Home› A Moving Train

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

DPrival78DPrival78 Posts: 2,263
edited October 2006 in A Moving Train
once again, keith is dead on:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    Not usually a big fan of these Olbermann rants, but this is a good one.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    would be fantastic if this administration all got arrested ... tortured and given no rights ... that would be karma at its finest ...
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    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.
  • PaperPlatesPaperPlates Posts: 1,745
    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? ;)
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • DPrival78DPrival78 Posts: 2,263
    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
    i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    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?
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    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 ...
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    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.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, that would by hypocrisy at its finest.
    There's a thin line between hypocrisy and poetic justice.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    hippiemom wrote:
    There's a thin line between hypocrisy and poetic justice.

    Not when the will of another is involved.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Not when the will of another is involved.
    But this law was HIS will.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    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.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    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."
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    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_BabyVedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
    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?
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    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.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    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.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    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".
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    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&AngerHope&Anger Posts: 260
    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].
    "Things will just get better and better even though it
    doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
    idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
    Hope! Hope is the underdog!"

    -- EV, Live at the Showbox
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, it doesn't make it right. Neither does a statement about "accepting one's hypocrisies".

    and you are the one who decides what is right or wrong?
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    polaris wrote:
    and you are the one who decides what is right or wrong?

    Not at all, no.
  • PaperPlatesPaperPlates Posts: 1,745
    I am the decider
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • qtegirlqtegirl Posts: 321
    This commentary is all great and all, but my question is... why didn't he say it BEFORE the Act was signed into law... when people might actually be able to do something about it?

    What good is it now?
  • PaperPlatesPaperPlates Posts: 1,745
    qtegirl wrote:
    This commentary is all great and all, but my question is... why didn't he say it BEFORE the Act was signed into law... when people might actually be able to do something about it?

    What good is it now?


    who needs actions when you've got words?
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • stupidcorporatewhorestupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Treason against what?

    against the principals of this document

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
  • stupidcorporatewhorestupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    qtegirl wrote:
    This commentary is all great and all, but my question is... why didn't he say it BEFORE the Act was signed into law... when people might actually be able to do something about it?

    What good is it now?

    This wasn't his first broadcast.
  • stupidcorporatewhorestupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    PaperPlates wrote:
    I am the decider
    PaperPlates wrote:
    who needs actions when you've got words?


    So, I'm curious, how do either of these comments contribute anything to this conversation?

    got an argument at all? Any thoughts on loss of Habius Corpus at all?

    perhaps even smaller text might be in order. A lot smaller.
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    against the principals of this document

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

    I completely agree. Too bad that document was turned into a "living document" and therefore is now subject to the whims of whomever is in power.
  • qtegirlqtegirl Posts: 321
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    This wasn't his first broadcast.

    I've seen his commentaries before, but this is the first one I see which mentions the Military Commissions Act. Maybe I'm wrong. If he warned the people about what was about to happen, maybe before the Act came to a vote on the floor so people could call their representatives, please let me know. If you have a link to it, even better. That way I'll be better informed.
Sign In or Register to comment.