Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

    [YT]4aeMtC6YyGU[/YT]


    That all said I LOVE OLBERMANN. I love how in this day of Fox News Olbermann isn't afraid to follow in the footsteps Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. Watching his special comment yesterday I was nearly brought to tears, from the thought of what this country has had to endure under the Bush Administration. Hopefully this special comment will be the beginning of what I have been hoping for since he stole the presidency in 2000.
    Last edited by DrBadd01; 07-13-2007, 02:13 PM. Reason: Embedding the Vidio
    PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

  • #2
    Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

    I made it though about three minutes. Did he have a point beyond the idea that Bush pardoned Libby and therefore should resign for being partisian? If he doesn't like presidential pardon's he should speak against the practice and not Bush's, for once, use of his constitutional powers. Is anyone really shocked that Bush did this?

    There was a time when I liked Keith but it's gotten redundant. Keith's become another Rush. He just tells one side what they want to hear.
    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

      Heck, what about all the people Clinton pardoned?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_Bill_Clinton
      Last edited by Natston; 07-05-2007, 07:20 AM.
      Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
      I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

        Originally posted by naturallystoned View Post
        Heck, what about all the people Clinton pardoned?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_Bill_Clinton
        Heck I found this interesting, all the presidents in the 2000 club are.... Democrats.

        http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm
        Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
        I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

          Olbermann rules. The big difference between the people the democrats pardoned is that none of them would have implicated them in a traiterous scheme which they themselves perpetrated. I.e, outing an undercover agent of the government to sell a war which has senselessly killed thousands upon thousands of people.

          Keith is correct, Bush has only acted like the president of the Republican party of concerned military contractors since he took office.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

            Originally posted by naturallystoned View Post
            Heck, what about all the people Clinton pardoned?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_Bill_Clinton
            I think you are missing the point here.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

              That is an amazing clip!

              I watch Countdown as often as I can but it is not as uch as I'd like. I will make an effort to watch more.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

                Originally posted by Cobol Sam View Post
                I think you are missing the point here.
                Then please enlighten me then...
                Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

                  Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
                  Olbermann rules. The big difference between the people the democrats pardoned is that none of them would have implicated them in a traiterous [sic] scheme which they themselves perpetrated. I.e, outing an undercover agent of the government to sell a war which has senselessly killed thousands upon thousands of people.
                  Nah, that's not "the big difference" between Clinton's pardons and Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. There are lots and lots of other differences. All of the Clinton pardons were for truly noble purposes, and if any money changed hands so what? Libby didn't have his ex-wife donate tens of thousands of dollars to the Bush library fund, like Marc Rich's ex did to the Clinton library just prior to his pardon.

                  Bush only commuted the sentence of a single person who was charged with perjury when he testified about events that were not themselves a crime, unlike Clinton himself was impeached for -- perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice. Shame on Libby for committing perjury regarding conduct that was not illegal. But Bill Clinton himself committed perjury regarding conduct that was illegal.

                  Bush commuted the sentence of only a single person, Libby, unlike the 140 persons Clinton did, several of whom paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton's brother and brothers-in-law the Rodhams (Hillary's brothers) for "consulting" on their pardon requests. Of course, the Justice Department, which oversees pardon requests, was not consulted on many of the Clinton pardons, and if they had been would have vigorously opposed them as unjust. But old Roger Clinton -- convicted coke head and himself a pardon recipient -- was a powerful advocate, as were Tony and Hugh Rodham, even as DOJ was out of the loop.

                  Bush did not commute the sentences of over a dozen Puerto Rican terrorists whose bombings had killed innocents and police officers -- this was again Clinton, who surely was not motivated by the likely effect it would have on Puerto Rican voters in the then-upcoming New York Senate elections in which Hillary! was running.

                  Clinton pardoned Susan McDougal, who everyone remembers mainly for her contempt of court for refusing to offer testimony against him. Think she could not have "implicated" Bill Clinton personally? Today she is treated as a rock star and a hero for standing up to Ken Starr, but the fact is she was a convicted swindler who cheated American taxpayers out of millions of dollars, and who separately embezzled tens of thousands of dollars out of her employer, Los Angeles symphony director Zubin Mehta. This is the high caliber type of person Clinton pardoned.

