View Full Version : If what he reported is what Bush said ....
If what he reported is what Bush said then I'm very concerned.
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=63f6e02a-0aca-4276-80cc-581bd06b4c1c&f=00&fg=copy
cowboy117
10-06-2006, 18:18
Keith Olbermann is the last person on tv that i would get my info from.!Turn him off before you're beyond all hope of saving.The man is a Bush hater worthy of being an Al-Qaeda member.Look at his expression and his eyes when he speaks.Totally deranged.He used to be a mild mannered sports reporter.What went wrong?Maybe off his meds.[Don't get mad Olds.Kind of tongue in cheek about "beyond all hope",but every time i channel surf and land on Olberman,he's going off like a lunatic.]:rolleyes:
DaveyDug
10-06-2006, 19:21
He may be a lunatic, but he's absolutely right. I could find very little in that video that I disagreed with. His critique of Bush is right on target.
DaveyDug
10-06-2006, 19:40
And Olds, it doesn't matter what Bush said, look at what he's done! Actions speak louder than words. Take some time and really get to understand things like the Patriot Act, the Real ID act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, warrantless wiretaps, and just about anything else GWB has done in his presidency. Then open up your copy of the Constitution, read it and stand there ASTOUNDED at the blatant discrepancies! This guy is getting crazier and crazier as time goes on. And you know what's going to start to happen very soon? People will start to look to the Democrats to save us. And the cycle will start all over again. God help this country.
Boogyman
10-06-2006, 19:55
The man is a Bush hater worthy of being an Al-Qaeda member.
So if you hate Bush then you must be a terrorist?
My gawd this kind of rhetoric does more damage to American freedom of speech than anything Al Qaeda has done.
Americans accusing other Americans of being terrorists because they have the guts to speak their mind?
Now that's lunacy.
going off like a lunatic.]:rolleyes:
You would call him a genius if he said the same things about Kerry or Gore.
I see no "lunacy" in Keith Olbermann. I do see a patriot who cares deeply about our country and the despicable way this president has abused the trust of the American people.
You want lunacy, go watch Bill O'Reilly.
cowboy117
10-06-2006, 20:08
So if you hate Bush then you must be a terrorist?
My gawd this kind of rhetoric does more damage to American freedom of speech than anything Al Qaeda has done.
Americans accusing other Americans of being terrorists because they have the guts to speak their mind?
Now that's lunacy.
You would call him a genius if he said the same things about Kerry or Gore.
I see no "lunacy" in Keith Olbermann. I do see a patriot who cares deeply about our country and the despicable way this president has abused the trust of the American people.
You want lunacy, go watch Bill O'Reilly.To quote REO Speedwagon"Time for Me To Fly".The morons are at my door.:wacko:Missed you Boogie:NOT!
Boogyman
10-06-2006, 20:18
To quote REO Speedwagon"Time for Me To Fly".The morons are at my door.:wacko:Missed you Boogie:NOT!
Yep. Go run away now, the mean 'ol Boogyman is back calling you on your B.S....
Calling me a moron really scores points for your Intelligence Quotient... :lol:
And Olds, it doesn't matter what Bush said, look at what he's done! Actions speak louder than words. Take some time and really get to understand things like the Patriot Act, the Real ID act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, warrantless wiretaps, and just about anything else GWB has done in his presidency. Then open up your copy of the Constitution, read it and stand there ASTOUNDED at the blatant discrepancies! This guy is getting crazier and crazier as time goes on. And you know what's going to start to happen very soon? People will start to look to the Democrats to save us. And the cycle will start all over again. God help this country.
Absolutely right. We thought previous administrations had done a lot to destroy this country but when the smoke clears GW will be at or near the top of the list.
Some people would still blindly follow "their" village idiot if he was caught raping a nun....
Absolutely right. We thought previous administrations had done a lot to destroy this country but when the smoke clears GW will be at or near the top of the list.
Compared to Bush, Nixon was a choirboy.
Absolutely right. We thought previous administrations had done a lot to destroy this country but when the smoke clears GW will be at or near the top of the list.
