Keith Olberman on Bush's Escalation in Iraq

I'll try again, no.

I am saying that Keith Olbermann is a bomb-thrower and that is acceptable behaviour in his venue that will almost always be criticized for style over substance. And, that that's usually true.

You often accuse others of that. What is "bearing false witness" to you?

What I saw you do was with this:

is trying to do the "all or nothing" liberal argument and that it's a weak one.

? No, but I think you're super-close to bearing false witness!

I'll try again: there is a political center that is not subjective in nature. I think it's important to locate that midpoint because that is where nintey percent or more of any legislation will arrive at.

Hope I don't bear false witness, but you may have (inadvertantly, I think) done so with regards to Nancy Pelosi.

I'll try again: if it's "nonsensical" when I say that "Nancy Pelosi's to the right of maybe Castro", and you reply:

This is nonsensical. You and I are "to the right of maybe Castro."

That could imply that you think Nancy Pelosi is NOT the right of Castro.

LOL, the qualifier "if". She was considered a centrist there. There.

In other words, you made my point.

Stop listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly or whichever source you are getting this nonsense, and think for yourself

That's exactly what you said. Regurgitate?

Now, why don't you tell how Pelsoi isn't an ultra-leftist? Because she won't impeach Bush? Look at that record and tell me how she's NOT.

What point, that there is a FAR left? Too late.

Whazza matter, she's not far left enough for you? Viva la revolution!

Well, there's a Castro district in the Bay Area, radical-left politics there is the center in their little world there. There is a reason I left.

About Kwanzaa? "Divisive and racist", "built by a convicted murderer based upon a pack of lies'?

None of that answered your question?

Then you lapsed into your pattern..."I'm embarrssed for you", ..."Are you bearing false witness?????!!!! You are!!!", "That's just intellectual dishonesty!", "You must listen to Rush Limbaugh!", "You're just repeating the same thing over an over!!!"

Rinse and repeat.

Again, that's not what I was talking about. It was the fact that you told me you "found it hard to believe" I didn't frequent some racist's website all the while defending the lies of a real racist.

I can grasp the fact, though, that, being the self-styled liberal that you are, you like his politics, that's why. PC to the end.

Best way to do that is to study recent history and see exactly what happens when YOUR far-left agenda is implemented, hasn't been a very "Christian-like".

Hmmm....I don't really think you get too much "right".

"Thinking for yourself" = "agree with me", Bay Area can really teach, not just indoctorinate, but they don't know that part.

 

No, it did not. It went on and on, for years, and millions died. Unless you have a different account.

 

It did continue on from Aug. 9, 1974 until May 15, 1975 under Ford. I had forgotten that. But I wouldn't call that years and millions didn't die.

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

The last official American military action in Southeast Asia occurred on 15 May 1975, when 18 Marine and airmen were killed during a rescue operation known as the Mayagüez incident involving a skirmish with the Khmer Rouge on an island off the Cambodian coast. The names of those men are listed on the last panel of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

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

After being told by key Republican Senators that enough votes existed to convict him, Nixon decided to resign. In a nationally televised address on the evening of August 8, 1974, he announced he would resign effective noon on August 9. Though Nixon's resignation obviated the pending impeachment, criminal prosecution was still a possibility. He was immediately succeeded by Gerald Ford, who on September 8, 1974, issued a pardon for Nixon, immunizing him from prosecution for any crimes he may have committed as President. Nixon proclaimed his innocence until his death, although his acceptance of the pardon was construed by many as an admission of guilt. He did state in his official response to the pardon that he "was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy."

 

Odd then, that I voted Libertarian or Constitution Party , the last few elections.

Since I don't have any, I certainly couldn't criticize others for not having any. But notice I wasn't saying that all these republicans jumping ship are wrong.

Wouldn't know. I got fed up with the democrats a few elections back. It's why I was suggesting people consider libertarians.

Judging by recent events, a lot of people have concluded the same about the republicans.

Not

 

SandN is right there. Millions may be a bit of an exageration.

 

Congratulations 777!!! :thumbs:

You've finally made the big time.

You have an "integrity" issue and are "bearing false witness". You have graduated.:applause:

This is the rhetoric BiR always resorts to when he's had his head handed to him or been caught in a lie.

 

Best estimate.

3 Million in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos.

Kerry estimated there would be just a few thousand.