                  I'm also struck by the incoherence and outright falsehood of your claim that the alleged "outing" of "an undercover agent of the government" was done to "sell" a war. First, as discussed many, many times, Plame was not an undercover agent, although she had done work that qualified as under cover several years earlier. The claim that she was under cover at the time has been shown to be false. Moreover, even if it were true, it hardly "sold" anyone on the war -- which by then had been underway for several years, with the overwhelmingly bipartisan support of Congress. And the outing was done not by Libby, but by Richard Armitage -- if this was really a crime, why wasn't he indicted? Of course, the truth is that Plame's name only surfaced in the first place because her political hack husband Joe Wilson had written a false report in the New York Times. So we may conclude that Republican administrations are not permitted to defend themselves from Democrat partisans' lies.

                  Finally, you complain that the war has "senselessly" killed thousands upon thousands of people. To be sure, thousands have died, and certainly some have even died "senselessly." The same could be said for many wars throughout history, many -- take the American Civil War, for example -- which were fought to right grievous historical wrongs. That is in no way to excuse senseless killings during war, but only to point out that in war some innocents are killed, and that some wars are worth fighting for larger causes, even if some innocents are killed -- you seem not to understand this.

                  You also condemn the killings without noting exactly who or what is doing the senseless killings. I don't believe that American troops are responsible for very many senseless killings, however you would define them. I think it is al Qaeda that is responsible for them, and any killings of al Qaeda members are, in my mind, good things and not at all senseless -- they are murderous barbarians who deserve to die, as I will now provide an anecdote for. Here is a gruesome, grisly example of what I would call senseless killings, but it is to stop and prevent these types of killings -- along with all other killings of innocents, be they in the Trade Center bombings, or on hijacked airplanes, or at beach resorts in Australia, or at kindergartens and elementary schools in Beslin, or on trains in Madrid, or in London, and on and on and on and on wherever free societies have welcomed certain immigrants.

                  The horror of the terrorist onslaught rarely is brought home to the American public, by the New York Times or other major media, and certainly not by little-watched left wing extremists like Keith Olbermann. The news -- which some of us believe make this war worth fighting over, even if we dislike George Bush personally -- is sometimes so grisly that not even American troops in the field can even talk about it. As reported by Michael Yon, in his latest update from Diyala Province.

                  Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.

                  At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.
                  http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...E1NDkwNjFlMGM=

                  If Keith Olbermann is so gutsy, wonderful and courageous, as you and like-minded sycophants pretend, why isn't he reporting such news as this? Let him criticize George Bush and the hated Republicans all he wants, but is there no room for him to pause in these cheesy little diatribes and say, "by the way, al Qaeda, who Bush is fighting, is made up of absolutely evil types who torture and kill children, and sometimes even feed the children to their parents." If he did, or if any of the major media did, perhaps even you could bring yourself to condemn these barbarians, and their conduct, to the degree you condemn the president.
                  Last edited by Bat Boy; 07-10-2007, 01:14 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

                    Olberman is the Democratic Rush. What Clinton did was morally reprehensible and I felt so at the time, but somehow I feel better about it because while Clinton's pardons were all politically motivated or to help people who helped protect him, none of his pardons were used in quite the same way Bush pardoning Libby is being used.

                    From what I understand, no matter the status of Plame or any of that, her identity was intentionally leaked as punishment or as a form of browbeating a political opponent. Libby was rightfully jailed for perjury, and Bush, during the middle of his second term, is pardoning him. I'm sure you all know much more about the particulars of that case than I do, but I sure would feel better about it if Bush had waited like every other President and done it in the last month or so of his Presidency.

                    To me, this just feels like another "F*** you" to the other branches of government.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

                      Originally posted by Bat Boy View Post
                      Nah, that's not "the big difference" between Clinton's pardons and Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. There are lots and lots of other differences. All of the Clinton pardons were for truly noble purposes, and if any money changed hands so what? Libby didn't have his ex-wife donate tens of thousands of dollars to the Bush library fund, like Marc Rich's ex did to the Clinton library just prior to his pardon.

                      Bush only commuted the sentence of a single person who was charged with perjury when he testified about events that were not themselves a crime, unlike Clinton himself was impeached for -- perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice. Shame on Libby for committing perjury regarding conduct that was not illegal. But Bill Clinton himself committed perjury regarding conduct that was illegal.

