Keith Olbermann's Greatness

P

Prakosh

Senior Member
Fresh on the heels of his BuzzFlash "Wings of Justice Award" Keith Olbermann outdid himself tonight with his powerful and well chosen words about Rumsfeld’s "fascism" comments at the VFW annual meeting in Utah yesterday. Watch it, save it and share it. It was certainly Olbermann's best moment to date. He deserve's another award for this speech. If only we had more like Olbermann and Amy Goodman.

<a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/30/keith-olbermann-delivers-one-hell-of-a-commentary-on-rumsfeld/">For Video Link</a>
 
Wow, he really was good here. I usually think of him as being very funy, but this was actually very powerful. I don't understand when these bags of shit are going to wake up and realize that when they speak of people against the war in these terms, that they are now speaking of a majority of Americans?

Here's the link again , because on this board, you just paste the address and it makes the link for you. You can't use HTML, which makes you wonder, will we soon be like those old geezers who complain that "the kids today can't count change back?" Because the "new" cash registers figure it for you...someday soon no one under a certain age will know how to create a link, because all over the net, sites will do it for them. And we will all sit around, shake our heads and say "In my time". You'll see

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/...delivers-one-hell-of-a-commentary-on-rumsfeld
 
Olbermanns first mstake was to call what we live in a Democracy .. it is not, we live under a representative form of Government..aka Republic. Otherwise it was a gutsy performance. Interesting though.. Im waiting for Anyoldiron and/or Cypress to jump in and slam him for daring to use the word fascist along with a montage of Hitler when describing this administration ... just as they did when forum members refer to our Dictatorial Islamic friends across the ocean. Right Darla?

Cant argue against Olbermanns overall disgust... this administration has more often displayed incompetence.. therefore they deserve the shit thrown their way.
 
klaatu said:
Olbermanns first mstake was to call what we live in a Democracy .. it is not, we live under a representative form of Government..aka Republic. Otherwise it was a gutsy performance. Interesting though.. Im waiting for Anyoldiron and/or Cypress to jump in and slam him for daring to use the word fascist along with a montage of Hitler when describing this administration ... just as they did when forum members refer to our Dictatorial Islamic friends across the ocean. Right Darla?

Cant argue against Olbermanns overall disgust... this administration has more often displayed incompetence.. therefore they deserve the shit thrown their way.
Click to expand...

We live in a DEMOCRACY, our form is a Democratic Republic.

Great Britain and Canada as an example, live in a Democracy but their form of Democracy is a Parlimentary system.

We live in a Democracy.
 
Care4all said:
We live in a DEMOCRACY, our form is a Democratic Republic.

Great Britain and Canada as an example, live in a Democracy but their form of Democracy is a Parlimentary system.

We live in a Democracy.
Click to expand...

He misled by using the word Democracy ... there is a differrence between a Democracy and Democratic Republic ... straight up..we live in a representative form of Government....

I dont need to be lectured on this ....
 
REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
 
ME aND MY son STOOD THERE LISTENING TO HIM WIHT BIG GRINS ON OUR FACES !

Kieth is my hero right now, who ever thought that big nerdy sportcaster with the groucho marx looks would turn out so cool!
 
WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!

a republic is a form of Democracy!!

WTF do you guys do this shit?
 
ok klaatu, WHATEVER.....

I was taught in school that we are a Democracy, as Canada is, as Great Britain as Australia as Israel as (Iraq).....

The form of democratic government that we have is a REPUBLIC, a Democratic Republic.....

you can try to twist and turn that, all you want....to say that we do not live in a Democracy....and maybe the last 10 years things have changed from when I went to school for some political purpose, but it's hard to teach an old dog NEW TRICKS....We are a Democracy and our form of democratic government is a Republic.
 
Representative
Representative democracy (or Polyarchy[1]) is so named because the people do not vote on most government decisions directly, but select representatives to a governing body or assembly. Representatives may be chosen by the electorate as a whole (as in many proportional systems) or represent a particular subset (usually a geographic district or constituency), with some systems using a combination of the two. Many representative democracies incorporate some elements of direct democracy, such as referenda.


Liberal
Liberal democracy is a representative democracy which has free and fair elections, and also has rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property. [3] [4] Conversely, an illiberal democracy is one where the protections that form a liberal democracy are either nonexistant, or not enforced. The experience in some post-Soviet states drew attention to the phenomenon, although it is not of recent origin. Napoleon for example used plebiscites to ratify his decisions.


A Liberal representative Democracy GET IT!
 
Olbermann is a quaisi journalist just as Orielly is... but he needs to choose his words carefully ....
By saying that we live in a Democracy.. he is saying that the majority rules... especially when applied to his speech. The majority does not have dictatorial power over the President ..especially when referencing poll numbers.. this is what he is suggesting in this speech... and he is wrong to aplly it that way.
The only time we are in a Democray is when we vote .. and even then.. when we vote for a President .. it becomes a republic...
Yes Care and Desh..there is a difference ....
 
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.


A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.


No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.


Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.


The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.


Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
 
keith's ending....

-----------------------------------
The confusion we — as its citizens - must now address, is

stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when

men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and

obscured our flag. Note - with hope in your heart - that those earlier

Americans always found their way to the light… and we can, too.

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.

—-

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country

faces a "new type of fascism."

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew

everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he

said that — though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

—-

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble

tribute… I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist

Edward R. Murrow.

But 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."

Thus forgive me for reading Murrow in full:

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

"We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction

depends upon evidence and due process of law.

"We will not walk in fear - one, of another. We will not be

driven by fear into an age of un-reason, 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."
 
klaatu, his comments just flew over your head then...

because his comments were VERY CLEAR, no confusion to me or desh or probably anyone else, ....but YOU or some other right winger....that has tried to change the meaning of the form of government and society we live in...

just to daraw attention away from the SUBJECT of this editorial....(shakes head)
 
Care4all said:
klaatu, his comments just flew over your head then...

because his comments were VERY CLEAR, no confusion to me or desh or probably anyone else, ....but YOU or some other right winger....that has tried to change the meaning of the form of government and society we live in...

just to daraw attention away from the SUBJECT of this editorial....(shakes head)
Click to expand...

Where am I trying to change the meaning Care? I am outlining it as it is ... direct from the Constitution that our Forefathers laid out.., and no .. just because you are an extreme left winger it does not give you and Desh some special enlightment ... lets get this straight. We are a Country made up of different people with diffferent ideals ... a big tent Country!
And I am offended that you think that I am part of some sinister fascist Idealism... :mad:
 
Olbermanns first mstake was to call what we live in a Democracy .. it is not, we live under a representative form of Government..aka Republic. Otherwise it was a gutsy performance. Interesting though.. Im waiting for Anyoldiron and/or Cypress to jump in and slam him for daring to use the word fascist along with a montage of Hitler when describing this administration ...

I don't like americans calling other americans "fascists" or "traitors".

What Olberman did was merited. Rumsfeld questioned the patriotism, morality, and sanity of the 60% of americans who think he and Bush made a huge mistake.

Olberman punched a bully back in the jaw. I'm down with that.
 
Classic word parsing.

For all intents and purposes, this is a Democracy. Word parsing is just mental masterbation.

Of course a pure democracy, is where everyone gets to vote on everything.

By that standard, there's not a single democracy on the planet. That's a ridiculous assertion to make.

In the commoon lexicon, we denote different systems of government as "democracies": representative republics, constitutional monarchies, and parliamentary systems are all accepted as "democracies".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top