Olbermann

[Plane]

<<I don't think that the President assured anyone any of these things.>>

Oh, PLEASE.   He presided over an administration that assured you of every one of those things.

I have one word for you if you persist:

G-O-O-G-L-E.

Neither of you can think of an occasion in which the President said anything like what Olberman is accseing him of saying?

I don't thnk Olberman can either , but why let facts or accuracy slow down a good rant?

[sirs]

So do you remembr when it was that the President promised us a rose garden?

Which has what to do with the uncivil lout Sirs demanding civility from others?

I realize misrepresentation is one of your strengths H, but try to keep it a tad more honest.  It was a sincere request, not a demand. 

[Michael Tee]

<<Neither of you can think of an occasion in which the President said anything like what Olberman is accseing him of saying?>>

I can't think of a more childish riposte to Olbermann's opinion, but if there is one, I'm sure you'll be the one to come up with it.

Bush presided over an administration which made every one of those statments  that Olberman holds him responsible for.  Whether the words came from his lips or members of his administration, that was the position that he put to the American people and those were the representations that his government made.  Not once were any of those statements withdrawn or "corrected" in any way - - the administration made them and the "President" let them stand.  That's good enough for me and, I suspect, for any average, sane, normal individual of even average intelligence.

Now Bush wants to run from everything he said, everything he allowed his administration to say uncontradicted.  And Olbermann won't let him. 

As far as I'm concerned, everything Olbermann holds the "President" responsible for saying, he should  be held responsible for.  If you see it any other way, simply because of whether or not it was the "President" who actually spoke the words, then we have to agree to disagree.  You can agree with me or not, but I wouldn't waste another minute dealing with such a stupid and childish argument.

[hnumpah]

I realize misrepresentation is one of your strengths H, but try to keep it a tad more honest.  It was a sincere request, not a demand.

 

So let's review the entire thing this time, for those of us too feebleminded to figure it out...

Sirs: 'Perhaps, if you ask more civil...'

My response to Sirs: 'Gasp!!!!!!!

This, from Sirs...?

After he calls Olbermann 'a rant-filled idiot', without offering to rebut anything Olbermann said?

After he accuses X of having a 'blantantly like-minded  irrational opinion'?

Tsk...'

Plane: (Copies all the above as a quote, then asks) 'So do you remembr when it was that the President promised us a rose garden?'

Which had absolutely nothing to do with the post he copied and, I presume, was responding to. Hence, my question.

Clear?

In spite of which, I responded to his request.

So what did I misrepresent? What was I dishonest about? You want to imply I'm dishonest, you gotta do better than that.

[Plane]

I don't think you are being dishonest .


I think that Olberman is engagueing in Hyperbole , and when brought to specifics , no it was not the president himself that said these things.


So why is it not the president himself that said these things?

[sirs]

I realize misrepresentation is one of your strengths H, but try to keep it a tad more honest.  It was a sincere request, not a demand.

 

So let's review the entire thing this time, for those of us too feebleminded to figure it out...Sirs: 'Perhaps, if you ask more civil...'My response to Sirs: 'Gasp!!!!!!!

Yea, lets.  The rant-filled idiot reference was directed at the person that was ranting, Mr. Olberman.  At no time was I requesting a civil response from him, nor asking him a question.  Nor was I making any kind of demeaning insult aimed at anyone else while asking them a question.  It was requesting a civil tone when asking me a question, and again not some overt militarist demand, as you seemed to have concocted.  Again, try to keep it honest, as we actually do have many a folk that do understand the difference

[hnumpah]

Again, try to keep it honest...

Yes, let's...

Nor was I making any kind of demeaning insult aimed at anyone else...

Your response to X was that he had a 'blantantly like-minded  irrational opinion'. That was a direct reference to X, not Olbermann.

Who's being dishonest here?

[sirs]

Again, try to keep it honest...

Yes, let's...Your response to X was that he had a 'blantantly like-minded  irrational opinion'. That was a direct reference to X, not Olbermann.  Who's being dishonest here?

Did I ask him a question?  I'm on record in stating there are a plethora of folks here, completely irrational *cough* Brass, Tee *cough* in their proclaimations & opinions.  There are a plethora of folks here that prompt insults and snarks *cough* Xo, knute *cough* in nearly every other sentence.  There are folks who are condescending *cough* ME *cough* in their responses.  One more time, my civil request was that I'd appreciate if someone wants me to respond to a question, that they be civil in asking it .  Not a hard concept H.  Even for you.  So, yea, try to keep it honest