Beginning of the End of America: Olbermann on Military Commissions Act

DPrival78

once again, keith is dead on:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

farfromglorified

Not usually a big fan of these Olbermann rants, but this is a good one.

polaris

would be fantastic if this administration all got arrested ... tortured and given no rights ... that would be karma at its finest ...

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

would be fantastic if this administration all got arrested ... tortured and given no rights ... that would be karma at its finest ...

No, that would by hypocrisy at its finest.

PaperPlates

polaris wrote:

would be fantastic if this administration all got arrested ... tortured and given no rights ... that would be karma at its finest ...

so you're not really big on practice what you preach then?

DPrival78

they should all be arrested and tried for treason. we don't need to sink to their level and actually torture them.. however tempting that may be

farfromglorified

DPrival78 wrote:

they should all be arrested and tried for treason. we don't need to sink to their level and actually torture them.. however tempting that may be

Treason against what?

polaris

PaperPlates wrote:

so you're not really big on practice what you preach then?

everyone is a hypocrite ... it's about accepting those hypocrisies in one's life ...

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

everyone is a hypocrite ... it's about accepting those hypocrisies in one's life ...

Hehe...so on what grounds may you attack George Bush? Perhaps he's "accepted those hypocrisies" as well, which apparently by your reasoning is all that matters.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

No, that would by hypocrisy at its finest.

There's a thin line between hypocrisy and poetic justice.

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

There's a thin line between hypocrisy and poetic justice.

Not when the will of another is involved.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

Not when the will of another is involved.

But this law was HIS will.

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

But this law was HIS will.

Certainly, hence his hypocrisy when this law is compared to his statements.

But when another then calls for the torture of George Bush, that other has adopted his or her own hypocrisy. That is not poetic justice. That is simply a second unprincipled person. Poetic justice requires justice. The justice found in hypocrisy can only condemn the hypocrite, not his enemy.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly, hence his hypocrisy when this law is compared to his statements.

But when another then calls for the torture of George Bush, that other has adopted his or her own hypocrisy. That is not poetic justice. That is simply a second unprincipled person. Poetic justice requires justice. The justice found in hypocrisy can only condemn the hypocrite, not his enemy.

Nah, I don't want to see him tortured. Although I wouldn't mind if he sat in a cell for a good long time and was only allowed to see an attorney in order to enter a guilty plea.

When he's gone, we can go back to treating everyone else properly, but I'd have no problem with this administration being tried under the laws that they wrote.

"Consider it a courtesy, Mr. President ... the rest of the population operates by these rules, but in consideration of your esteemed position, we'll allow you to be tried under the rules that you personally prefer."

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...so on what grounds may you attack George Bush? Perhaps he's "accepted those hypocrisies" as well, which apparently by your reasoning is all that matters.

i don't think he's losing sleep over his actions either ... i'm pretty sure he's comfortable with his decisions ... so are the ceo's that decide to illegally dump toxic waste into oceans ... so are guys who choose to fraud old senile people ... doesn't make it right ...

Vedderlution_Baby

Joe? Joe is that really you? My god... I though you died in '57! No you say? You've only been hiding...waiting for yet another chance to accuse innocent people of they worst thing you possibly can at that point in time? Oh...oh....so what are you calling them this time? Terrorists? Isn't that...kind of harsh Joe? I guess you're right...communist was harsh when it was thrown into play. What about these innocent people who are going to be thrown away with no chance of coming back? A small price to pay for the safety of our way of life? What way of life Joe? We've already sold your way of life. We were fighting because we were told that they wanted to kill us because we were different, because we had freedom. We were told they wanted to kill us because we're americans and that title gives us freedom. Freedom to be innocent until you're proven guilty. Innocent until you get a fair trail. That's gone now. Now what are we fighting for Joe.....Joe?....Joe? Where did you go? Joseph Mccarthy?

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

Nah, I don't want to see him tortured. Although I wouldn't mind if he sat in a cell for a good long time and was only allowed to see an attorney in order to enter a guilty plea.

So in other words you do not agree with necessity of habeas corpus? Gotcha.

When he's gone, we can go back to treating everyone else properly, but I'd have no problem with this administration being tried under the laws that they wrote.

Actually, the ability of the government to act against the people was written a long time ago. It began the day someone decided that this was a necessity, rather than a redundancy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Regardless, you and George Bush have much in common. You both think that "we can go back to treating everyone else properly" whenever you decide that justice has been served, which implies that you control the workings of justice. The fact that you disagree while locked into a single system should highlight the errors in judgment for both of you, but I doubt that will happen. Instead you'll both shed any principles you may actually have and, as you both so aptly call for, start deciding who must be killed and who must be not.

"Consider it a courtesy, Mr. President ... the rest of the population operates by these rules, but in consideration of your esteemed position, we'll allow you to be tried under the rules that you personally prefer."

You've learned well from him then.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

So in other words you do not agree with necessity of habeas corpus? Gotcha.



Actually, the ability of the government to act against the people was written a long time ago. It began the day someone decided that this was a necessity, rather than a redundancy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Regardless, you and George Bush have much in common. You both think that "we can go back to treating everyone else properly" whenever you decide that justice has been served, which implies that you control the workings of justice. The fact that you disagree while locked into a single system should highlight the errors in judgment for both of you, but I doubt that will happen. Instead you'll both shed any principles you may actually have and, as you both so aptly call for, start deciding who must be killed and who must be not.



You've learned well from him then.

You take things FAR too seriously, lol. It's just a little harmless message board fantasizing.

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

i don't think he's losing sleep over his actions either ... i'm pretty sure he's comfortable with his decisions ... so are the ceo's that decide to illegally dump toxic waste into oceans ... so are guys who choose to fraud old senile people ... doesn't make it right ...

No, it doesn't make it right. Neither does a statement about "accepting one's hypocrisies".

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

You take things FAR too seriously, lol. It's just a little harmless message board fantasizing.

If it begins and ends at "message board fantasizing", you're right, it isn't a big deal at all. Unfortunately "message board fantasizing" typically reflects the will of the poster. And the will of the poster is also used to motivate the actions of the poster. And if one's will is infected with rampant hypocrisy, it's only a matter of time before such "message board fantasizing" shares a similar root cause with some very real world disasters.

Hope&Anger

farfromglorified wrote:

If it begins and ends at "message board fantasizing", you're right, it isn't a big deal at all. Unfortunately "message board fantasizing" typically reflects the will of the poster. And the will of the poster is also used to motivate the actions of the poster. And if one's will is infected with rampant hypocrisy, it's only a matter of time before such "message board fantasizing" shares a similar root cause with some very real world disasters.

My "message board fantasy" is about impeachment . . . [gurgling sound of Homer Simpson thinking of donuts] . . . and Democrats with subpoena power . . . [gurgling sound of me reading "Pics Where Eddie Looks Hot" thread].