Olbermann - "Republicans are acting like terrorists"

[BluffTHIS!]

niss,

My objections are not based on whether I agree with a poster's views or not re inflammatory rhetoric. I have in the past also called out conservative posters on this including one who subsequently got banned for same. The point I am making is that if you are going to give a link or exerpt to an statement that basically assumes the truth of that statement, and also fail to argue why it is true, then all a poster is doing is trolling.

Note that whiskey could have titled this thread "Are the repubs acting like terrorists?", gave that link and an excerpt, and then given his reasons to support an affirmative answer to that question, which would be a legitimate way of fostering honest debate, setting aside for the moment the extremist label of "terrorist". Instead he just spouted some rhetorical highly inflammatory catch phrases and offered no reasons that such were true.

This is also similar to the difference between idiot congressman of either party making propagandistic speeches to empty galleries for the benefit of constituents back home, and making similar statements before their full body when they know they will have to actually defend such arguements in a real debate.

The day in day out tactic of the OP and others in this forum is to drop a rhetoric bomb, whether of their own making or cribbed from another source, and then leave and seldom return to their own thread to back up those assertions. Indeed if they return and post again it is usually just to sprinkle in some more rhetoric without reasons for same.

[niss]

adios, did you read my whole post? There's a whole paragraph about why I think Bluff's position is wrong and why my using your post as an example did not mean that there was something wrong with it.

[niss]

I'm not interested in belaboring this debate. Two brief points and then I will leave you the last word.

1. Quibbling with the title of this thread is the epitome of nitpicking. There is nothing wrong with it.

2. If other posters feel that these threads are "rhetoric", then they should accept the OP's invitation to "discuss" and tear the opinion a new ass.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from, uh, where is it you're from?

[iron81]

I'm not locking this thread because Bluff and Adios think it is pointless rhetoric. Please resume discussion, because I will lock threads for getting into internal bickering.

[adios]

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Then similarly the post that linked to Rush Limbaugh's prattle against Michael J. Fox should be objectionable to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not similar on several different levels:

1) I didn't make the original post about Limbaugh.

2) I was pointing out that there is another aspect to the controversy the original post I responded to mentioned.

3) I was presenting the other side of the controversy.

Yeah I read your post and I'd really like you to answer my question to you as to why presenting the other side of a controversy is propaganda? I'll reiterate:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, it is nothing more than propoganda, and the poster simply linked to it without supporting its conclusions that, for example, Fox is "acting" in the ad, and that he is "allowing" his illness to be "exploited". Shall I post in that thread on your behalf, or will you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make the original post. I only replied to it and suggested that the OP change his title to:

Limbaugh: Valid Point or Personal Attack

People can read the link and make their own judgement. If the OP thought the subject to be worthy of discussion why not at least post a link that posts what Limbaugh stated in full?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't think I'll get a direct answer anytime soon.

[BluffTHIS!]

iron,

Resume discussion of what? whiskey didn't actually give any reasons to back up his pointless rhetoric to discuss. It is incumbant on he who asserts/labels something to prove same, not on those who disagree with same (except when same is trivially true to the majority of readers).

How is this thread any different than if I made one with a title of "Hillary is a lying stupid terrorist supporting b***", an excpert saying just that from some conservative blog, and no reasons to back up that title? It's just the same as making any inflammatory title on any subject and just saying "discuss".

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Resume discussion of what?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bluff, not much. I agree that Whiskey's post does not promote deep discussion. However, there was content provided and it didn't break the forum rules. If you want to discuss why it is legitimate for the GOP to use Osama in an ad or why Olberman is a moron, that is the topic of this thread. However, your case here is why Whiskey should not be allowed to make the OP, which is something that should be handled via PM or in ATF.

[niss]

adios, I think we may not be connecting. There's nothing wrong with your post. I'm simply using it to illustrate that the "rules" Bluff set earlier in this thread are silly. Presenting the other side of an issue is not "propoganda" ... except under Bluff's "rules".

[BluffTHIS!]

I'm not saying he or any poster shouldn't be able to make an isolated such thread, but just not an endless series of such threads. And I'm not making an ATF thread on this because Mat and Ryan don't often respond in such threads that posters make to either agree or disagree with an OP's view about the modding of a specific forum, so there's little point to same.

[evil twin]

Personally I'm quite happy to see threads like this. They provide talking points around which debate can be started. However certain posters would rather attack the form the post takes or (yet again) accuse the poster of being a troll than the actual content of the post. "But there was no content" I hear you wail. Well, from my point of view, and the point of view of others, there is content here.

It's Keith Olbermanns view, and it allows his view to be disseminated. I don't go searching for this sort of thing myself, so I'm happy to have it presented to me directly on a forum I do follow. I would be just as happy to see an O'Reilly Factor talking point as the centrepiece for a discussion, even though I would almost certainly take issue with the content. It's certainly preferable than yet another rant against the state and how anarchy would ultimately save us all. Damn, did I just invite the ACers in? Oops.

Personally while I agree with Olbermann almost entirely on this point (shock horror), I don't think he does himself any favours using such a highly charged word as terrorism for what the repubs do. Even though it seems he's right given the definition of the word. I really think the republicans recent terror advert showed how utterly desperate they are, their policy to reduce terror has failed and yet this is their big hitting point they need to use to get votes. It's over guys.