 

Not really, usually just one person in particular on multiple occasions.....
Bearing false witness, in this particular thread, is taking something that was written (and clearly stated), and then interjecting your own words to imply what was said. I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

This is a perfect example, and thanks for offering it.

Clearly, this is false witness. I asked a question. I didn't make an argument: I asked a question. To suggest othewise is bearing false witness. I didn't make an argument, and I didn't jump to a conclusion. I asked a question.

NO, and one more time, Nancy Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist." I am not sure how this fact escapes you, but regardless of how many times you claim the contrary, Nancy Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist."

No, and this is also false witness. I did not write that Nancy Pelosi is NOT to the right of Castro, I simply pointed out that both you and I are to the right of Castro. Did you notice that I didn't mention Nancy Pelosi in that sentence? You repeated my statement right there, and nowhere did I mention Nancy Pelosi. Again, as you have demonstrated for me, I didn't mention Nancy Pelosi at all in the sentence, much like I didn't mention either Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, George Bush, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or even LadyEagle in that sentence. The only people mentioned in my sentence were Castro, 777, and Baptist in Richmond.

That is not true either. Pelosi is left of center, but she is neither a centrist, nor an "ultra-liberal."

Again, notice that "regurgitate" is your word, not mine. Is it possible to simply stick with what I write, rather than interjecting your words into my statements, and then asking me what I meant by your words?

Well, let's see:
you have already claimed to have read the "ultra-liberals" I referenced, and added a few of your own. Then you claimed to have attended school near Pelosi's district. Now, if this is true, then you know that she is not an "ultra-leftist." Again, that is a fact. At best, she is left of center. You have already offered Castro, which we are all in agreement that he is an "ultra-leftist," and pointed out that she is left of Castro. Has Pelosi advocated the government ownership of all businesses? Has she proposed nationalizing all farms? What about proposing a totalitarian way of life, where everything is taken by the government, and redistributed to the general population? I certainly have not heard her make these recommendations. Does she make the claims about America similar to those of Chomsky (since you claim to have read Chomsky)? Nope.

To usurp Ronald Reagan:" there you go again." I didn't claim "she's far left enough" for me, nor did I even address this. Why is it that you cannot simply work with the statements I have made? I said that Nancy Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist."

One more time, could you please stick with what I write, using my words? I don't think that I am asking too much of you.

NO, and apparently you didn't understand my question, which explains much of our exchanges in that discussion.

To usurp Ronald Reagan: "there you go again." I didn't defend him at all. It's right there in that closed discussion, and I cannot edit my statements. Anyone who reads what I write knows that you are not being truthful here, as I never defended him.
As for what I said about your frequenting some racist's website, you are the one who introduced a link to a site maintained by neo-nazi skinheads, not me. In other words, your source material was provided by what you refer to as a "real racist."

Again, to usurp Ronald Reagan: "there you go again." I never discussed his politics in that discussion, or made judgement on them. Perhaps you were too busy reposting the same comments ad nauseum that you missed that fact.

Once again, to usurp Ronald Reagan:" there you go again." Now I am making an attempt to implement a "far-left agenda." That statment is patently absurd.

At least I stick to what you actually write, despite your inability to afford me the same courtesy........

Once last time, to usurp Ronald Reagan:" there you go again."
I never made this statement, and I never implied it. Perhaps you missed it, but by encouraging someone to think for themselves, I am doing precisely that. I am not making any such demand, and that is glaringly obvious to anyone who reads what I write.

If you are going to continue responding to me, especially given the fact that you engaged me in a conversation about a comment that was not directed at you, please stick to what I have written, and refrain from introducing words/phrases I didn't use, or misrepresenting what actually happened in our previous exchanges.

BiR

 

America leaving did not end the war, and yes, if you look, after we left, the commies ran riot in South Vietnam, and Cambodia, and yes, millions were killed.

 

Ah, good point. I did not take that into account.

 

Khmer Rouge, Pol Pat, another atheist dictator, link:

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm

What happened in the aftermath of that cut and run.

It's called "interpertation".

It was a rhetorical question, it was making an argument. A deliberate misinterpertation.

''Course not, to an ultra-leftist. But Nancy Pelosi IS an ultra-leftists. Aint' you proud?

Self-involved much?

I forgot that only your sentence is the only one of the two that would matter to you, even though it was your response to my quote.

