Olbermann Slams Palin

Originally posted by yeahright
Look at the accolades and attention Jon Stewart gets as a "journalist". Funny and entertaining, absolutely. Journalist?

He does? People think he's a journalist? That's a new one on me.

Ashley and others - Just because I think this comment by Olbermann was "pretty good" doesn't mean I agree with everything he says or that I don't see the deflection on both sides. I do. It's a big mistake to assume that a nod to a commentator means that one is in the far left or right camp. I just praised something Bill O'Reilly said in another thread. That doesn't mean I love him or think everything he says is gospel.

These assumptions are so old. It's gotten to the point that people can't express an opinion one way or another around here without hearing, "It's both sides! It's both sides!" like some sort of childish tattle-tale mantra. This assumption that anyone who thinks something is "pretty good" is solidly in one camp with their head in the sand is insulting and very boring. What do you want? A star for pointing out the obvious? Oh, never mind, you got it. You got lots of stars. Good for you.

The subject of the thread was Olbermann's comment. I liked it. I agree with it. Forgive me for not being politically correct and giving 'tearing him apart' equal billing.

Sorry, I've been posting for 3 days and I'm already sick of the holier-than-thou attitude and the preaching that "it's all evil"! No! Really?


[edit on 11-8-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

The ignorance on this thread and over the whole health care issue is ridiculous. I'm no longer American. I'm just a citizen of this planet from now on.

Americans are DAR(dumb as rocks), they can only wrap their heads around meaningless "issues". People going into a frenzy over this yet over 4000 American soldiers and countless others have died in Iraq over a PROVEN LIE to get us in there?

DAR!

[edit on 11-8-2009 by truthtothemasses]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's gotten to the point that people can't express an opinion one way or another around here without hearing, "It's both sides! It's both sides!"

I understand why that is frustrating. One thing I'm getting tired of is the cliche 'This is just all meant to make us fight so let's all get along' as if it's wrong to have a strong opinion on an issue or to be angry about the way things are going. I know the 'both sides!' refutation is frustrating and I've been on the receiving end of that as well. I feel like saying just because I'm ranting at one side at the moment doesn't mean I support the other.

But that is not the main issue I had with your post. The main issue I had was this:

It's important that those who are buying this fear-mongering look under the surface instead of having the knee-jerk reactions

When that is exactly what Olbermann did in his video. He engaged in fear mongering and a knee-jerk reaction instead of getting into the meaty issues.

It's not just the case of 'Heck, everyone does it!' but the fact he is railing against something he was doing that very second: Scare mongering and propaganda.

The subject of the thread was Olbermann's comment. I liked it. I agree with it. Forgive me for not being politically correct and give 'tearing him apart' equal billing.

Likewise, others aren't always going to agree with you, BH, and they will see past the partisan bit and will speak up against it. The Olberman video was so obvious, we did. It's not 'holier-than-thou' or 'self righteousness.' It's nothing more than pointing out he just did EXACTLY what he is ranting against Palin for doing. That is my opinion that I am also free to express. You don't have to take it personally or be upset about the amount of stars a post gets.

You can express your agreement with Olbermann and I'll point out his hypocrisy. Fair enough I'd say.

[edit on 8/11/2009 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


Hi, Ashley,

When that is exactly what Olbermann did in his video. He engaged in fear mongering and a knee-jerk reaction instead of getting into the meaty issues.

I watch KO often, and mostly agree with him, though he does come off as a bit bombastic. Who doesn't, at times???

His background, please recall, in journalism initially was in SportsCasting. There is a certain cadence in his delivery that reminds one of that....

The real issue with his segment last night ( Yes, I saw it live...) was it is his occasional "Special Comment" segment, doesn't do it every night.

It was meant to be in an editorial tone, and reflected his personal beliefs.

I think that KO has plenty history of getting into the "meaty issues", but in TV, as in most things, everything is a compromise, and TIME LIMITS is one of the harshest, in media.

Just my thinkin'!!!!
_________________________________________________________

edit because, typo and I had another thought!

