breaking news" need to be the same as the newstory you are providing.

If I tell my child not to take candy from strangers am I terrorizing them? If I point out that running in to the street could very well get you killed am I terrorizing them?

In my mind there is a huge difference between ones that would do you harm and ones that warn you that you could be in harms way.

:spin:

Keith's point, much like his entire show, is rather silly.

And as far as recovering bodies from 9/11 from what I understand the GOP and George Bush are not on the site doing the recovering of bodies and they never have been. So basically he's blaming the president for something that is beyond his control and in doing so is stating that the workers who are digging around the trade center site aren't doing a good job and perhaps if a dem were president they'd do a better job? Good Grief what a load of malarky.

HOW is posting the opinion of a far left barking Loon a "breaking news" worthy topic? IF a story claimed Rumsfeld now supports Hillary that might be newsworthy but a leftwing spinner spewing propaganda hardly counts as news

talloulou said:

If I tell my child not to take candy from strangers am I terrorizing them? If I point out that running in to the street could very well get you killed am I terrorizing them?

Click to expand...

Depends upon how you do it. You are telling your child about a danger for the purpose of them not engaging in a particular behavior. What is the purpose the the RNC sending this message (over and over and over)?

In my mind there is a huge difference between ones that would do you harm and ones that warn you that you could be in harms way.

Click to expand...

You reckon the RNC is publishing this just to warn us about dangers posed by terrorists? (Just in case we didn't know?)

And as far as recovering bodies from 9/11 from what I understand the GOP and George Bush are not on the site doing the recovering of bodies and they never have been. So basically he's blaming the president for something that is beyond his control and in doing so is stating that the workers who are digging around the trade center site aren't doing a good job and perhaps if a dem were president they'd do a better job? Good Grief what a load of malarky.

Click to expand...

I agree with this point. Was Bush supposed to go digging thru the rubble? He would have a point if these bodies were known by the administration and intentionally left there to be disclosed now for political purposes, but I see no evidence of that.

Never heard of him, does he have a blog or something?

TurtleDude said:

HOW is posting the opinion of a far left barking Loon a "breaking news" worthy topic? IF a story claimed Rumsfeld now supports Hillary that might be newsworthy but a leftwing spinner spewing propaganda hardly counts as news

Click to expand...

I don't know, the reference to the CNN and RNC piece seem like current news topics.

Honestly, I thought the new commercial smacked of desperation, but I think to suggest that it compares to terrorism, is not just a stretch, but dishonors the 3,000 people that did in fact die. now had there never been any attacks, then he may have a point, right now he sounds as desperate as the GOP do.:roll:

Iriemon said:

I don't know, the reference to the CNN and RNC piece seem like current news topics.

Click to expand...

If you have followed the various monitors' comments on this board, this "Story" is clearly not newsworthy but I will leave that to those charged with monitoring this board to make the decision

citing the rantings of a commentator is hardly news especially when his rantings are consistent with his well known bias.

Kasmos said:

I never fail to fall in love with Olbermann.



Here's the link, it's sad that this makes so much sense

Click to expand...

Well if the definition of a terrorist group wasn't a "subnational clandestine organization that uses violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate a government or society," then maybe Mr. Olberman might have a point but as it stands he doesn't so I'll just say to that left wing shill jagoff Olberman to go back to reading the fuc/king sports page cuz I'm sick of watching his god damn gums flap. Good night and good luck.

Oberman and his quest to be the meat in a Hillary/Palosi sandwhich.

Yea, I saw that drivel. What a friggin moron.

But I'm gonna stick to one thing. Oberman and his little rant about the cons sowing fear. Oh waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, they are showing you pictures of mushroom clouds and saying this is why we need to win the spanking (war implies the outcome is uncertain) and oh, that's fear mongering. Resorting to using scary pictures and words to sway the voters...

you people...

I know this is pointless...

You all are stuck on ,

"Bush lied".

"Nuh-uh".

"Did to".

