Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Do Quit Your Day Job

This transcript comes from a reaction that MSNBC leftwing propaganda fiend, Keith Olbermann, had to a Donald Rumsfeld speech a month ago. I wrote about the Rumsfeld speech when it happened. It was a great speech. Olbermann’s reaction would be comical if it weren’t for many American’s buying into his monkey logic.

The main message of that Olbermann seems to convey is that people who believe in absolutes are always dumb. He also voices his concern over people who challenge the intelligence, morality, and patriotism of others. To help illustrate this, he talks about the Bush administration being intellectually confused, their lack of morality, and how they are destroying the country.

In case you are wondering, no, it doesn’t make sense. It really is a debate between Olbermann and himself. You can also watch Olbermann in action on YouTube.

Olbermann’s nonsensical tirade begins like this…

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

In other words, if you view the answer of certain issues in black and white, you are a quack. Last time I checked, that is an absolute. Therefore, by his own logic, Olbermann is a quack.

We’ll give him a break. Everyone makes mistakes.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence — indeed, the loyalty — of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land.

Ok that seems fair…right? His problem is that he later countered this statement and said…

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter.

He then flip-flopped back to his original position and attacked Rumsfeld again.

And yet he [Rumsfeld] can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emperor’s New Clothes?

And again…

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

After this, he then decided to question Rumsfeld’s patriotism…

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

Again…

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

Again…

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

And again…

Quoting Edward R. Murrow, Olbermann says that "never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: 'confused' or 'immoral.'"

I wonder how Olbermann justifies his "Worst Person in the World" segment? What a rollercoaster. It isn’t over yet though.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s — questioning their intellect and their morality.

Olbermann obviously suffers from a severe disconnect from reality. A monopoly on the facts? Is that possible today? Is he aware of the internet? What a douche.

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954.

I think Olbermann is confusing disloyalty with dissent. Again Olbermann evokes Edward R. Murrow...

“We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.”

So accusing the president of lying doesn’t mean its true…got it. More Murrow…

We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason…

Like believing that driving our cars will destroy the planet? Olbermann used one last Murrow quote…

… if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.

Right on Murrow. Like defending Wal-Mart’s right to conduct business against do-nothing politicians with economic ignoramuses as constituents?

The difference between liberals and conservatives is simple. Libs fear monger about economics, conservatives fear monger about terrorists. Terrorists kill, Wal-Mart sells you products for cheap prices. Decide for yourself who is on the right side of history and who is completely out of touch with reality.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
11 Comments:
Blogger Democrat said...
Media, my little conservative friend, I just read your myspace bulletin, and believe me when I say: YOU COULD NEVER OWN KEITH OLBERMANN. You, nor I, are as educated as he is. In the future, maybe, but not now. In no way, shape or form could we "own his ass."



"The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack."


Rummy seems to think that Iraq is going swimmingly; it isn't. Olbermann was merely pointing out in that statement that Iraq is not going well, despite Rummy's belief. The "prophet" bit is not meant to be taken literally, it's a figure of speech. The "quack" bit is meant to be taken literally, because it is true. Rummy is a quack.

In other words, if you view the answer of certain issues in black and white, you are a quack. Last time I checked, that is an absolute. Therefore, by his own logic, Olbermann is a quack.


Iraq is not a black and white issue; Rummy seems to think it is. It is not the forces of good verses evil. Black and white would be an absolute, but Iraq is not an absolute, yet Rummy seems to think it is. That was the point Olbermann made.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter.

Rummy, when before a senate committee, says one thing, but when he gives a speech to the public he says another. Keith Olbermann realized that, and if you did some research so would you.

And yet he [Rumsfeld] can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emperor’s New Clothes?

Rummy, as well as many conservatives, accuse people of being anti-American when you question them. If you question what Rummy said on Friday, you are anti-American. If you question what he said on Saturday, you are anti-American. And if you dare to point out how Rummy is inconsistent in what he says, you are anti-American. That’s what Olbermann is saying --- I’m sorry you, as well as many other Republican apologists, did not realize that.

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

When you try and hush voices that do not agree with you, that is being anti-Democracy. Rummy and his cabal of naves attempt to hush those who disagree with them. Therefore being anti-Democratic. Pretty simple.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

He is not questioning his patriotism; he is questioning Rummy’s Democratic Values. I have no doubt that Rumsfeld loves this country; for this country is set up in such a way that crooks like him can steal from the poor and give to the rich. I believe republicans love this country, but I believe they love this country for the wrong reasons.

Olbermann obviously suffers from a severe disconnect from reality. A monopoly on the facts? Is that possible today? Is he aware of the internet? What a douche.

What the hell planet do you live on? Honestly, tell me. Read “State of Denial,” “Worse than Watergate,” “Conservatives without Conscience,” “Losing America,” etc. Every single one of those books shows how FACTS were withheld by the Bush administration. Hence having a monopoly on the facts.

So accusing the president of lying doesn’t mean its true…got it. More Murrow…

It has been proven that Bush lied; therefore it is no longer just an accusation. The accusation is that Iraq had WMD’s or had anything at all to do with 9/11. Both of which have been proved untrue. And because the accusations by the Bushies were proven untrue, the accusation that Bush is a liar has been proven true. Pretty simple.


The difference between liberals and conservatives is simple. Libs fear monger about economics, conservatives fear monger about terrorists. Terrorists kill, Wal-Mart sells you products for cheap prices. Decide for yourself who is on the right side of history and who is completely out of touch with reality.


Over half of America agree with the democrats. The little pig republicans running everything will be a mere memory.


