http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/06/roving_reporter.html#more Perhaps Keith needs to follow his own advice: http://mediamatters.org/items/200606030002
...you're supposed to say, 'I'm sorry, I was wrong,' and then you're supposed to shut up for a long time." You know Keith was talking about misleading the public, slandering vets, and repeatedly presenting innacurate historical information as historical fact. Not about speculating on potential outcomes that he has no more information than any one of us.
It really bugs you that Olbermann has shown greater support for our troops than Bill O'Reilly I guess. The funny thing in the pieces you posted is that most of the guesses that were about Rove being indicted came from the people Keith was talking to, and not Keith himself. Furthermore being wrong about an indictment in no way equals slandering WWII soldiers who were brutally killed by Nazis.
In this case, to avenge the O Reilly Malmedy mistake. This would have been clear without mentioning the O'Reilly - Olbeman Malmedy feud, but for those who need it knocked in pretty good, he tagged the end of the post with it in case someone was hoping to miss it. Here is how this works. Ostensibly, Keith Olberman's tedious discussion about Rove being indicted is somehow related and equivalent to O Reilly's ranting about The Inverse Malmedy Massacre. Essentially using Olbermans admittedly poor political punditry to forgive O Reilly's stupidity-revealing historical misunderstanding in which he attributed credit to the US / Allied forces credit for a Nazi war crime. Olberman pointed out the hypocracy and stupdity in O'Reilly's arguement. Now he must pay for it - Because O Reilly is essentially indefensible, the next logical step is to attack he/she who pointed it out. (see: Joe Wilson, John McCain, Al Gore, John Murtha, all those retired generals, Richard Clarke, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) Why bother with Olbermann? Because next time someone mentions that Bill O Reilly is a callous blowhard moron who does not know squat about American history, the point will be declared moot because: Keith Olberman also got something wrong - he believed that Rove would be indicted. Is it logical to assume that O'Reilly is right because Olbermann was wrong? No. But it is not about logic. It is a key tool ignore-the-facts-attack-your-enemies debate team handbook however - find some kernel of discredit and nurture it to distract from your own flaws. Trust me, this is an important part of the puzzle. It is also why the rest of us - conservative / liberal, republican/democrat americans who care about things like due process, intelectual integrity, and actually meeting the terrific challenge of co-existing with people who are different, should not bother arguing with the Kool Aid set anymore. We should leave them be in peace, and find intellegent and respectful debate elsewhere. It exists.
They were saying what Keith wanted them to say, otherwise he would not have them on. This is particularly true of Shuster. As far as the Nazi thingy, I demolished you on that last week.
i did and could not and can not find the demolition part, i was (genuinely) wondering if the conversation has moved somewhere beyond that thread. Actually, it would be a helpful teaching point if you could direct me, and maybe some of the other people here, to the point at which "the Nazi thingy" (props on that phrase, by the way) was demolished. I am trying to type that and not sound patronizing, i honestly dont mean it that way - i am not trying to get under your skin. But I am really reading and thinking through these more effortful posts, though, and if there is a demolishing, i would acutally like to understand where you saw that happen. Thanks -
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=113389 The entire argument against O'Reilly is one of semantics. Gwayne destroyed the liberal mob.
too much protein has made you blind. I see no "destroying of a liberal mob" in that thread. the only person actively arguing the point was Blade....hardly the definition of a mob....much less the fact that FB flatout owned him...once again...hardly destroying. If you weren't so wrapped up in your little "I wanna be like texxx, damn them libpigs" persona...you'd be able to see it also. Why is it the only people that you can depend on for accurate assessments are the ones without political associations? What happened to the days when folks from the two sides of the spectrum could debate a issue with falling back into the confrontational spin zone? the statement was made in the other thread about how the current political climate alienates the moderates...its true...we cant bear to waste our breath pointing out the obvious...cause all we get in return is spin spin spin....repeat what Bill or Rush say...spin some more. Is it too much to ask for yall extreme righties to actually use your f*cking brains for yourselves and quit parroting waht the spindoctors say?? to be fair...it comes from both sides....but it just seems to be more prevalent on the right these days.