Pitiful.

Simple question for you libs...

If the stupid Arabs had nukes before 9/11 would they have used them instead of planes?

(Sound of crickets chirping).

You wont answer that, will you? Cause by now most of you have been abused by me, teacher, of the colossal brain, enough that you know what's coming. You know that if you answer that question truthfully another simple one is hard on it's heels, then another, and another, until we get to that point where I have backed you into a corner and then comes that last simple question that ususally goes something like this...

So, moron, given your answers to the previous questions, NOW explain you position to me...

(Hello crickets).

That's why my posts are ignored like the soap in Billo's shower.

I'll just answer for you...

You ALL know damn well they would have.

Don't forget 9/11 went down BEFORE coW.boy went off and started his "I think I'll go breed more terrorism" campaign. They hated us before we went to Iraq. 9/11, remember? CICoW.boy is not fostering fear to drum up support, he's explaining to your dumbazzes what WILL happen if we don't win this thing. We are never going to kill all the stupid Arabs that need killing. We have to change their society. We have to zero in on the CAUSE of terrorism.

It's poverty and ignorance of the population. Orchestrated by the ruling rich Arabs. Keep the populace distracted from the truth that the ruling rich Arabs, the House of Saud as Gunny calls them, are the cause of their plight and use religion and disinformation to make them hate us. Like that's gonna do a damn thing about the fact they starve and wallow in the stone age.

We have to free the women. We have to give the populace a say in their rule. They have to have the fleeflow of ALL information. Maybe one day they'll figure out most of you morons just want to swill beer and watch American idol and could care less about American Imperialism.

But they don't know that. You always hear the stupid Arab on the street complaining about American foreign policy. What foreign policy has them so upset?

It it the part where we pay them gobs of cash for something they didn't invent, produce, or have to work for?

Oh the horror.

So liberals. Gonna answer that question?

Oberman, you are a friggin retard. Those mushroom clouds are coming. It's not fear mongering...

it's the mother fu*king truth.

Thank goodness we got a guy in charge who understands this.

Now where's those crickets?

Iriemon said:

Depends upon how you do it. You are telling your child about a danger for the purpose of them not engaging in a particular behavior. What is the purpose the the RNC sending this message (over and over and over)?

Click to expand...

Because there are certain people out there sending the message that "terrorism" isn't a real problem. Many people do not understand the dynamics of what is occurring in the world. Most of them, in my opinion, should be more worried than they in fact are. It's not as if the Bush administration has worked our populace up to a frantic hysteria. I don't see panic anywhere.

You reckon the RNC is publishing this just to warn us about dangers posed by terrorists? (Just in case we didn't know?)

Click to expand...

No I think they are successfully countering the idea that "there's nothing to worry about.....we should pacify our enemies.....ect....." and it's a very successful campaign tactic because some daft liberal will always be willing to go on TV and talk about how there is no terrorism problem and these libs are so out of touch they don't realize that only a small percentage of the left thinks like that. The majority of the country does not.

Liberals love to go on TV and make fun of threats that turned out to be nothing like the kid who recently was responsible for the fake bomb threats. But it's good that the government is catching those idiots. If they couldn't catch those idiots how the hell could they thwart real plots? Yet Keith uses the idea that they caught the kid responsible for the fake threats as a "negative." That is how out of touch the far left has become.

talloulou said:

Because there are certain people out there sending the message that "terrorism" isn't a real problem. Many people do not understand the dynamics of what is occurring in the world. Most of them, in my opinion, should be more worried than they in fact are. It's not as if the Bush administration has worked our populace up to a frantic hysteria. I don't see panic anywhere.


No I think they are successfully countering the idea that "there's nothing to worry about.....we should pacify our enemies.....ect....." and it's a very successful campaign tactic because some daft liberal will always be willing to go on TV and talk about how there is no terrorism problem and these libs are so out of touch they don't realize that only a small percentage of the left thinks like that. The majority of the country does not.

