Keith Olbermann's Greatness

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I'm not talking about what you stated. You obviously stated, while being careful not to direct it at anyone, that they were both opinion shows.

What I was saying is, that you are very quick to jump on any liberal for commenting on a republican transgression without documenting every or any democrat who made similar transgressions, and claiming it doesn't help their "cred". You make zero comments like that to coms. Which is fine, but don 't at the same time use the word "partisan" as if you're not, because Damo, you most certainly are.

You and I both know from reading the convoluted excuse making on this thread, that any "cred" anyone thought they had, is a laugh. Under YOUR definition of cred.
Rubbish. Check into it, you'll find I spread that around quite a bit. I understand you want to protect your friend. However your friend's spending time trashing people for being partisan when every single post of this person is partisan in themselves is ridiculous.
 
Especially when Bush comes into play. I am not a fan.

Ok Damo, I didn't say you were. I read this thread from a different perspective than you did, and watching the outright gymnastics as people pulled things straight out of their asses in order to claim that "it's different when O'reily does it", had me literally laughing out loud. I mean, I wouldn't bother answering that shit.

I was simply pointing out that you expressed no concern over their "cred", and in fairness to them, you should. Somebody needs to worry about their cred Damo, I can tell you that.
 
They've been around longer than him. They build their cred, or lack of cred, from their history. This person is creating their cred as they post. It's the way the new happens.

It's all good anyway. Editorials are partisan, that is what they are about... Calling them "anchors" is a bit ridiculous IMO.
 
They've been around longer than him. They build their cred, or lack of cred, from their history. This person is creating their cred as they post. It's the way the new happens.

It's all good anyway. Editorials are partisan, that is what they are about... Calling them "anchors" is a bit ridiculous IMO.

Krisy has been around longer than him and already built this "cred"?

LOL

O-K.

Stop. The people I'm talking about on this very thread, have no credibility with me whatsoever, and have only been around for a matter of days. You know them longer. That's all.
 
Krisy has been around longer than him and already built this "cred"?

LOL

O-K.

Stop. The people I'm talking about on this very thread, have no credibility with me whatsoever, and have only been around for a matter of days. You know them longer. That's all.
For me she has... and others on this board. For you not. Neither group here, however, knows Prakosh, only two of you.
 
Question:

Does Olberman write his own shit?

That speech was a work of art. In terms of rhetoric, content, and delivery. It was frickin' brilliant. As good, or better, than the best shit a presidential speechwriter can come up with.

Frankly, if it is written by Olbermna, I'm astonded by his talent for rhetoric.


Oh please .. talk about mental masterbation Cypress? Day after day you post crap about people marching to the orders of Limbaugh and hannity ... and here you are jerking off to the words of a former sportswriter ... lol! What a hack!
 
I went to military schools for a great part of my education and was taught by these CONSERVATIVE military schools that we live in a Democracy, with a Democratic Republic as our form of government....

In your tiny interpretation.... the whole western world does not live in democracy....with freedom, including the freedom to choose what form of democracy they want...?

Democracy:


Main varieties include:

Direct

Direct democracy is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare because of the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. The most notable was the ancient Athenian democracy. Today, direct democracy is existing in countries such as Switzerland, where certain cantons practice it in its literal form, and in other countries, typically those where there is also referendum.

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.


I stand by the Constitution ... and within the words that our forefather layed out ... we live in a Republic .... a form of Democracy ..yes ... but a Republic which is a Representative form of Federal Government where the peoples voice is heard "via" the candidates they choose to represent them. What you are trying to do is remove the word Republic...because this somehow offends your left wing ears ....

So.. is it the Constitution vrs. what you were taught?
 
I stand by the definition of the words!

We are a democracy and one has to wonder Why you hate that idea?
 
I stand by the Constitution ... and within the words that our forefather layed out ... we live in a Republic .... a form of Democracy ..yes ... but a Republic which is a Representative form of Federal Government where the peoples voice is heard "via" the candidates they choose to represent them. What you are trying to do is remove the word Republic...because this somehow offends your left wing ears ....

So.. is it the Constitution vrs. what you were taught?

What you are trying to do is remove the word Republic...because this somehow offends your left wing ears ....

Calm down. Its just common, every day lexicon.

Its the same reason you, Bush, and cheney never refer to Britain as a "constitutional monarchy", or Israel as a "parliamentary democracy". Because, in everyday language, you, Bush and Cheney refer to those countries as democracies.
 
LOL. Just a few days ago there was a whole thread about the importance of specific definitions. I guess they are only important when they don't go against what you want them to. This is a Constitutional Republic, not a pure Democracy. Attempting to simplify it so it agrees with a hero is foolish. Just say, "Yeah, he should have said Representative Democracy" or some other such and move on.
 
LOL. Just a few days ago there was a whole thread about the importance of specific definitions. I guess they are only important when they don't go against what you want them to. This is a Constitutional Republic, not a pure Democracy. Attempting to simplify it so it agrees with a hero is foolish. Just say, "Yeah, he should have said Representative Democracy" or some other such and move on.
But this time we're not talking about coining a new colloquialism but rather trying to pin down the meaning of one already in common use.

Does the vernacular definition of "Democracy" include a constitutional republic? Most certainly. In fact, I suspect that many Americans think they're synonymous.
 
LOL. Just a few days ago there was a whole thread about the importance of specific definitions. I guess they are only important when they don't go against what you want them to. This is a Constitutional Republic, not a pure Democracy. Attempting to simplify it so it agrees with a hero is foolish. Just say, "Yeah, he should have said Representative Democracy" or some other such and move on.

A constitutional republic, or a constitutional monarchy are and can be used interchangeably with "democracy" in the common lexicon of the english language.

Until about three months ago, the word "fascism" and "theocrats and/or islamic jihaddists" were not considered interchangably. In fact, they were quite literally the opposite of each other.
 
I went to military schools for a great part of my education and was taught by these CONSERVATIVE military schools that we live in a Democracy, with a Democratic Republic as our form of government....

In your tiny interpretation.... the whole western world does not live in democracy....with freedom, including the freedom to choose what form of democracy they want...?

Democracy:


Main varieties include:

Direct

Direct democracy is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare because of the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. The most notable was the ancient Athenian democracy. Today, direct democracy is existing in countries such as Switzerland, where certain cantons practice it in its literal form, and in other countries, typically those where there is also referendum.

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.

One great poster


she just rocks

I still catch her once in awhile

she is a REAL christian soul
 
Put in the right context Cypress. Dan Rather had a huge scandal. Peter Jennings wrote a book,and Phil Donahue....well,he is just nuts:rolleyes:

(shakes head)

Keith has a ridiculous vendetta against O Relly. He is like a puppy begging for a treat,trying to get OReilly's attention

Phil Donahue was right about the Iraq war and Bush lying about it.

you fucks took him off the air at the time for it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top