How has he destroyed the Country? By flexing his Executive Branch Power? By using every tool he can get to protect us? By refusing to be a patsy for the U.N.? By strengthening the Economy? How has he destroyed the Country?
I am curious. Patriot Act - the revised act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) provides a whole list safeguards for civil liberties - might have been one such possibility - but as with all legislation of its type a sunset clause allowed us to review and make changes. NSA wiretaps - still has not been found illegal (is currently under review by higher court which has allowed it to continue until the higher court has reviewed the case - will likely go to the Supreme Court - then if found Unconstitutional our third branch will have done its job in Checking the Executive Branch - if not then they will have validated that it is Constitutional and as such he did the right thing). Afghanistan? This one would seem to be self explanatory - it appears to have helped with turning future attacks. In fact, upto this point something like 80% + of the country thinks the President has done a good job on the war on terror.
That pretty much leaves Iraq. Yes, I am sure his personal feelings had something to do with Iraq. Yes, some of the intelligence turned out incorrect. But, you know what - he did the right thing. He removed a vicious Dictator that had defied numerous U.N. resolutions designed to reign him in (U.N. simply does not have the backbone to inforce their own resolutions - but then why should it when two of the main players on the U.N. Security council had large oil contracts with Sadam). Not to mention he violated his cease fire agreement with us numerous times over 10 years - which serves to embolden our enemies when it goes unchallenged (look at Al Queda as a result of the Somalia cut and run incident). He was also paying for terror attacks on an allied country of ours, Israel ($25,000 per incident as I recall). The country is still not in good shape (largely due to Iran stirring the pot; another place the U.N. and E.U. are really dragging their feet; the other is Africa) - no denying that - but two things have happened as a result of Iraq. We have gotten more of the top Al Queda leadership (whether you believe they were their to start or not - they were taken out there and likely much easier than in Afghanistan). The second is that there is a true opportunity for Democracy there now (Sunni's are now even beginning to realize that this may be their saving grace) - again, if Iran would back out and let the process of developing a government there work - it would go much better. One thing we all seem to miss, our government did not come about immediately - we did not have a fully ratified Constitution until May 29, 1790. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution)
Q. Did he realize the importance of the work he had done?
A. Probably not; when he died, in 1796, the Constitution had not yet come to be the firmly established set of governmental principles it since has become. (Question from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html - indicating the state of our Constitution 20 years after the Declaration of Independence and almost 6 years after full ratification by the Colonies).
Interesting point about the constitution below:
Q. How can it be said that the signing of the Constitution was unanimous, when the deputies of only twelve States signed and some delegates refused to sign?
A. The signatures attest the "Unanimous Consent of the States present." The voting was by States, and the vote of each State that of a majority of its deputies. Hamilton signed this attestation for New York, though as he was the only deputy of the State present he had not been able to cast the vote of his State for the consent, only eleven States voting on the final question. There is an even greater discrepancy about the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Some seven or eight members present on July 4 never signed; seven Signers, including Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, who proposed the resolution of independence, were not present on the day; and eight other Signers were not members of Congress until after July 4. (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html)
Additionally, our Government was not fully implemented until 1790 as evidenced here:
Q. When did the United States government go into operation under the Constitution?
A. The Constitution became binding upon nine States by the ratification of the ninth State, New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. Notice of this ratification was received by Congress on July 2, 1788. On September 13, 1788, Congress adopted a resolution declaring that electors should be appointed in the ratifying States on the first Wednesday in January, 1789; that the electors vote for President on the first Wednesday in February, 1789; and that "the first Wednesday in March next [March 4, 1789] be the time and the present seat of Congress the place for commencing proceedings under the said constitution." The Convention had also suggested "that after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected." The Constitution left with the States the control over the election of congressmen, and Congress said nothing about this in its resolution; but the States proceeded to provide for it as well as for the appointment of electors. On March 3, 1789, the old Confederation went out of existence and on March 4 the new government of the United States began legally to function, according to a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (wings v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420); however, it had no practical existence until April 6, when first the presence of quorums in both Houses permitted organization of Congress. On April 30, 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as President of the United States, so on that date the executive branch of the government under the Constitution became operative. But it was not until February 2, 1790, that the Supreme Court, as head of the third branch of the government, organized and, held its first session; so that is the date when our government under the Constitution became fully operative. (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html)
Another thing, we have been throwing around the Constitution as though it was clearly and fully accepted by all those involved in its final form. Go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) and look at the actual record on the voting associated with ratification - it is an eye opener (is it really any wonder that individuals read the Constitution and have different interpretations).