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who thinks terrorism isn't a problem. But sorry, I just don't buy the "they're just trying to educate us" argument with an ad feature OBL with a ticking clock sound in the background and images of things getting blown up. There is one purpose in these ads showing terrorists clips and imgages -- to terrorize people. Which concidentally is the goal of terrorism. It's free advertising for bin Laden and his pals for the sake of political advantage.

Although I do disagree with Olbermann's point about the 9/11 body remains (I posted this for the CNN issue and RNC issue), I do fully agree with the fact that commercializing the idea of terrorism is such a horrible tactic that the Republican party IS using.

You cannot sit there and tell me that the Republicans are going on and on about how much we are at threat just so to make that point, do you? I think every American realizes that there IS a threat of terror out there and that we DO need to pay attention and do things about it.

But at the same time that does NOT mean "making" Americans have more fear then they need to. We all know what happened during 9/11. We all know about Osama and the other terrorists out there. And we have been told over and over and over again by Bush and his administration how much they are doing to protect our safety.

So why do they feel the need to continue to instill fear in us? For political gain of course, and if you don't see that/deny that, you are completely ignorant.

Iriemon said:

I don't know anyone who thinks terrorism isn't a problem. But sorry, I just don't buy the "they're just trying to educate us" argument with an ad feature OBL with a ticking clock sound in the background and images of things getting blown up. There is one purpose in these ads showing terrorists clips and imgages -- to terrorize people. Which concidentally is the goal of terrorism. It's free advertising for bin Laden and his pals for the sake of political advantage.

Click to expand...

Let me ask you a question. Is Al Gore a terrorist? Is his movie meant to terrorize people?:mrgreen:

If I was to suggest that he was and that it is wouldn't that be looney?

Kasmos said:

Although I do disagree with Olbermann's point about the 9/11 body remains (I posted this for the CNN issue and RNC issue), I do fully agree with the fact that commercializing the idea of terrorism is such a horrible tactic that the Republican party IS using.

You cannot sit there and tell me that the Republicans are going on and on about how much we are at threat just so to make that point, do you? I think every American realizes that there IS a threat of terror out there and that we DO need to pay attention and do things about it.

But at the same time that does NOT mean "making" Americans have more fear then they need to. We all know what happened during 9/11. We all know about Osama and the other terrorists out there. And we have been told over and over and over again by Bush and his administration how much they are doing to protect our safety.

So why do they feel the need to continue to instill fear in us? For political gain of course, and if you don't see that/deny that, you are completely ignorant.

Click to expand...

I said it was a great campaign tactic.

Are you quivering in fear? Have the ads terrorized you seriously?

The majority of America sees the dems as very weak on terror and so of course the GOP is going to use that to their advantage? Why shouldn't they? If they were causing riots and people were hiding in their basements you might have a point. But americans are not cowering in fear or terror so basically Keith is just an idiot.

The majority of this administrations time has been occupied by dealing with terror why shouldn't they talk about that in campaigns?

talloulou said:

I said it was a great campaign tactic.

Are you quivering in fear? Have the ads terrorized you seriously?

Click to expand...

I personally am more concerned about getting in a car accident. But I think you are right, people are wising up.

The majority of America sees the dems as very weak on terror and so of course the GOP is going to use that to their advantage? Why shouldn't they? If they were causing riots and people were hiding in their basements you might have a point. But americans are not cowering in fear or terror so basically Keith is just an idiot.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, we agree that it is a political tactic aimed at an appeal to the base emotion of fear. I think that was Olbermann's point, and making the comparison between Republicans criticisizing CNN for showing terrorists' video clips while their official committee is doing the same thing for political purposes.

The majority of this administrations time has been occupied by dealing with terror why shouldn't they talk about that in campaigns?

Click to expand...

Some would argue that creating an environment of terror for political purposes is not a legitimate tactics, but that's politics.

Kasmos said:

I never fail to fall in love with Olbermann.



Here's the link, it's sad that this makes so much sense

Click to expand...

