DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on November 05, 2010, 09:51:01 PM
-
MSNBC suspends Olbermann over political contributions
By Michael Calderone michael Calderone Fri Nov 5, 2:04 pm ET
Olbermann gives to Democratic candidates
MSNBC suspended "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann Friday after the news that he donated to three Democratic candidates.
"I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night," MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement. "Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
[Related: MSNBC's election night lineup criticized]
(http://mit.zenfs.com/5/2010/11/olby3.jpg)
Olbermann gave the maximum individual donation of $2,400 to three candidates in Tuesday's election: Arizona Reps. Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva and Senate hopeful Jack Conway, who lost in Kentucky to Republican Rand Paul. (Grijalva appeared on Olbermann's "Countdown" on Oct. 28, the same day the host donated to his campaign; Conway was last a guest in May).
Olbermann, in a statement to Politico, said that he "did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns nor to any others in this election or any previous ones." Also, Olbermann said he had not "previously donated to any political campaign at any level."
But the revelation raised clear ethical issues.
Olbermann, a liberal commentator, gives his opinions each night on the air. But NBC News editorial staffers -- like journalists at most news organizations -- are forbidden from giving to political candidates. Also, Olbermann anchored election coverage Tuesday night without disclosing that he'd given to candidates who were running for office.
By punishing the network's biggest star, Griffin showed how little tolerance there is for hosts to make undisclosed political contributions while covering those political races.
An MSNBC spokesman told The Upshot that The Nation's Chris Hayes, an MSNBC contributor who has filled in before for Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, will host Friday night's show. Hayes has spoken publicly before about donating $250 to a friend's Congressional campaign in Alabama. He made the last donation in 2009, before becoming an MSNBC contributor. [UPDATE: MSNBC now says Hayes will not be subbing tonight]
MSNBC already attracted criticism this week for having its liberal hosts and commentators anchor election night coverage. Typically, nonpartisan journalists anchor major news events?such as election results?while commentators like Bill O'Reilly (Fox News) or James Carville (CNN) offer analysis.
It's ironic that Olbermann gave to political candidates after criticizing Fox News because its owner, Rupert Murdoch, gave $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association. "Fox News has put its money where its mouth is," Olbermann said in an August segment that questioned the network's impartiality.
In October, Olbermann again raised the issue of Murdoch's donations, during an interview with Democratic Rep. James Clyburn. Olbermann asked whether there was "a legislative response to the idea that there is a national cable news outlet that goes beyond having a point of view and actually starts to shill for partisan causes and actually starts to donate to partisan groups of one party."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101105/bs_yblog_upshot/msnbc-suspends-olbermann-over-political-contributions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101105/bs_yblog_upshot/msnbc-suspends-olbermann-over-political-contributions)
-
He's a nothing.
-
And yet, he is clever and far more amusing than you will ever hope to be.
-
And yet, he is clever and far more amusing than you will ever hope to be.
KO is reading off a teleprompter what somebody else wrote for him to say, jackass, much like your beloved one term president.
-
Is this a stunt?
I can't stand Keith Olbermann...but
Not sure it would be legal for me to bar an employee from making a private political contribution?
-
Is this a stunt?
I can't stand Keith Olbermann...but
Not sure it would be legal for me to bar an employee from making a private political contribution?
I think a dont ask and dont tell policy should be sufficeient.
-
Gonna have defend Keith as well, on this one. We all know what a fringe left lunatic he is. Why on earth would it be a problem for hom to donate to some Democrats? How can that possibly "taint" Keith's supposed "objectivity" given his SOP? Now, I can understand if there's a policy already in place that says you can't, and him having done so was merely an effort to play the old "rules don't apply to me" liberal MO, but come on, why is there a policy in the 1st place, when you hire someone who's so far left, he's nearly right?
-
And yet, he is clever and far more amusing than you will ever hope to be.
You do know he is incontinent? I think he uses adult diapers.