Me, me, me, me, me and followed by a Bob Dole impersonation.

Blah, blah, blah. She's a ultra-liberal, those scores were maxed out at your end of the spectrum. Can't get no higher coz she's an ultra-liberal.

No. But I do realize that you think your words are the most important of all words that may or may not exist in what you perceive as reality, which is the only true reality because it's your reality.

You know, you almost sound jealous here. That place is NOT what it's cracked up to be, thought I couldn't get in, went on a dare, then left ASAP because...

All San Franscisco Democrats are ultra-leftists.

Because you told me so? I said that she was considered a centrist in the Bay Area. That same area encompassess Nancy Pelosi's district. That area is probably THE most liberal area in this country, and it shows there. Again, that is a fact.

No, actually I saw she was "probably" right of Castro.

And that proves what? To advocate ANY of those Soviet Union-ish ideas in this armed country would be beyond stupid for any politican to do, and she's not stupid at all.

Just another ultra-leftist.

You're Ronald Reagan? No, impossible, that would make me Jimmy Carter. Neither are really THIS self-absorbed in any event.

Me, me, me, me, me....

Oh, and did you know Nancy Pelosi's an ultra-leftist?

Clarify, then, talking about yourself all the time's allright with me.

Though, I do kind of feel sorry for Keith Olbermann, you ignore him with your replies.

None of it ever mattered to you, all it is is a lie of a holiday by someone you have political affinity for.

No, it wasn't "written" by a real racist at all, it was on some skinhead site along with 10,000 other links to the same article.

"Smear by association" attempt. Not even from a "real" San Franscico Democrat". But you are an ultra-leftist, so that's okay!

Oh, yes you did, Ronnie. Got any jellybeans? Stop listening to Rush, Sean, and Bill and start thinking for yourself!

So you endorse a far-left agenda that you don't want implemented? So you want Marxism to exist on the theoretical plane only? Redundant.

Blah, blah, blah, just stick to reading your own posts, you people don't make the rules, except in the 101st Session of Congress aka "ultra-liberal land".

Bill O'Reilly > Keith Olbermann> Pol Pot.

 

This is an anonymous forum. I don't know you and you don't know me. Interpretation is impossible.

No, it wasn't - more false witness.

Yeah, right: I am an "ultra-leftist." Exactly what have I endorsed that qualifies me as an "ultra-leftist?"

This is an absurd statement.

Yet another claim I never made.

Amazing that, when confronted with the facts, this is what you offer in response....

Again, you can claim that all you want, and you are still completely wrong.

Yet another claim I never made.

Jealous? Yet another word that I never used, and I thought I never offered. ALL San Francisco Democrats are ultra-leftists? You certainly do speak in absolutes, as if you know every single Democrat in San Francisco.

That still doesn't change the fact that Nancy Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist."

Oh, now it's "'probably' right of Castro." Hmm....

Thanks for reinforcing my point that Pelosi is NOT an "ultra-leftist."

Nope.

Yet another claim I never made - I have lost count. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word "usurp."

Nope - still wrong.

Yet another claim that I never made. I will answer that question if you can show me where I ever made the claim.

HUH? More nonsense.

Yet another statement that I never made.

...............and yet, you opted to post a link to a neo-nazi skinhead website. In other words, you didn't use the other 9,999 websites (using your number), going instead with the site you posted. Again, congrats: you are the first person I have ever seen post a link to a neo-nazi skinhead website into a discussion.

You are the one who referenced the site. That is a fact.
I just love that you have somehow deduced that I am an "ultra-leftist," despite the fact that you don't know me, have never met me, and don't live near me. You are a relative newcomer, yet you were bright enough to ascertain that I am an ultra-leftist.

This is a repeat of a claim that I never made.

This is by far the most idiotic thing I have ever seen posted on the board. Since you made the accusation, please show us where I ever indicated that I "want Marxism to exist" in this discussion.

This response says more about you than it does about me.......

 

That's not really true on either count. This is not really an anonymous forum unless you believe some members were not honest about who they were when they joined.

While it may be true that you don't personally know 777 and he doesn't personally know you, a certain amount of information can be gleaned from reading multiple posts by the same person.

Interpretation is always possible. The only person here, that I know of, that absolutely insists that every word they write be taken literally, is you.