Now back to my original question - how has this President destroyed our country - I see absolutely no evidence of this - he has stretched his powers sure (as he should - otherwise our Government fails in the three branch approach). But, destroy - hardly. Those that hate us now - hated us before Bush came on the scene (that is evidenced as early as 1979 and the Embassy in Iran - and guess what that was under an Extremely liberal President - who I liked as a person a tremendous amount - as well as a Democratically controlled Congress - if I recall right). I hardly see evidence that they hate us any more than then - though they have certainly been encouraged by our lack of resolve and willingness to back pedal on most all World issues - including our media's recent willingness to attack the Israelis for their incursion into Lebanon (which it now appears the Lebanese Government was not as innocous as first thought).
Well, I wrote a tremendous amount and copied some other into this reply - but, I really hope it gets people to really analyze how they have come to their current issues with our Government. Right now, what I see here in all the arguments against Bush is Iraq and our efforts there - and it is big - but it is certainly not everything this President has done.
In fact, I am curious really curious (barring the far left liberals) if Iraq had not occurred - would Bush be the fair haired boy of the U.S. right now - something to ponder (polls would seem to support this at least on the issue of terrorism).
JimS
How has he destroyed the Country? By flexing his Executive Branch Power? By using every tool he can get to protect us? By refusing to be a patsy for the U.N.? By strengthening the Economy? How has he destroyed the Country?
Jim you better reread the patriot act in its entirety if you see it as protection of civil liberties.
Exactly why he should be heralded for a miniscule tax cut and record setting spending as strenghtening the economy is beyond me.
The real ID act,Patriot act,North American Union and numerous other policies arre all enacted to make us subservient to our govt. If this is what it takes to protect the country let the country go to hell. It is not worth saving or protecting if men canot be free!
keep in mind Stalin was heralded as a great protector by his supporters.
In fact, I am curious really curious (barring the far left liberals) if Iraq had not occurred - would Bush be the fair haired boy of the U.S. right now - something to ponder (polls would seem to support this at least on the issue of terrorism).JimS
Actually Libs should love him if they werent concerned with partisanship. He is pushing us into a one world govt just like his predecessors. His ideas of funding faith based social programs are the perfect way to bring the churches under govt control. A goal many have dreamed of.
As for Iraq I am not interested in Nation building. If we are to be at war I am a supporter of the scorched earth policy.
He has stretched his powers sure (as he should - otherwise our Government fails in the three branch approach).
This statement terrifies me. To advocate for a govt to violate the limits set to keep it in check is outrageous. Unless you truly want to be a slave. Throughout history govt has stolen power from the people in order to oppress them.
Is this what you want?
Govt is not your friend or protector nor should it ever be.
Jim you better reread the patriot act in its entirety if you see it as protection of civil liberties.
Exactly why he should be heralded for a miniscule tax cut and record setting spending as strenghtening the economy is beyond me.
The real ID act,Patriot act,North American Union and numerous other policies arre all enacted to make us subservient to our govt. If this is what it takes to protect the country let the country go to hell. It is not worth saving or protecting if men canot be free!
keep in mind Stalin was heralded as a great protector by his supporters.
Actually Libs should love him if they werent concerned with partisanship. He is pushing us into a one world govt just like his predecessors. His ideas of funding faith based social programs are the perfect way to bring the churches under govt control. A goal many have dreamed of.
As for Iraq I am not interested in Nation building. If we are to be at war I am a supporter of the scorched earth policy.
