KO KO'd

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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   

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

I brought up full disclosure, BECAUSE YOU ASKED.  It had NOTHING TO DO with KO

[BT]

and the time-line of this alleged hypocrisy?

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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?

[Christians4LessGvt]

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?

[sirs]

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   

[sirs]

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.

[BT]

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.

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Richpo64]

... in desperation BT morfs into Mikey ...