Olberman is a left wing partisan Bush hater who only has creditability with Libs like you........His show is one of the lowest rated on Cable TV...

I could care less if Olbermann's show doesn't do well on the air. I personally don't ever catch his show, but I do read his commentary afterwards.

Back to this thread, however, the point he makes in his show about the fearmongering of the Republican party is very real and makes sense. Obviously, as I have been seeing time and time again on political forums, people are so arrogant and ignorant involving their party, they never allow themselves to go against it.

I, for one, being a Democrat (I was a Republican until Bush mind you), am always open for things that pick apart my party. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway. Going down the list of names on a ballot and checking off everyone who is for your party is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. Although MANY people on both sides do it, if you don't know about each member running how can you make a good decision?

That's where this article comes into play. Now mind you, a lot of us aren't stupid enough to believe commercials such as the prementioned, but a large amount of Americans are too ignorant to care or know what's going on in the world, that a simple commerical like that can completely change their votes.

So is this an instance of terrorism in our country? Yes, I believe so, and I would say the SAME exact thing against the Democrats if they had done the same thing.

Navy Pride said:

Olberman is a left wing partisan Bush hater who only has creditability with Libs like you........His show is one of the lowest rated on Cable TV...

Click to expand...

Yep, He's a raving Nutcase. Nationally syndicated talk show host Mike McConnell (WLW-700 Cincinnati) is currently shredding this moron over his pyschobabble about the dead in NYC. His best line-Olbermann sounds like he should be dating Randi Rhodes. Why is it that Republican or Conservative talking heads sound like they are in full control while moonbat pundits sound like they are one step away from stroking out?

Kasmos said:

I, for one, being a Democrat (I was a Republican until Bush mind you), am always open for things that pick apart my party. .

.

Click to expand...

Ah the Ben and Jerry tactic. So what about Bush caused you to vote for the party that wants to raise taxes, increase death confiscation rates, ban guns, and bow to the UN? I hear so many people who claim to be Republicans now supporting the dems and sorry, I call Bullpoop on that. If you are mad that the GOP is spending way too much I can see you voting a libertarian ticket but to claim the Dems of today are closer to what the GOP was 7 years ago is such a joke I don't buy it

Well Turtle, considering I've only been able to vote for about 10 years, a presidential administration that has lasted 6 years of those 10 certainly is enough to change my opinion on things.

And yes, I am voting libertarian in many positions around here, as I am voting in some Republicans. Like I stated previously, I vote for the best candidate in my opinion in EACH position. I will not ever go down the ballot checking off every single Democrat, unless I truly believe every one of them will do a better job then their counterparts.

Kasmos said:

Well Turtle, considering I've only been able to vote for about 10 years, a presidential administration that has lasted 6 years of those 10 certainly is enough to change my opinion on things.

And yes, I am voting libertarian in many positions around here, as I am voting in some Republicans. Like I stated previously, I vote for the best candidate in my opinion in EACH position. I will not ever go down the ballot checking off every single Democrat, unless I truly believe every one of them will do a better job then their counterparts.

Click to expand...

My mistake-I was going on your claim that

Kasmos said:

I, for one, being a Democrat

Click to expand...

You see, that's where many of you people are so wrong in how you deal with politics. Yes, I AM a registered Democrat.

But I am open-minded enough to vote for people in every single political class, IF I believe that they would do the best job in that position.

Most of you, which I'm sure is how you are Turtle, only vote for the people in YOUR party. Is that the right way to go about voting in an election? Absolutely not....

Kasmos said:

You see, that's where many of you people are so wrong in how you deal with politics. Yes, I AM a registered Democrat.

But I am open-minded enough to vote for people in every single political class, IF I believe that they would do the best job in that position.

Most of you, which I'm sure is how you are Turtle, only vote for the people in YOUR party. Is that the right way to go about voting in an election? Absolutely not....

Click to expand...

If your a registered democrat you can not vote for someone of another party......