-
MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement in reaction to news that MSNBC had suspended Countdown host Keith Olbermann "indefinitely" for donating to three Democratic candidates in violation of NBC's policy.
In October, Olbermann had blasted political donations from Fox News owner News Corp, slamming Fox as "a media outlet that has now put its money where everybody has known its mouth has always been."
"Keith Olbermann is officially the Worst Hypocrite in the World. He rails about a "national cable news outlet" that "starts to donate to partisan groups of one party," then does exactly that.
"But it begs a bigger questions: why did it take NBC so long? This man has been using his perch as a newsman at MSNBC to promote a radical left-wing and hate-filled agenda for years. And they fire him over three contributions? NBC needs to review its own policies."
Commentary (http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/releases/2010/20101105040905.aspx)
-
He'll be back on the air Tuesday, last i heard.
-
Don't hold your breath on his extolling the error of his hypocrisy
-
I believe his job is to condemn the hypocrisy of others. He is a partisan liberal after all.
-
Absolutely. Need to focus on that speck in someone else's eye
-
Absolutely. Need to focus on that speck in someone else's eye
That plus campaign donations are free speech.
-
Yea......and?
-
You are the one who said KO shouldn't have been Ko'd. What was your reasoning if not that it was a free speech issue?
-
a) it wasn't me that initiated a KO KO thread
b) it's NOT a free speech issue, and never was. It's a hypocrisy issue, and always has been
-
a) it wasn't me that initiated a KO KO thread
Well it certainly wasn't me who defended him.
b) it's NOT a free speech issue, and never was. It's a hypocrisy issue, and always has been
Sure it is.
Next thing you know you will be all in favor of Campaign Finance Reform
-
Ahh...I see we're back to completely misrepresenting my position yet again. Quick paraphrase:
Bt: You're saying it's a Free speech issue
sirs: No, I'm saying its a hypocrisy issue
Bt: But, you're obviously implying its a Free speech issue
sirs: No, I'm saying explicity, and in no uncertain terms, its a hypocrisy issue
Bt: See, of course its a Free Speech issue. So, now you support CFR, right?
Where the hell do any of my comments even come close to saying KO can't donate to who he wants?? You're about to pull the same Muslim Mosque garbage crap of something it isn't & never was, so let's put an end to it now.
-
Where the hell do any of my comments even come close to saying KO can't donate to who he wants?
You didn't so, i'm curious why donating to the politicians of his choice would be hypocritical.
-
Because, he rails against Fox for supposedly doing the same he just got suspended for.
There in lies the hypocrisy
If you had been paying ANY attention to my posts in this thread, you would have noted my original defense of KO. It was only when Bozell brought in the Hypocrisy angle, did my criticisms become more apparent. Yet, somehow you managed to twist it into a supposed nonexistent free speech issue. (so reminiscent of the Mosque debacle)
-
So do you agree or disagree with the MSNBC rule?
-
I think anyone should be able to donate any amount to anyone. Merely that it be fully disclosed, for all to see. I've said that from the beginning, when people were pushing CFR.
-
So if i donate to my congressman, i need to inform you? or would FEC records suffice?
-
Yea, that's what I advocate....anyone that donates to anyone must then inform each and every member of the electorate, personally. ::) Why are you entertaining the ridiculous? It's bad enough with all-to-recent bent on misrepresentations
-
Yea, that's what I advocate....anyone that donates to anyone must then inform each and every member of the electorate, personally. ::) Why are you entertaining the ridiculous? It's bad enough with all-to-recent bent on misrepresentations
Merely that it be fully disclosed, for all to see.
Then please define full disclosure.
-
If someone makes a large donation, it can be tracked to who gave it. Not to some nebulous "Citizens for the greater Awesomeness of America". Anything over a certain amount, is fully disclosed by whom made it, and to whom it was given to. Simply make it a Campaign Finance Law. Any group/candidate/party receiving it, must disclose how much, and specifically who it came from. And no limit to what can be donated
I'm game to come up with an amount. How about anything over 2K individually, or 5K from a married/civilized union couple.