                      Bush commuted the sentence of only a single person, Libby, unlike the 140 persons Clinton did, several of whom paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton's brother and brothers-in-law the Rodhams (Hillary's brothers) for "consulting" on their pardon requests. Of course, the Justice Department, which oversees pardon requests, was not consulted on many of the Clinton pardons, and if they had been would have vigorously opposed them as unjust. But old Roger Clinton -- convicted coke head and himself a pardon recipient -- was a powerful advocate, as were Tony and Hugh Rodham, even as DOJ was out of the loop.

                      Bush did not commute the sentences of over a dozen Puerto Rican terrorists whose bombings had killed innocents and police officers -- this was again Clinton, who surely was not motivated by the likely effect it would have on Puerto Rican voters in the then-upcoming New York Senate elections in which Hillary! was running.

                      Clinton pardoned Susan McDougal, who everyone remembers mainly for her contempt of court for refusing to offer testimony against him. Think she could not have "implicated" Bill Clinton personally? Today she is treated as a rock star and a hero for standing up to Ken Starr, but the fact is she was a convicted swindler who cheated American taxpayers out of millions of dollars, and who separately embezzled tens of thousands of dollars out of her employer, Los Angeles symphony director Zubin Mehta. This is the high caliber type of person Clinton pardoned.

                      I'm also struck by the incoherence and outright falsehood of your claim that the alleged "outing" of "an undercover agent of the government" was done to "sell" a war. First, as discussed many, many times, Plame was not an undercover agent, although she had done work that qualified as under cover several years earlier. The claim that she was under cover at the time has been shown to be false. Moreover, even if it were true, it hardly "sold" anyone on the war -- which by then had been underway for several years, with the overwhelmingly bipartisan support of Congress. And the outing was done not by Libby, but by Richard Armitage -- if this was really a crime, why wasn't he indicted? Of course, the truth is that Plame's name only surfaced in the first place because her political hack husband Joe Wilson had written a false report in the New York Times. So we may conclude that Republican administrations are not permitted to defend themselves from Democrat partisans' lies.

                      Finally, you complain that the war has "senselessly" killed thousands upon thousands of people. To be sure, thousands have died, and certainly some have even died "senselessly." The same could be said for many wars throughout history, many -- take the American Civil War, for example -- which were fought to right grievous historical wrongs. That is in no way to excuse senseless killings during war, but only to point out that in war some innocents are killed, and that some wars are worth fighting for larger causes, even if some innocents are killed -- you seem not to understand this.

                      You also condemn the killings without noting exactly who or what is doing the senseless killings. I don't believe that American troops are responsible for very many senseless killings, however you would define them. I think it is al Qaeda that is responsible for them, and any killings of al Qaeda members are, in my mind, good things and not at all senseless -- they are murderous barbarians who deserve to die, as I will now provide an anecdote for. Here is a gruesome, grisly example of what I would call senseless killings, but it is to stop and prevent these types of killings -- along with all other killings of innocents, be they in the Trade Center bombings, or on hijacked airplanes, or at beach resorts in Australia, or at kindergartens and elementary schools in Beslin, or on trains in Madrid, or in London, and on and on and on and on wherever free societies have welcomed certain immigrants.

                      The horror of the terrorist onslaught rarely is brought home to the American public, by the New York Times or other major media, and certainly not by little-watched left wing extremists like Keith Olbermann. The news -- which some of us believe make this war worth fighting over, even if we dislike George Bush personally -- is sometimes so grisly that not even American troops in the field can even talk about it. As reported by Michael Yon, in his latest update from Diyala Province.

                      http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...E1NDkwNjFlMGM=

                      If Keith Olbermann is so gutsy, wonderful and courageous, as you and like-minded sycophants pretend, why isn't he reporting such news as this? Let him criticize George Bush and the hated Republicans all he wants, but is there no room for him to pause in these cheesy little diatribes and say, "by the way, al Qaeda, who Bush is fighting, is made up of absolutely evil types who torture and kill children, and sometimes even feed the children to their parents." If he did, or if any of the major media did, perhaps even you could bring yourself to condemn these barbarians, and their conduct, to the degree you condemn the president.
                      Excellent post BB. I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately it's going to take another 9/11 to wake people up that these Islamic Fanatics want us dead, and the only way to deal with people like that is to kill them first. As a nation we are to nice, always looking for a peacful resolution to people who don't want peace.
                      "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

                      --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

                        Good thoughts BB (are you a pro writer??)

