Hugh_Hoy Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 I agree with everything you say. Honest: well, to the extent that he believed what he was saying. (I don't think he thought he was actually telling fibs.) 555555555 "Rush" goes over the top for entertainment; Olbermann's "unhinged" attacks were clearly from the heart and what you would call mean-spirited, and vindictive; in fact, I've said here before that I would only watch him briefly in hopes that he had "the big one" while doing his show. :content: Olbermann is clearly an intelligent guy. But I think he's probably "too full of himself". I also think he's probably a bit mentally unbalanced. Egotistic is a characteristic of most celebrities, but Olbermann has been referred to by a number of sources as "volatile"...and I agree with that. He's an angry guy. This isn't the first time that Keith has had probs keeping a job. ESPN let him go before for his "over the top" lip. RIP, Keith. See ya on the Food Channel. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizardKing Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 The biggest difference between Keith & Fatso, err Rush is that KO fact checked and told the truth, while Rush just makes shit up as he goes along. That's a HUGE difference. Of course HH and the rest of the right do not care. They like being lied to, it makes them feel good. Either that or they are just too stupid to care. I'd assume that this is a fallout from the poorly thought out Comcast-NBC merger. Given Comcast's very rightie politics, I expect Rachel Maddow & Ed Shultz to go next. Then there'll be exactly *zero* shows showing an opposing viewpoint on US teevee. Seems that there are no such thing as anti-monopoly laws anymore. O & his admin are proving to be just another BushCo but with a slicker style, given this, Gitmo, the tax extension, the healthcare sellout, et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 I've been saying Obama has governed as a moderate or centrist with a slight left of center slant and the left don't like it because they thought he'd be solidly left. The right hates him no matter what. Even if he did all the things the right wants, if its not a Republican doing it then it doesn't matter. Its about power of the party for both sides. Not the actual actions. There are southern dems who do things more right of center than Republicans elsewhere but are still not liked by any Republican. Same with some Republicans who are like Rockerfeller Repubs but will still not be liked ever by the left. Rudy is no far rightwinger for example, his stance on immigration for example is very much in the Democrat template but he is not liked by a lot of Dems and a lot on the left for no other reason he is a Republican. BOTH parties say they want what is best for the country but I am now certain they just want raw naked power for their party and if they have to modify their platform to retain power so be it. Obama is f*cked though I think for the time being because he is not as strong with his base in Dems and is hated almost as much as Clinton was by the right. I actually think Clinton was hated for being successful. To a lesser degree Reagon to the left. Both enjoyed a great economy but were hated by the opposition in good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Reports are saying Olberman wanted more money and was refused. So now he gets none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 I've been saying Obama has governed as a moderate or centrist with a slight left of center slant and the left don't like it because they thought he'd be solidly left. The right hates him no matter what. Even if he did all the things the right wants, if its not a Republican doing it then it doesn't matter. Its about power of the party for both sides. Not the actual actions. There are southern dems who do things more right of center than Republicans elsewhere but are still not liked by any Republican. Same with some Republicans who are like Rockerfeller Repubs but will still not be liked ever by the left. Rudy is no far rightwinger for example, his stance on immigration for example is very much in the Democrat template but he is not liked by a lot of Dems and a lot on the left for no other reason he is a Republican. BOTH parties say they want what is best for the country but I am now certain they just want raw naked power for their party and if they have to modify their platform to retain power so be it. Obama is f*cked though I think for the time being because he is not as strong with his base in Dems and is hated almost as much as Clinton was by the right. I actually think Clinton was hated for being successful. To a lesser degree Reagon to the left. Both enjoyed a great economy but were hated by the opposition in good times. Obama is fucked? the polls were saying differently a few days ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Our country is in its worse times it has ever had. We are fighting two endless wars. Something we never have done before. City after city and State after State are on the edge of bankruptcy - something we never saw before. Social Security and Medicare which ironically is deep in the black for both programs, is only black in paper. The USA government doesn't want to pay back any of the money they 'borrowed'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) I am not American, and I may never understand the motivation behind American foreign policy over the last 50-60 years, but I have to ask just one question : Why do the American people allow the CIA to continue to derail the positive impact of their efforts overseas ? In a conversation with an American recently, he told me that the CIA operates completely independently of the Congress - I can only assume that makes them 'accountable' to exactly one man. The man who, presumably, signed off on the genocide of the Hmong people on the Plain Of Jars in Southern Laos, with his advisors whispering in his ear that it was for the 'greater good'. The same man the CIA had killed in full view of the public in 1963, which might explain why no-one has tried to challenge their power since. Happy to hear otherwise. Edited January 25, 2011 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 So you've been talking to Cav, have you. Tin hat time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) So you've been talking to Cav, have you. Tin hat time again. Flash, I freely admit that I watch way too many docos made by lefty types with an axe to grind. Even if 50% of what they say can be attributed to the CIA is fact, its just scary. As the American who spent a lifetime trying to help the people of Laos, particularly the Hill Tribes, put it 'This isnt about body count - they didnt leave any bodies. These people were vaporised, incinerated and torn to pieces in the continual bombardment'. I could insert quotes from Wikipedia on the amount of ordnance that the USAF dropped on Laos, but its all a moot point now - the US lost to both the North Vietnamese and the Pathet Lao, a generation of young Americans was scarred by a war they didnt need to fight and the US literally sowed the seeds for another unwinnable war : the war on that-of-which-we-dare-not-speak. Don't even get me started on Cambo : thats a topic for a whole new thread. Edited January 25, 2011 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rchapstick Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 In a conversation with an American recently, he told me that the CIA operates completely independently of the Congress - I can only assume that makes them 'accountable' to exactly one man. Substitute CIA with her name, and you have Fox News talking points about Hillary Clinton! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now