Discuss
-
In the case of KO he made the donations as a private individual and reporting requirements are on the recipient of the donation. I'm not sure how he failed your full disclosure requirement.
-
Probably because this has NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH, OR WHO CAN/CANNOT DONATE TO WHOMEVER ::)
-
Well it certainly has a lot to do with full disclosure, which i believe was one of your complaints about KO.
So how did he fail to fully disclose?
-
Well it certainly has a lot to do with full disclosure, which i believe was one of your complaints about KO.
No, & never was. Please, by all means, point us to this supposed specific complaint of mine aimed at KO. I realize that you're convinced that this is a free speech issue, and that any criticism of the location of a Mosque.....ooops, wrong misrepresentation, any criticism of KO must be advocation in squelching his 1st amendment right
So, basically, no amount of my demonstrating how this is NOT a free speech issue, complete with examples and refuting of your already made up mind, is going to make any dents at this point. Most of the time Bt, especially from me, criticism of X is simply criticism of X. There's no implied support of Y or inferred denial of Z. Criticizing KO's hypocrisy is merely criticizing KO's hypocrisy here
And you wonder why I reach a point where answering your questions becomes merely banging a head against a wall. I have a limited supply of my migraine medication, so I need to minimize the banging when I can
-
Well.... if you say you are slamming KO because of hypocrisy, how is it hypocritical to make a donation to a candidate where full disclosure is on the recipients end?
I'm not sure the problem is with KO's behavior as much as it is with MSNBC's policies and enforcement efforts.
-
You just refuse to get it....ironically reinforcing exactly the point I made previously. This has squat to do with disclosure. It has squat to do with free speech. We also notice you haven't presented any of my comments that supposedly presents my "disclosure complaint with KO". Probably because there never was one. But that doesn't seem to stop you from making the same over and over non-existant accusation
IT'S HYPOCRITICAL OF KO TO BASH FOX NEWS (without evidence I might add) FOR DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE JUST GOT SUSPENDED FOR. X is merely X ::)
-
I think anyone should be able to donate any amount to anyone. Merely that it be fully disclosed, for all to see. I've said that from the beginning, when people were pushing CFR.
Well that is where you brought up full disclosure.
And when did he bash Fox and when did he make the donations. I think a time-line would be critical in determining whether your hypocrisy hunt will be successful.
-
I brought up full disclosure, BECAUSE YOU ASKED. It had NOTHING TO DO with KO
-
and the time-line of this alleged hypocrisy?
-
IIRC...KO works for MSNBC, a cable news organization. KO Bashes Fox, a rival cable news organization, for its supposed direct support, both financially (in supposed donations) and punditry of anything/everything Republican. KO is learned to have donated to Democrats, while working for a cable news organization
The timeline is between his being an employee of MSNBC and his to date donations to 3 democrat candidates
-
Actually the time line is like this.
2009 Early OCT -2010 10-28-10
*----------------------------------------*---------------------------------------*
KO calls Fox out for being biased. KO calls FOX out again KO donates
When KO was calling out FOX he hadn't donated, so where is the hypocrisy?
-
i am not that comfortable with full disclosure...i'd have to know more
i do know when i make donations and you have to fill out the questions
about who you are i remain very vague on purpose....when it says
"company name or employer" I just put 3 letters...which are actually
the letters in the name of the company...but no one easily knows or can
see in a data base what company it is....i dont trust leftists in or out of gvt
from taking donation info and trying to hurt my company with boycotts or
IRS investigations as payback....so I give correct info....but remain as
stealth as possible within the truth.
also...am i missing something?...isnt the KO hypocrisy that he is
critical of others in the media making political donations when he himself
did the exact same thing?
-
Actually the time line is like this. When KO was calling out FOX he hadn't donated, so where is the hypocrisy?