                        MD...totally agree but unfortunately Mr. Bush has put himself into a no-win position. If no further attacks occur on US soil, as we all pray, then his actions were careless and even murderous but let another 9/11 occur and it will be loudly touted as being Mr. Bush's fault. Afterall, had we not gone after the terrorists they would not have responded this way. They all hate us now for attacking them and any deaths that occur were provoked. You do realize I am not advocating these thoughts, right? I am merely pointing out how the events will be used to deflect the blame from the real perps to the hated Bush.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

                          Let me just preface this by saying I'm at work so I have not viewed the video and it sound's fairly compelling. So my take has nothing at all to do with that. And apologies in advance for non proofread.

                          Coincidentally I was genunely thinking the same thing yesterday evening regarding Olberman. I reall do not care for Rush, and do not listen to his program. I think the last time I heard his broadcast Clinton was in office.

                          KO has slowly evolved into a Rush/ O'Reilly type commentator.
                          It's uncanny how much he resembles two of the people that I'm sure he despises.
                          I don't know if it's a result of personal hatred or harsh feelings toward the administration or just in what has happened in the past few years. But His show is not nearly as entertaining anymore to watch.

                          Bill Mahr is almost neutral compared to Olberman.

                          At least with him you still get that tongue in cheek at times, and he does ocassionally takes shots at other view points.
                          I may not agree with half of what Mahr always has to say, but his show is at least entertaining most of the time.

                          Keith was sort of a rebel on ESPN but at least it was still light hearted. The comments lately are just venom filled personal feelings
                          that seep into his commentary of the day's stories.

                          Even when I agree with him or he makes a good point, I am too distracted by
                          the manner of how he is reporting it , instead of actually what's being said. His show at times is more political then other shows
                          that are entirely based around political discussion..

                          He's paid to give his viewpoint, and report stories as he sees it, that's great
                          But you cannot have every take and viewpoint so enormously one sided and closed ended.
                          You have to leave some room for the viewer to make assumptions, draw conclusions, fill in the blanks.
                          Otherwise it's just feels like more propaganda. even if what's being said is partially or totally accurate !

                          Like alot of people I don't like some things that this Administration has done or not done for that matter.
                          I'm not sure which side of the Aisle I will be voting for this next election.
                          And no one is happy with how the war is going. It would be a different story if we were hearing from most outlets the many victories
                          and triumphs the war has had on a consistent basis.

                          Is it really that provocative at all of a view to point out every miscue with the war and the lives it has cost ?
                          Decisions were made, actions were taken, agree or disagree we all have to live with the permanent consequences.
                          That does not mean you have to gloss over facts or look the other way.
                          Please, report the stories,but you don't have to stoop to the level of twisting the knife at every possible opportunity. Your personal vendetta's cannot be that transparent to the audinece, that's just a turnoff.

                          For even the most ardent liberal viewers, that's gets tiresome after ahwile.
                          Their are shows on CNN and Fox that I watch, but I like MSNBC because it seems like you get a good mix of both. Hopefully he lightens up somewhat to at least a tolerable level.
                          Last edited by Frank Slade; 07-10-2007, 01:27 PM.

                          Why Not Us ?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

                            I remember there was a conservative pundant who said the worst part about Clinton years was that the pundant lost his sense of humor. I think the same thing could be applied to Keith.
                            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Keith Olbermann Special Comment.

                              Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                              Good thoughts BB (are you a pro writer??)

                              MD...totally agree but unfortunately Mr. Bush has put himself into a no-win position. If no further attacks occur on US soil, as we all pray, then his actions were careless and even murderous but let another 9/11 occur and it will be loudly touted as being Mr. Bush's fault. Afterall, had we not gone after the terrorists they would not have responded this way. They all hate us now for attacking them and any deaths that occur were provoked. You do realize I am not advocating these thoughts, right? I am merely pointing out how the events will be used to deflect the blame from the real perps to the hated Bush.
                              Your exactly right, it's a no win situation, and it won't go away when Bush leaves, the next president is going to have the same problem. If we are attacked again with a mass casulty weapon, I totally support the idea of responding with a civillian targets weapons of our own. Until we make the leaders of these countries responsible for state sponsored terrorism, we are inviting another 9/11.
                              "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

                              --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X