This statement terrifies me. To advocate for a govt to violate the limits set to keep it in check is outrageous. Unless you truly want to be a slave. Throughout history govt has stolen power from the people in order to oppress them.
Is this what you want?
Govt is not your friend or protector nor should it ever be.
Did not advocate that the Government violate it limits - the three Branch system was developed along with the Bill of Rights to keep this in check - the point I was trying to make was that if a President did not stretch his powers to the limit (allowed by the other two Branches checking the Executive Branch - as the Constitution allows) then he is in fact, ceding much of the Executive Branches power to the other two and the Executive Branch no longer functions to check the other two (one case in point would be Justice appointments - this is Executive Branch power - not Senatorial power - which the Senate has not always understood).
The Patriot Act is likely still not ideal, but the modifications certainly made it better from a civil rights standpoint. One thing to keep in mind - if the country were to go to hell as you put it - then our freedoms are truly lost. Lincoln suspended Habeous Corpus during the Civil War - it was subsequently restored.
I put a tremendous amount of faith in three things. The first is God and family. The second is the Constitution and the third is the vote - all of which keep our Government in check and functioning as well as any Government based on compromised to function. I do not think a comparison to Stalin is even close in this aspect.
Government as friend/protector? First, I have friends in Government (in fact, I work for our Government) - but, Government is an institution - all institutions need checks and balances - take a look sometime at all the checks and balances our Government has - Consipiracy in a Government that can not keep top secret information from being leaked is hardly even feasible. One thing most people seem to avoid admitting is - that our Government is not an entity it is 10's of thousands of people that have to live here just like anyone else - and all of those I know - including those in Congressional as well as bureaucratic positions favor their freedoms as much as anyone else (within their political views - and most of them are as skeptical about the system - as you are - even though they make up part of the system).
As to the scorched earth policy - well we completely disagree. Had we taken this approach from the Civil War forward lets just say the freedoms we hold so near and dear to our hearts would be nonexistant today. Providing for the freedoms we have in other parts of the World is the only way we can truly protect our own freedoms (i.e., more like minded people provide for stability of our freedoms - remember Constitutions are paper and can be amended if enough people want - so the more people that have the freedoms we have and value - the less chance our Constitution becomes diluted - there are already efforts by liberal judges to utilize International Law to interpret what our Constitution says - which is just wrong and Scalia does a good job explaining why).
As to faith based approaches to social issues, I will bow out of that one - except to say that there was a time in this country when the socio-economic needs of the less fortunate were met by Churches, families and local communities - not the Government. The Government had much less direct influence in our private lives then - now - well given the effort to remove God from everything public (only the Christian God mind you - as it would not be politically correct for people to attack the others with the vengence Christianity has been attacked over the past 30 years) - is it no wonder that personal responsibility (God's word teaches this quite eloquently) decreased and increased Government dependency has naturally occurred.
JimS
DaveyDug
10-08-2006, 00:06
there was a time in this country when the socio-economic needs of the less fortunate were met by Churches, families and local communities - not the Government. The Government had much less direct influence in our private lives then - now - well given the effort to remove God from everything public (only the Christian God mind you - as it would not be politically correct for people to attack the others with the vengence Christianity has been attacked over the past 30 years) - is it no wonder that personal responsibility (God's word teaches this quite eloquently) decreased and increased Government dependency has naturally occurred.
JimS
EXACTLY! But you have to understand that this is precisely what the government wants. The government has been extremely successful, through a series of incremental changes, in creating a paradigm shift where dependency is just a way of life. Create the dependency for safe society provided by government, and government can do anything it wants in the name of safety.
Our rights should never, ever be infringed upon in the name of safety or anything else. The necessary component that has allowed this nonsense to take place is false dependency, and as soon as the american people realize that we can take care of ourselves, the better.
EXACTLY! But you have to understand that this is precisely what the government wants. The government has been extremely successful, through a series of incremental changes, in creating a paradigm shift where dependency is just a way of life. Create the dependency for safe society provided by government, and government can do anything it wants in the name of safety.