You just mirrored my posted timeline. But since you still refuse to get it, the hypocrisy occurs the moment KO donates ::)
-
i am not that comfortable with full disclosure...i'd have to know more
The issue in that tangent, Cu4, is that those making LARGE donations to X, people should know that, in order to clearly see if there's any quid-pro-quo going on. Undera certain amount donated, you can stay pretty vague, as there'd be no expectation or even possibility of a quid-pro-quo. But if Cu4 donates $750,000 to a Sarah Palin presidential run, and she wins, I'm going to want to observe if Cu4 gets some cushy Federal land deal & Ambassadorshop to St Maarten, at which point, my support of Palin would evaporate, and she'd no longer get my vote
also...am i missing something?...isnt the KO hypocrisy that he is
critical of others in the media making political donations when he himself
did the exact same thing?
No, you didn't miss anything. Bt is convinced that the KO story is a free speech issue. So, anything/everything hypocrisy is to be rationalized away, even ignoring the timeline, he himself, provided. In other words, it's the Mosque issue, all over again.
-
Actually the time line is like this. When KO was calling out FOX he hadn't donated, so where is the hypocrisy?
You just mirrored my posted timeline. But since you still refuse to get it, the hypocrisy occurs the moment KO donates ::)
Apparently when he was bashing FOX he hadn't made a donations, so again where is the hypocrisy?
If he bashes FOX after he made the donations then you might have a point. As far as i know he hasn't.
-
No, you didn't miss anything. Bt is convinced that the KO story is a free speech issue. So, anything/everything hypocrisy is to be rationalized away, even ignoring the timeline, he himself, provided. In other words, it's the Mosque issue, all over again.
There you go again, misrepresenting my position. I don't see a problem with Olberman exercising his free speech rights in the form of political donations. You didn't either until you switched gears and decided it was a hypocrisy issue.
And as far I am concerned it isn't hypocritical to chide the competition for doing something that you hadn't done YET. That is why the time-line is important.
-
No, you didn't miss anything. Bt is convinced that the KO story is a free speech issue. So, anything/everything hypocrisy is to be rationalized away, even ignoring the timeline, he himself, provided. In other words, it's the Mosque issue, all over again.
There you go again, misrepresenting my position. I don't see a problem with Olberman exercising his free speech rights in the form of political donations. You didn't either until you switched gears and decided it was a hypocrisy issue.
Did you read what you just wrote? I didn't see a problem with it until I didn't see a problem with it?? Naaa, i didn't misrepresent anything. I made it clear it was a hypocrisy issue, and you've insisted that's not what I really meant, based on.........your apparent already made up mind, and damn any evidence/rhetoric to the contrary
And as far I am concerned it isn't hypocritical to chide the competition for doing something that you hadn't done YET. That is why the time-line is important.
And NOW that he has "done it", which is what the timeline demonstrates, and at which point the hypocrisy claim became a valid accusation, the hypocrisy is still not present, right? You'll note there were no references to hypocrisy until AFTER he donated
-
... in desperation BT morfs into Mikey ... :D
-
And NOW that he has "done it", which is what the timeline demonstrates, and at which point the hypocrisy claim became a valid accusation, the hypocrisy is still not present, right? You'll note there were no references to hypocrisy until AFTER he donated
Let me repeat my point slowly for the obtuse. He hasn't committed the heinous sin of hypocrisy until he bashes FOX for political donations after he himself has made them. Has he bashed FOX for political donations after 10-28-2010?
If the answer is yes, he is a hypocrite
If no, he isn't.
If the answer is i don't know, then the calling of hypocrite is premature.
-
I love this bubble you're calling home. Word about reality....when a person criticizes/condemns X, it becomes hypocrisy as soon as they then do X. THAT's the timeline. Now, if they want to come out and advance a position following X, that either facilitates a position of contrition, or something along the lines of how in error they were to begin with, that could go towards emoving that mantle of hypocrisy.
But the Hypocrisy itself occurs at the point X is done, when prior to that, it was bashing anyone else that supposedly did X
-
I love this bubble you're calling home. Word about reality....when a person criticizes/condemns X, it becomes hypocrisy as soon as they then do X. THAT's the timeline. Now, if they want to come out and advance a position following X, that either facilitates a position of contrition, or something along the lines of how in error they were to begin with, that could go towards emoving that mantle of hypocrisy.