You need to get a grip. Someone taking issue with what you write is not "false witness". I hope you realize how ridiculous and sanctimonious your constant whining sounds. :wavey:

 

Now, carpro, don't you go doing that there logical thinking. We have to stay on topic!:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20060627.asp

Sound familiar? Next!

Interpertation is what reading comprehension is. It's what SCOTUS does. You do not have to channel Chaucer nor your favourite Founding Father in order to do so.

.............and yet, you instantly recognized the neo-nazi skinhead website. In others words, you'd been there before because you recognized the link , I didn't. All it was was a page hosting the article. Congrats, you know your neo-nazi skinhead websites.

You are the one that wanted to keep the link up though, didn't ya? Someone who's beyond labeling screaming "racist" again. And the phoney Olbermann-like outrage:

I can't believe you did that!

But, but, but, you can believe Kwanzaa's legitimate. D. Loozin.

I don't care what claim you've made. Nancy Pelosi's an ultra-leftiitst. Period.

You just wait.

To know, know, know BiR
is to love, love, love, BiR

Wrong. Everything's about you. Everything. We're done now.

 

No, as I wrote before: I mean what I say and I say what I mean. If you cannot make you point by sticking to what I wrote, then your point is simply not valid.

Wow: I was REALLY hoping that you would make an attempt to bear false witness in this manner.

Have you ever heard of the Southern Poverty Law Center? As someone who supports them, I am familiar with several hate groups, one of the most notable is the group that produces the web site that you referenced during your repeated attacks upon Kwanzaa. When you posted a link to that site, I thought it sounded familiar, and went to Wikipedia to see if it was the same site I thought.........AND IT WAS! If you do a search on the group that owns that site, and scroll down to the section entitled "Extension of Views," you will see the reference to this website you referenced. The reason I knew that site is a direct result of my support of the people who fight the racism and intolerance that consumes the people who own the web site to which you posted a link.

777, you made it very clear that you hate the whole celebration of Kwanzaa. In your quest to express your disgust for the celebration, you managed to offer a link to a site maintained by one of the most hateful groups in cyberspace. YOU are the one who posted the link. By your own admission, there are "10,000" other sites that had that article, yet you opted to post a link to a site owned by one of the most vile hate groups on the web, completely out of nowhere. I made several attempts to find a link to the article by Tony Snow on that site, and could not find a link in the top five pages on any search I attempted. I tried several keyword searches and didn't get a link to the site you referenced. I cannot imagine how humiliating that must have been when I called you on it.

This is an outright misrepresentation of what transpired. My comments are a matter of record in that discussion, and prove that you are not being truthful................ on a Baptist Board no less. The only thing more pathetic than posting a link to a neo-nazi skinhead website is to make a blatant effort to misrepresent what actually occurred. By the way, I just have to point out that you are the one who brought up this subject in another unrelated topic. Is that a sign of a guilty conscience?

Where did I scream "racist?"

I asked you on several occasions why you have such a problem with this celebration, especially given the fact that the people who celebrate it aren't bothering you. The more you posted in that discussion, the more absurd your posts became, with the climax coming in the form of your link to a neo-nazi skinhead website. Now, you are bringing the subject into a completely unrelated discussion. Your fixation on this subject is disturbing.

This is still as wrong as it was the first time you wrote it.

Wow: I can hardly wait to see what stimulating conversation you have to offer in the future.

Here's a direct challenge to you:
show everyone reading along where I ever made that claim.

You really need to calm down, take a deep breath, and think about what you write before you click on the "submit reply" button.

BiR

 

But, but, but, what about poor Keith Olbermann?

Thanks, but you made me look. In this thread....

Example of an accustation of "bearing false witness".

I've only gotten this once so far.

A twist on the "I'm embarrassed for you" tactic.

Revisionism + liberal logic + the outrage, like a triple-play.

Interpertation, one way, of course.

Control freak.

All liberals have non-existant IQ's over 120. Others would have said "paraphrased", "to borrow from".

Patronizing. And the incessant whining. Speaking of which:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16442767/

From the Edward R. Murrow wannabee. Sounds very familiar, huh?

 

Still waiting for you to respond to a direct challenge......

 

This thread is too loaded with personal insults and arguing (not debating of the topic) for anyone to edit. Therefore, it is closed.

Lady Eagle
Moderator