I have to disagree that his editorializing was "fear-mongering". It was, to me, mostly an expression of outrage at other's fear-mongering. AND some who continually spout dis-info, as a political agenda-based ploy, for a certain agenda. THAT is what should be closely examined.



[edit on 11 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by AshleyD
But that is not the main issue I had with your post. The main issue I had was this:

It's important that those who are buying this fear-mongering look under the surface instead of having the knee-jerk reactions

When that is exactly what Olbermann did in his video. He engaged in fear mongering and a knee-jerk reaction instead of getting into the meaty issues.

Oh! I see. Well, imagine that that was a new paragraph. I was talking about what Olbermann said AND what Palin said. Let's try this.

I thought it was pretty good.

It's important that those who are buying this fear-mongering (from both sides) look under the surface (of both sides) instead of having the knee-jerk reactions (that both sides are putting out there).

Likewise, others aren't always going to agree with you, BH,

That's so condescending.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes, I know. That's why I don't go totally ballistic on him and why I compared him to Coulter earlier. They're both just commentators and not official just-the-facts-please reporters. I feel it is possible to be a pundit with class and mutual respect. It's the nastiness and propaganda that REALLY gets to me.

Instead of actually addressing the issues and the heart of the matter, it's like they just sit around slinging mud at each other or at opposing political sides. I have a thing against political commentators. Instead of the truth, it seems the majority just seek to make a name for themselves in a 'shock-jock entertainment' way. I generally try not to waste my time with any of them. The viewer very rarely walks away with any unbiased facts but instead the personal opinion of some talking head.

Beck is the same. They both go off on rants that basically do nothing but trash whatever it is they're speaking out against instead of debating the issues. It's so much nicer getting the facts and letting us form our own opinion instead of hearing the 'news' from the view of a commentator.

Edit to add:

That's so condescending.

Sorry, BH but I have to call it like I see it. You point out the fact you've only been back for three days and are already tired of it so I felt compelled to point out to you that IS the way it goes. We're not all going to agree or have the same perspective on a point up for discussion. Some will agree, some will disagree, and some will bring up various angles. Especially on a site like ATS that endorses no political view, we're going to have a mixed bag. Compared to a site dedicated specifically to liberal/conservative/independent political views.

I don't know what to tell you if you find that condescending when you were the one who pointed out you were 'sick of it.'

[edit on 8/11/2009 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
He does? People think he's a journalist? That's a new one on me.

Would I kid?

When Americans last year were asked to name the journalist they most admired, a comedian showed up at No. 4 on the list. Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central and former master of ceremonies at Academy Award shows, tied in the rankings with anchormen Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and cable host Anderson Cooper.

LINK

Just some more evidence for something we intuitively knew anyway. Or as PT Barnum once said, "If people were smart, I wouldn't own all this cool stuff". Or something.

reply to post by yeahright


OMG! I didn't know that. Dan Rather? Oh, well. Hope you have got a comfy little spot in the handbasket...

So if you are 75 years old and are diagnosed with cancer, will you be guaranteed treatment under the government run health care plan?

If you can honestly say yes, you are either lying or totally brainwashed.

If you say no, then there must be a death panel.

If you say 75 is too old....well people live to be 100 more and more often....thanks to our current health care system. Is it up to government to take away 25 years of someones life?

False dichotomy.

Dan Rather?
Isn't that the guy that thried to fake the Bush/National Guard document using Micorsoft Word?

I wonder who faked the recent Obama Kenyan birth cert?
Maybe Olbermann will soon point fingers at Palin?

Originally posted by RRconservative
So if you are 75 years old and are diagnosed with cancer, will you be guaranteed treatment under the government run health care plan?

If you can honestly say yes, you are either lying or totally brainwashed.

So, that is an absolute statement. Either show me the proof, or you, yourself are lying.

Originally posted by RRconservative
So if you are 75 years old and are diagnosed with cancer, will you be guaranteed treatment under the government run health care plan?

If you can honestly say yes, you are either lying or totally brainwashed.