But the Hypocrisy itself occurs at the point X is done, when prior to that, it was bashing anyone else that supposedly did X
Nonsense. How can you be a hypocrite for bashing someone foor something you haven't done yourself. If you bash after you have done it, that is a different story.
Reality is there is no time machine. Points in time are points in time.
You can't consider future events, because the future hasn't happened.
-
I love this bubble you're calling home. Word about reality....when a person criticizes/condemns X, it becomes hypocrisy as soon as they then do X. THAT's the timeline. Now, if they want to come out and advance a position following X, that either facilitates a position of contrition, or something along the lines of how in error they were to begin with, that could go towards emoving that mantle of hypocrisy.
But the Hypocrisy itself occurs at the point X is done, when prior to that, it was bashing anyone else that supposedly did X
Nonsense. How can you be a hypocrite for bashing someone foor something you haven't done yourself.
But it WAS done. You have this need to put the cart in front of the horse. The horse is the bashing. At that point, at least the reality I've lived thru all my life, hypocrisy occurs at that very point you do X, when previously you condemned X. Unless there's a qualifier attached to the person doing X, that explains there "change of heart", that's hypocrisy
Now in your bubble, I guess I could see how its not. KO can just go on making all kinds of donations, never once having to explain is earlier condemnations for that he now gets suspended for. All is perfectly swell in the land of Bt
-
And as far I am concerned it isn't hypocritical to chide the competition for doing something that you hadn't done YET. That is why the time-line is important.
Come on BT....you know you are playing games.
I know it's slow in 3DHS...but REALLY?
Your logic is....
John Doe rails against how terrible homosexuality is...
Then a week, a month, 6 months later....John Doe has homo sex
Thats not hypocritical?
If Bill Smith condemns bank robbers,
then later is caught in a bank robbery
thats not hypocritical?
::)
-
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.
Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy" in Rambler No. 14:
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.[1]
Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy so long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy)
-
Think about it for a minute.
If i rail against drugs, and i don't use them, am I a hypocrite?
If down the road i get tipsy and someone offers me a line of coke and i try it would i then be a hypocrite?
or would i need to continue to rail against drugs, without mentioning the fact that i had tried them myself.
-
Think about it for a minute.
Already did. In this reality, if you rail against drugs, then you take them...at that point you took them, you're a hypocrite
If you then come out AFTER the event and claim you were tipsy, didn't know better, were WRONG to begin with, then not so much. The effort at that point is to mitigate the hypocrisy
-
Already did. In this reality, if you rail against drugs, then you take them...at that point you took them, you're a hypocrite
At that point i have taken drugs. If i don't rail against anyone else for using drugs then there is no hypocrisy.
-
SIRS...it's sometimes like talking to a wall.
BT enjoys arguing 2 + 2 does not equal 4....fun game ha ha ha ::)
In Yahoo Chat I used to rarely do the same in race debates when I was sometimes bored
It is/was a form of honing skills.....but if it becomes your primary MOO....then it's really kind of a bore.
If he wants to pretend that someone can rail against bank robbery on Monday
and then rob a bank on Tues and thats not hypocritical....so be it.
He is becoming more and more like UP.
The whole debate becomes "define is".
The whole debate becomes "when you say it's hot outside in Phoenix right now"
"Well it's not "hot" compared to the surface of Venus...so is it really "hot"?" "Define hot?"
-
Already did. In this reality, if you rail against drugs, then you take them...at that point you took them, you're a hypocrite
At that point i have taken drugs. .....
....it becomes blatant hypocrisy, if you had been railing against them before. Timeline thing again, I'm afraid, Bt
-
Then you will have to redefine hypocrisy to meet this scenario.
I don't see how an action, even if contrary to previous stated positions, could be considered hypocrisy UNLESS you continue to call out people for the same transgression that you yourself committed without disclosing that same transgression.