Our rights should never, ever be infringed upon in the name of safety or anything else. The necessary component that has allowed this nonsense to take place is false dependency, and as soon as the american people realize that we can take care of ourselves, the better.
No disagreement here - other than I would qualify and say it is not our Government as much as those within the Government with strong Socialist bents that have created this dependency. The other side of the coin has typically (though not always) pushed for more personal responsibility and freedoms.
DaveyDug
10-08-2006, 00:23
The other side of the coin being... the Republicans? If you honestly think the majority of Republicans in Washington today are pushing for more personal freedoms, then I have nothing more to add to this discussion.
Democrats or Republicans. Take your pick - socialists or fascists?
The other side of the coin being... the Republicans? If you honestly think the majority of Republicans in Washington today are pushing for more personal freedoms, then I have nothing more to add to this discussion.
Democrats or Republicans. Take your pick - socialists or fascists?
Actually if you are going to use the word fascist then the opposing word should be communist. So in your opinion, Republicans are all fascists? The word I was actually thinking about was conservative - and yes those I vote for are more about personal responsibility and freedom than the far left.
I look for individuals to vote for that are interested in making us more responsible for our own futures. Some examples: being able to invest at least a portion of my social security dollars and requiring people on welfare to work (illegal aliens are doing jobs that could just as easily be done by those that are on welfare - call it workfare). These are just two examples that typically are more from the conservative side than liberal side. Others would include tougher penalties for violating laws, school choice and personal choice in medical care.
One other thing, I spend most of my time when looking at candidates looking at their value set and whether they have acted on this value set in a positive way (i.e., they live what they say). This provides an additional protection (in addition to the Constitution) once they
So if your thought is that Republicans are truly fascist then yes, I guess we disagree. If you are making sweeping generalizations about the people in the Republican or Democrat party for that matter concerning personal freedoms and responsibilities - then yes we disagree (this is why I used socialist not a particular party - socialist truly describes a person than tends to favor government over personal responsibility). Libertarians are often mentioned here on this forum as being the Party. They have their internal differences as well - which appear to go from a very light form of government control to a form of anarchy.
"Some who self-identify as libertarians are minarchists, i.e., supportive of minimal taxation as a "necessary evil" for the limited purpose of funding public institutions that would protect civil liberties and property rights, including police, volunteer armed forces without conscription, and judicial courts. Anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, oppose all taxation, rejecting any government claim for a monopoly of protection as unnecessary. They wish to keep the government out of matters of justice and protection, preferring to delegate these issues to private groups. Anarcho-capitalists argue that the minarchist belief that any monopoly on coercion can be contained within any reasonable limits is unrealistic, and that institutionalized coercion on any scale is counterproductive." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
So in my opinion, Libertarianism suffers no less than the other two - they can all say that on mainstream issues they are similar within a party, but differ on many other points. This is why I feel one should look at the individual they are voting for and match their value set to the politician that most closely fits matches them.
I am fine with disagreeing - that is the great thing about America's form of Government - even with disagreements, compromises are worked out and the country moves forward for another term.
JimS
Vermin57
10-09-2006, 12:00
I have come to believe that the majority of the politions in washington do not care for Us normal people. We are just numbers paying taxes. I do feel the democrate do not believe that We are adult enough to take care of ourselves. So the want to run our lives for Us. The democratic Party wants to take our rights away from Us, and they do need a reason. I must admit Im a little concerned about the Patriot Act. Also I see Americans seem to be turning on Americans, that in it self is not good. We do need to stand together, that is how We made it thru hard times before. Due to some experinces in the Military I will never trust the media, they are too communistic.
I do believe We would be better off without politions. What We really need is a business Man to run the government.
What We really need is a business Man to run the government.
Evil Dick is a hardcore businessman in case you have not noticed...
DaveyDug
10-13-2006, 02:55
Here's some more rambling from that crazy Olbermann guy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqw6B4WqNcY
Yup, GWB is one heck of a great American.:rolleyes:
Wake up, folks.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.