Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'm not saying Olbermann is as crazy as Beck, just that they are similar types, whereas Stewart and Colbert are different animals.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Kindly offer an example (or two, or three) of the kind of "concentration camp" extremism that we are talking about here.> <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Olbermann_Bush_panoramic_invasion_of_privacy_0215.html" target="_blank">http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...215.html</a> <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/7288" target="_blank">http://newsbusters.org/node/7288</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 To be fair, Olbermann is going off on things the Bush administration actually did, (e.g. pushing for retroactive immunity for telcom companies that illegally helped the gov't in its warrantless wiretapping program) and going over the top in his characterizations of them. Beck is raising the specter of sinister things without any evidence they even actually exist.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The Bush administration did not push for immunity for companies that illegally helped the government.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Okay... are you saying they didn't push for this immunity bill? Because they did. Are you saying the telecoms did not help them illegally? YOUR link said they did. "In a scathing commentary against President George W. Bush, MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann declared Bush guilty of terrorism for playing what he sees as the fear card in an attempt to get the House to pass retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies that illegally helped the US government in its warrantless wiretapping program Thursday evening." With a little tortured logic, you could say the site is saying that only Olbermann is saying the telecoms did something illegal, but the syntax doesn't support that. So you're pinning your case for #84 on the hopes of bad syntax from your own link. Besides, if they did nothing wrong, why would they need immunity? But wait... ultimately this is diversionary. The original point (to utahjosh) was that Beck was an apple/orange comparison to comedians like Stewart and Colbert. Then you swooped in with diversion one and said, well he's kinda like Olbermann. I pointed out that even Olbermann's rants rant about things the Bush administration actually did (like push for this bill, whether the acts were illegal or not) vs. Beck raising the specter of things that lack evidence for even existing. So now you try to divert further by saying there was no illegality. Oh, you're good, Mr. Grassley...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Besides, if they did nothing wrong, why would they need immunity?> They needed CIVIL liability from frivolous lawsuits. <Then you swooped in with diversion one and said, well he's kinda like Olbermann.> I not the one being diversionary. My bringing up Olberman supported my point that there are lots of people on both sides of the aisle that blur the line between "newsman" and "entertainer".
Originally Posted By DAR <<Gauntlet thrown.>> So just how big is a Gauntlet? Is it a two man job to throw? I need to know these things.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Besides, if they did nothing wrong, why would they need immunity?>> <They needed CIVIL liability from frivolous lawsuits.> Why not let them be tried and determined if they are frivolous, rather than declaring they are before any evidence is presented? <<Then you swooped in with diversion one and said, well he's kinda like Olbermann.>> <I not the one being diversionary.> Well, I'm not. In fact, I'm taking pains to point out the flow of the thread. Did you just say that as a reflex? <My bringing up Olberman supported my point that there are lots of people on both sides of the aisle that blur the line between "newsman" and "entertainer".> And I said straightaway that Olbermann and Beck were more an apple to apple, specific instances of "crazy" or not notwithstanding. But clearly Beck is in a different category from (only) entertainers Stewart and Colbert, which was my original point (which I know you were not on the other side of).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why not let them be tried and determined if they are frivolous, rather than declaring they are before any evidence is presented?> Because that costs a lot of money, and wasn't necessary. <Did you just say that as a reflex?> I said it because it was true, and you accused me of something that was incorrect. <Beck is in a different category from (only) entertainers Stewart and Colbert> And my point is there aren't "categories", merely degrees.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Why not let them be tried and determined if they are frivolous, rather than declaring they are before any evidence is presented?>> <Because that costs a lot of money, and wasn't necessary.> That's a novel way of looking at the law. It's "verdict first, trial afterwards," or in this case "verdict first, no trial necessary." Come on, now. <Did you just say that as a reflex?> <I said it because it was true, and you accused me of something that was incorrect.> It's true that I was diversionary? How exactly, please? Your diversion is easy to pinpoint: from Beck vs. Stewart to Beck vs. Olbermann to "did the telecoms do anything illegal?" So where exactly was my diversion that you're accusing me of? Specifics, please, not "you're projecting." <<Beck is in a different category from (only) entertainers Stewart and Colbert>> <And my point is there aren't "categories", merely degrees.> In some cases, yes. In this one, no. Stewart and Colbert do not purport to be newsmen at all, so the degree that they are "newsmen" would be zero. Thus, not in the same category.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's true that I was diversionary? How exactly, please?> By accusing me of being diversionary, when I was simply responding to you. <Thus, not in the same category.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It's true that I was diversionary? How exactly, please?>> <By accusing me of being diversionary, when I was simply responding to you.. You responded by diverting from the subject. So I called you on it, and now I'M diversionary. Ah. <<Thus, not in the same category.>> <I disagree.> They simply do not posit themselves as serious newsmen, as Beck does.