Former drug addicts are sometimes the best advocates for a no drugs policy, simply because they have been there and know the dangers involved. Are they hypocrites for advocating against drugs? I don't think so as long as they acknowledge they are former addicts.
-
Then you will have to redefine hypocrisy to meet this scenario.
I don't have to.......Criticize X + perform X = hypocrisy
But at the very least, you're now dealing with the issue, that it's always been, hypocrisy, and not still perpetuating an issue that it never was, free speech. At least we have that concession. Now it's merely dealing with your continued efforts to put the cart in front of the horse
Former drug addicts are sometimes the best advocates for a no drugs policy, simply because they have been there and know the dangers involved.
You provide precisely the parameters I provided before, in that these addicts have come forth to reference the error in their ways, thus mitigating the hypocrisy they would have had, without any such advocation. I guess will have to wait to see any such "confession/contrition" from KO now, won't we
-
I guess will have to wait to see any such "confession/contrition" from KO now, won't we
Only if he continues to rail at FOX for their political contributions, without prefacing the rail to admit he has contributed to pols also. He doesn't need to apologize for making that contribution, hell it's his right to do so.
Because the political contribution is not the issue as we all have conceded that the MSNBC rules are for the birds.
And he wasn't being hypocritical when he railed at FOX previously because at that point he hadn't donated to anyone himself. And making the contribution in itself is not hypocritical because the ACT of contributing has nothing to do with judging others for their contributions.
So we are stuck with watching to see whether he is hypocritical in the future and I'm sure the hypocrite hunters will let us know if that is the case.
-
I guess will have to wait to see any such "confession/contrition" from KO now, won't we
Only if he continues to rail at FOX for their political contributions
no, sorry, the cart still is going to be behind the horse here. The hypocrisy has already been perpetrated. You demonstrated precisely the parameters, literally repeating those I referenced before, that would be required to diffuse any hypocrisy on KO's part, by using the former drug addicts. Much appreciated, by the way.
I think we can all agree this has been run into the ground. Let's move on to the non-existant MSM bias and the Obama manipulation of reports
-
The hypocrisy has already been perpetrated.
Not according (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/ko-ko%27d/msg112893/#msg112893) to Samuel Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson)
He wrote the .
Dictionary of the English Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson#A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language)
dontcha know
-
Yea I do know....Condemn X --> Perform X --> Hypocrisy
Moving on. Oh, and thanks for not being able to demonstrate, as I was able to, this misdirected misrepresentation accusation, aimed at me. It's ok, I'm cool, we're cool. I'll just figure it was a ....... needed release on your part, when I kept demonstrating where you were consistently wrong, on both this topic, the Mosque mess, and the liberal excuses thread
-
You didn't demonstrate shit.
-
LOL....yea, those words of yours sure were non-existant. Let's just close are eyes and pretend they never were typed. "Move on, nothing here to see". The fact that you STILL haven't demonstrated any such misrepresentation on my part, dare I say..........SPEAKS VOLUMES
It's ok, you're still forgiven. Deep down, I know your heart's in the right place. 8)
-
Criticize X + perform X = hypocrisy
so says the partisan conservative
Criticize X + perform X + continue to criticize without disclosure = hypocrisy so says BT
What you fail to recognize is the act is the crucial fork in the road, as my drug addict analogy and your agreement with same demonstrates.
-
The difference being that my cart's behind the horse. The ACT is precisely the instigator. Follow-up contrition, with your drug addict is what would lead to mitigating the hypocritical ACT, but the ACT has still been perpetrated
Then again, we've already been thru this.
-
or the actor no longer criticizes. as i said the act is the fork in the road.
1. Criticize but disclose or
2. Not criticize.
That's is the actor choice as to the way forward without the scarlet letter of the oft over used hypocrite charge.
-
the ACT is the ACT, no fork or any other utensil needed. It is the Cart
What they do AFTER the ACT demonstrates the sincerity (or not) to which they wish to remove said hypocrisy. Contrary to popular deduced Bt opinion, once a Hypocrite doesn't equate to always a Hypocrite.