Keith Olbermann is brilliant, Media.You better work a lot harder to "own his ass" next time, pal.

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
whether or not people agree with democrats is irrelevent. the fact is that olbermann spent 6 and a half minute aruging with himself.

just to touch on one issue...how does rummy think iraq is black and white? i think that by assuming rummy views iraq in a black and white spectrum proves that you and olbermann are questioning rummy's intelligence...which is what olbermann said we shouldn't do.

Blogger Democrat said...
whether or not people agree with democrats is irrelevent. the fact is that olbermann spent 6 and a half minute aruging with himself.

No, he didn't. He spent six and a half minutes telling the truth. He spent six and a half minutes being more articulate than Bill O'Reilly or any other conservative pundit could ever be.

just to touch on one issue...how does rummy think iraq is black and white? i think that by assuming rummy views iraq in a black and white spectrum proves that you and olbermann are questioning rummy's intelligence...which is what olbermann said we shouldn't do.

The idea that Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror is a joke --- it doesn't. At least it didn't have anything to do with it. Who knows now.

I'm sure you've heard about the classified document that was leaked. Do you remember what it said?

All you have to do is listen to Bush and his cronies and you'll quickly realize that they view the war on terror as black and white. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was the pretext to this war. Bush himself has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Every allegation the repukes made against Iraq has been proved untrue. So what is their response now? "The world is safer with Sadaam in power."

We took our eye off the ball. Usama is still free. Al Queda has grown stronger since we've been in Iraq, according to a senate report. I don't understand how you people can support these filthy, vile, disgusting people. It is unreal.

Democrat

Blogger Democrat said...
Being that you left out imperiative parts of of Olbermann's speech, I will post the link to the video for all to see. Those who read your blog can make their own decision.

Here

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
1. i posted a link to the video in the main blog...which makes me wonder if you actually DID read what i wrote. so yes, i saw the whole speech, and i still think he was arguing with himself.

2. iraq does have something to do with the war on terrorism. it was first listed as a state sponser of terrorism under the carter admin...clinton had iraq listed as a state sponser of terrorism too.

if you are willing to admit clinton and other democrats lied, then i will say that bush lied...at least by your logic.

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
i LOVE the flu vaccine comment. LOL...

Blogger Democrat said...
Iraq may have been listed as a state sponser of terrorism, but not against the United States. And what about Iran, Syria, etc. do they not support terrorism. If that was Bush's reasoning for the war, why didn't he come out and say that? Why did he make up lies? Oh, that's right, because Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States. The argument that "Iraq sponsered terrorism" wouldn't have sold, and they knew it. So they lied.

He was not arguing with himself; you think that because you have been brainwashed.

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
I'm more moderate than you, so i wouldn't talk about brain washed if i were you.

Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism and Saddam hated the US more than other leader on the planet. I seriously think that you have been brain washed into thinking this is a black and white deal. The Iraq was is extremely complicated with lots of history behind it. I suggest you go back and read the Aug.3-9 2002 issue of the Economist. They have a pretty good argument in there for the war against Saddam. No lies, no hyped intelligence...and in fact, almost no mention of WMD.

Blogger Democrat said...
How are you more moderate? LOL. All you know about me, essentially, is that I'm pro-life and do not support the war or this pig in the white house.

If Sadaam hated us more than any other leader on the planet --- explain why he had nothing to do with 9/11? Unlike you, I don't think of things on a black and white basis. I believe Sadaam was a bad man, yes. But he was not a grave threat. Iran was and is much more of a threat. Al Queda is much more of a threat. Where is Usama, David? What about the Senate report that said Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11? What about Bush saying on national television that Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Al Queda, since we've been in Iraq, has grown by nearly 50% in numbers? What about the classified document that was just leaked not long ago? What did that say again? Oh, that's right --- OUR PRESENCE IN IRAQ MAKES US LESS SAFE!

Secondly, I've very well aware of our history with Iraq. I'm very well aware that Clinton thought there was WMD's in Iraq. I'm very well aware Reagan armed Iraq to fight Iran. I'm very well aware of the picture of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands. I'm very well aware that weapons inspectors found NOTHING in Iraq, but Bush still decided to proceed. I'm aware that the U.N. did not authorize military force in Iraq, and that Bush ignored it. I'm very well aware that Bush mislead America into an unnecessary war. Trust me, I'm quite aware and do not need to read Right Wing propaganda.

Now that we've found NO link to Al Queda and Sadaam, and now that we've found no WMD's in Iraq --- Right Wingers are going to pollute our minds with other reasons for going. "Regime changes," they say, "are necessary to protect America." I agree. Change the Bush regime.

Democrat

Blogger Media Tycoon said...
i'm pro-drug legalization
pro-abortion
anti-militrary (weird huh)
pro-immigration
pro-prostitution
pro-stem cell research
pro-legalized porn

i know for a fact i am more moderate than you.

Blogger Democrat said...
I'm pro-drug legalization

Only Marijuana in my opinion.

pro-abortion

Pro-Life

anti-militrary (weird huh)

I believe we need a strong defense. Operative word being DEFENSE!

pro-immigration

Me too.

pro-prostitution

If it is regulated like it is in Nevada.

pro-stem cell research

Only if the embryo is going to be discarded anyway.

pro-legalized porn

Adult porn. And it is legal.

i know for a fact i am more moderate than you.

No. I'd say we are about equal. I'm a bit Left of center, and you are a bit Right of center. I don't believe we have a Welfare state, you do. I don't believe the war in Iraq is necessary, you do. If someone like you ran for office, I may vote for you. You are not too far Right.

Democrat

Links to this post:
Create a Link