Originally Posted By Mr X Colbert was actually booked as a "comedian", by the BUSH white house in fact... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...4E8ZDj9s</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOYZF3It848&feature=related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...=related</a> Boy, that went well.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You responded by diverting from the subject. So I called you on it, and now I'M diversionary. Ah.> If you didn't want to talk about Keith Olbermann's extreme statements, you didn't have to defend them. Take some responsibility for your actions, instead of always blaming me for your shortcomings. <They simply do not posit themselves as serious newsmen, as Beck does.> Repeating an assertion does not make it so. Beck obviously does not consider what he does the same as what Brit Hume does, and Stewart has certainly been serious at times.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You responded by diverting from the subject. So I called you on it, and now I'M diversionary. Ah.>> <If you didn't want to talk about Keith Olbermann's extreme statements, you didn't have to defend them.> I didn't defend them; in point of fact I called them over the top. I pointed out they were different in kind from Beck's because they responded to actual actions of Bush, rather than talking about something he had no evidence even existed, which is true. <Take some responsibility for your actions, instead of always blaming me for your shortcomings.> My actions? Saying Olbermann was over the top, and just pointing out the difference in kind between his remarks and Beck's? How, oh how, can I ever take responsibility for such an awful "shortcoming?" LOL. <<They simply do not posit themselves as serious newsmen, as Beck does.>> <Repeating an assertion does not make it so. Beck obviously does not consider what he does the same as what Brit Hume does, and Stewart has certainly been serious at times.> Come on. Beck is on Fox News. Note the second word. Stewart is on the Daily Show. Note the second word. Beck may not consider himself to do what Brit Hume does, but he is in "serious newsman" mode at least half the time. It's what he's paid to do, and it's what Fox News sells him as. Comedy Central sells Stewart for what he is: a comedian. Are you really trying to say Beck and Stewart are comparable, apple to apple?
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Are you really trying to say Beck and Stewart are comparable, apple to apple?> I don't think anyone is doing that. But I did compare that the effects of both Beck's and Colbert/Stewart's "propaganda" are similar.
Originally Posted By Skellington88 Keith Olbermann is smart and crazy/angry. Glenn beck is just a moron.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I pointed out they were different in kind from Beck's because they responded to actual actions of Bush, rather than talking about something he had no evidence even existed, which is true.> Which is, of course, a type of defense. It's also somewhat irrelevant, because Olbermann was accusing President Bush of doing something he hadn't, while Beck was just saying he had heard the accusation, and couldn't debunk it. <I ever take responsibility for such an awful "shortcoming?"> You can stop accusing me of being diversionary, when I'm just responding to you. <Are you really trying to say Beck and Stewart are comparable, apple to apple?> I think I've been pretty clear in how they are comparable, and how they are not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I pointed out they were different in kind from Beck's because they responded to actual actions of Bush, rather than talking about something he had no evidence even existed, which is true.>> <Which is, of course, a type of defense.> Not really. It was an insistence on keeping the two responses distinct and not trying to muddle them. <It's also somewhat irrelevant, because Olbermann was accusing President Bush of doing something he hadn't,> No, he wasn't. He was pointing out what Bush had done (pushing for this retroactive immunity bill, which Bush did do), and then going over the top in his characterization of what that represented. <while Beck was just saying he had heard the accusation, and couldn't debunk it.> He also said he looked into it and "tried" to debunk it, but "just couldn't," which of course makes it sound like these phantom concentration camps JUST MIGHT EXIST. Ooooooh, be very afraid. Come on - that is different in kind from reacting to something that Bush actually did, even if the reaction was over the top. <<I ever take responsibility for such an awful "shortcoming?">> <You can stop accusing me of being diversionary, when I'm just responding to you.> Um, no. I responded only to what other people (first utahjosh) had said; you were the first person to bring in Olbermann, in #76. <<Are you really trying to say Beck and Stewart are comparable, apple to apple?>> <I think I've been pretty clear in how they are comparable, and how they are not.> You haven't been. So how about explaining how you think they are and are not.