-
The ACT may be the Act but that does not by itself constitute hypocrisy, what happens next tells that tale.
once a Hypocrite doesn't equate to always a Hypocrite
Why not?
-
The ACT may be the Act but that does not by itself constitute hypocrisy.
yes, in fact it does, if, in fact, the person was bashing the ACT previously. Timeline...horse...cart. This really isn't a hard concept, Bt
once a Hypocrite doesn't equate to always a Hypocrite
Why not?
Because you can demonstrate you were wrong to begin with in the original bashing. You learned from your mistake, and you intend to ride a rather non-hypocritical path from that point on. Taking actions to mitigate the original hypocrisy
Then again, this too has already been addressed. Why oh why are we having to reference it again??
-
Because you can demonstrate you were wrong to begin with in the original bashing.
Why would a drug abstinence advocate be wrong for advocating that folks stay away from drugs?
Even if they slip, does that make their original point no longer valid? I don't think so.
The ACT is the ACT, what happens next determines any hypocrisy.
-
I think we can safely deduce that Bt has been KO'd, especially since I NEVER claimed or even implied that a drug abstinence advocate is wrong for advocating that folks stay away from drugs
Why do you do that Bt? You ask a question, it gets answered, and you jump to some alternate alterior nefarious motive/explanation, that you somehow uncovered within the answer.
I'm getting rather sick of it, especially considering how much credibility you've always had with me
-
I don't see how i have been KO'd . We simply have different definitions of hypocrisy and when and how it is determined.
Thus my follow up questions. I'm simply trying to understand how your mind works, but apparently you can't be bothered to explain yourself sufficiently.
What really is tiring is your constant use of snark and snideness.
::) :o ;D ???
-
No Bt, the problem isn't my explaining myself more clearly...it's explaining myself clearly, then you twisting it to apparently fit some preconceived position, I must be harboring. I mean....taking my clear cut answer to your question about why isn't a hypocrite always a hypocrite, and claiming that must mean I support the notion that it's not good for a drug addict to advocate that drugs are bad??
That's very unbecoming of your normally high level standard of responding. Is it because we have so little liberals posting any more, that you need to drop down to that level of misrepresentation??
-
So if KO doesn't bash Fox anymore for political contributions he is no longer a hypocrite?
-
If KO comes out and says he was wrong, sees the error of his way, is contrite and sincere, precisely similar to the parameters of your addicts advocating that they shouldn't use drugs any longer, THEN we can remove the mantle of Hypocrisy
Until then, he's a hypocrite for bashing Fox for similar acts he just got suspended for. It's really quite that simple
-
It's really quite that simple
Actually it isn't.
He simply has to not bash Fox and the stench of hypocrisy if it even exists is removed miraculously from his aura.
It's not like he did something ridiculous like rob a bank. He made a political donation, something CU and I have certainly done when circumstances warranted it.
-
Actually, it is.
And last time, this has nothing to do with simply having made a donation. This is not a free speech issue
-
The ACT itself which apparently triggers the hypocrisy is certainly a legal act protected by free speech, though it was against company policy.
The railing against others and then doing the same thing later on, is the issue Bozell had, though he seemed to blur the time-line as to when the railing and contributions occurred.
You are certainly free to condemn based on your definition of hypocrisy, what it is and when precisely it occurs, but then you will have to live with that definition, because to do otherwise would be hypocritical, under your definition.
I am on the other hand free to evaluate the situation based on my definition, with its attendant conditions and caveats and am perfectly willing to conduct my own business accordingly, absent fear of being labeled with the scarlet letter of hypocrisy, as if others opinions matter.
Because being true to oneself is what really matters. Which I'm sure KO considered when he weighed the risks involved in his action.
-
Now that Olbermann is back on the air, his ratings have risen.
That is beneficial to both him AND the network.