If you say no, then there must be a death panel.

If you say 75 is too old....well people live to be 100 more and more often....thanks to our current health care system. Is it up to government to take away 25 years of someones life?

I hate to point this out, but...this happens today with private insurance. The deny not only claims, but an individual's right to participate in a plan based on their past health. Moreover, they don't even have the decency to call you to tell you they denied a claim, they just let the bill collectors harass you to death.

The fact is for everyone's talk of self-reliance these days, no one is actually doing it. Have a back-up plan. Put aside a health savings account. There are Christian charities out there that will help you pay your medical bills. If government insurance denies you in this country go to one of them, OR go to Italy and walk into one of their hospitals. You will get treated.

Be resourceful.

This bill is equal measure good and bad like most bills in Congress. I would like to see everyone have the same access to health care, but I would prefer it that it comes in tax credit for good Samaritan programs. I never get what I want, so this time is no different.

As for socio-political leanings regarding universal healthcare... the fact is that the uninsured today DO have socialized health care. It's called the ER. We ARE paying for the uninsured, it costs us billions, so what is the uproar? A rose by any other name smells as sweet and a turd called a rose still smells gross. Or something like that...

reply to post by jd140



I lean to the right and Palin makes no sense to me. She is an empty suit playing politics as usual. Of course I do not like Olbermann either.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Actually, it's called the 'End Of Life' counseling, aka euthanasia.

Obama wants to reimburse doctors for consulting patients every five years about end-of-life issues, leaving room to abuse the system for the sake of convenience.

A provision in the House health care bill would provide Medicare coverage for an end-of-life consultation, leading some to believe that the Obama administration is looking to save money by pressuring insurers to provide less coverage to seniors in the later stages of their lives.

link

I agree with Oberman on this one. Palins comments were not just irresponsible, but wacky. The far right has so distorted so many issues recently its embarresing. It's one of the reasons I'm a recovering Republican.

reply to post by Alxandro

Actually, it's called the 'End Of Life' counseling, aka euthanasia.

Alxandro, you can't possibly believe that, can you??

"euthanasia"???

That is simply so untrue, it smacks rather similarly to another technique at fear-mongering "spin" that was used a few years ago, in discussions of the Estate Tax, and its merits. A certain side of the political persuasion insisted in giving it the moniker "Death Tax". Oooooohhhh, sounds lots more scary, doesn't it??

Manipulation, pure and simple.

There is not a phalanx of "Dr. Kevorkians" stored away somewhere, just itching to hook people up to IVs full of poison!!!

It may be useful to remind people of the Hippocratic Oath and what it means to physicians. It is a basic tenet of the Medical Profession. I'd suggest people take a break, walk somewhere, shake off the rhetoric, and ASK you Health Care Professionals out there, instead of relying on certain blogs, cable "news" programs, or whatever.

Seems a whole lot of shakin' goin' on, and that's the unbalanced washing machine in its spin cycle.......

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Actually, it's called the 'End Of Life' counseling, aka euthanasia.

Obama wants to reimburse doctors for consulting patients every five years about end-of-life issues, leaving room to abuse the system for the sake of convenience.

A provision in the House health care bill would provide Medicare coverage for an end-of-life consultation, leading some to believe that the Obama administration is looking to save money by pressuring insurers to provide less coverage to seniors in the later stages of their lives.

link

Thanks for giving us Fox News unbiased account. Feel free to slag Olbermann for his apparent left wing bias...but give Fox a free pass.

I hesitate on that basis to point it out, but I believe the video I cited in the first place covers that very point and is the basis for his condemnation of Palin for promoting a lie. Of course, you'd have to watch it to the 13-odd minute mark be able to make that conclusion. I understand.

The legislation says that if you or a loved one are fatally ill, you may put in for reimbursement for the doctors appointment to discuss what amounts to 'living wills'...and also points out that that part of the bill was originally co-sponsored by a Republican senator. I didn't see that in the Fox piece, but they sure are heavy enough on the innuendo.

Discourse is good...but keep denying ignorance, eh?