If we accept the ruling that money is speech, then it is a free speech issue. The issue then is whether MSNBC has the right to limit the free speech in form of donations, of its employees. The government cannot bar its employees from donating to any political cause.
-
That's a whole different arguement there Xo, in need of a new thread, since no one is arguing that KO shouldn't be able to donate to whomever he wants
-
That's a whole different arguement there Xo, in need of a new thread, since no one is arguing that KO shouldn't be able to donate to whomever he wants
No but they are arguing that making a political donation, makes him a hypocrite.
The shame of it all.
-
That's a whole different arguement there Xo, in need of a new thread, since no one is arguing that KO shouldn't be able to donate to whomever he wants
No but they are arguing that making a political donation, makes him a hypocrite.
No, they're not. They're argueing that making a political donation as an employee of a Cable news orgainzation WHILE bashing another Cable news organization for alledgedly making political donations, makes him a hypocrite
Then again, you knew that
The shame of it all.
Something we can agree on
-
Oops my bad. I forgot to graffiti it up with an ::)
-
Ahhh, much better
-
That's a whole different arguement there Xo, in need of a new thread, since no one is arguing that KO shouldn't be able to donate to whomever he wants
==================================
That is precisely what MSNBC stated, and had they not suspended KO ofr doing this, there would be no post on this subject at all. This is the essential part of the issue.
KO simply revealed that FOX (the organization, NOT the commentators) donated millions to Fox. Then MSNBC revealed that KO donated thousands to a couple of congressmen.
So now the public knows who gave what to whom. That is better than not knowing.
-
So, your issue is with MSNBC and their policies. Fine, rant away. But no one here is claiming that KO doesn't have a right to donate to whomever he wants.......thus, not a free speech issue, as far as why KO is being bashed by folks like myself.
(BTW, I love how Fox apparently donated to itself, Fox ;D )
-
MSNBC says KO can't donate to whom he wants. And that was strongly condemned by most members of this forum.
And you say KO can't donate to whom he wants without suffering the withering charges from you and the likes of Bozell that he is a hypocrite.
So the chilling effect of your disdain very well might interfere with his free speech rights.
-
MSNBC says KO can't donate to whom he wants. And that was strongly condemned by most members of this forum.
1st one, right
And you say KO can't donate to whom he wants without suffering the withering charges from you and the likes of Bozell that he is a hypocrite.
2nd one, Wrong. Then again, we've already been over this, and you're simply not going to budge from an issue that it never was
So the chilling effect of your disdain very well might interfere with his free speech rights.
Too bad, that's not the issue, and never has been. Keep digging though
-
Quote from: BT on Today at 01:00:34 PM
And you say KO can't donate to whom he wants without suffering the withering charges from you and the likes of Bozell that he is a hypocrite.
2nd one, Wrong. Then again, we've already been over this, and you're simply not going to budge from an issue that it never was
So you are no longer saying KO is a hypocrite. Must have missed that post. Perhaps you can provide a link to where you changed course once again.
-
Perhaps you can 1st demonstrate where I changed course to begin with. Your problem, is that you're continuing to misconstrue & misrepresent both my position and the events of KO, continuously ommitting the key portion that makes KO a hypocrite, and simply leaving it at donations only.
If you're going to be this dishonest Bt, we can stop now, since repeating WHY KO is a hypocrite is a complete waste of time, since anyone can go back to the 1st page & Bozell's article. (Here's a hint, it's not simply making donations to whomever he wants.) My repetitions of that, and your continued ignoring of it, merely demonstrates the depth of hole you've managed to dig
-
So my statement wasn't wrong. You will continue to call him a hypocrite for making political donations, in light of his criticisms of FOX.
-
So my statement wasn't wrong. You will continue to call him a hypocrite for making political donations, in light of his criticisms of FOX.
I appreciate you FINALLY conceding the qualifier to what makes KO a hypocrite. Thank you. That wasn't in your original "And you say KO can't donate to whom he wants without suffering the withering charges from you and the likes of Bozell that he is a hypocrite", which made that statement wrong