alex maiolo wrote:Bob, you have perfectly articulated everything I ws trying to say months ago when the "Olbermann is a shill" rhetoric was flying.

Thanks much. I almost think Andrew L. is trolling with shit like this ( the following is a repost of a reply I made to him earlier in the thread ):

clocker bob wrote:

Andrew L. wrote: It's that Olbermann's nationalistic message is itself propagandistic, manipulative, and ideological in the extreme.

Are you trolling? Olbermann's message is not nationalistic, it's populist. It's advocacy for a return to government with leaders accountable to the citizens. By your definition, any advocacy that doesn't promote anarchy can be smeared as nationalistic.

We're living in 2007 now. The continent is stolen, and we whiteys had no right. It's part of any good American liberal's self-awareness. Conceded point. BUT, does that preclude any American from thinking that we were once a better country, and that to get better at all will require the kind of baby steps promoted by Olbermann and appreciated by us?

Andrew despises American nostalgia for better days and better leaders; he thinks we deserve none of it, that we're just kidding ourselves, that we never had what we think we had. He can't even understand why I would call the introduction of the Federal Reserve in 1913 a major turning point- in Andrew's mind, the robber barons always had complete control so there's nothing to envy about our history before central banking. His view parallels Chomsky's disinterest in the JFK assassination- Chomsky thinks, "Ahh, Kennedy, he meant nothing, the foreign policy of the US was wrecked long before '63, so everyone who asks questions about the shadow gov't's hit on him is a useless conspiracy theorist."

It's a really snobbish and boorish viewpoint, and anal, too. So sorry that Olbermann doesn't charge out of the studio and overthrow the pig system after every show. Get real. The man is brave enough and overall, a giant plus to the public dialogue.

clocker bob wrote: The man is brave enough and overall, a giant plus to the public dialogue.

You are so funny, Bob. And cute. You are funny and cute!

It's adorable!


This man is not brave. It is interesting to me that, with all your talk, you are dying for a mainstream father figure. Good luck.

Big gigantic fat throbbing love,

Nihil

He's not brave presently, because the network has decided to allow these for the moment. Dropping the first one, though, had some serious nuts behind it.

nihil wrote:

clocker bob wrote: The man is brave enough and overall, a giant plus to the public dialogue.

This man is not brave. It is interesting to me that, with all your talk, you are dying for a mainstream father figure. Good luck.

Okay, my son. Now put all your toys back on their shelves please, because the big people are going to use the living room today.

the dude from sportscenter?












(winking face)

I think that sometimes peeps' over-enthusiastic responses to commentators in the vain of Olberman, Stewart, Colbert, et.al., are really symptomatic of the complete dearth of critical commentary in the mainstream media.
Nevertheless, it bums me out when people believe that Colbert mocking GWB at that press conference a few years back was some great revolutionary act. What was he risking? His job? His livlihood? His reputation? No, no, no. Its entertainment.
While acts like these and commentary like the kind found on the Olbermann show can be a breath of fresh air, bear in mind that this is what these people were hired to do, by a major major corporation no less.
The powers that be will not put someone on the air whom they believe can negatively affect their their business or institutions.

Dr. O' Nothing wrote:I think that sometimes peeps' over-enthusiastic responses to commentators in the vain of Olberman, Stewart, Colbert, et.al., are really symptomatic of the complete dearth of critical commentary in the mainstream media.
Nevertheless, it bums me out when people believe that Colbert mocking GWB at that press conference a few years back was some great revolutionary act. What was he risking? His job? His livlihood? His reputation? No, no, no. Its entertainment.
While acts like these and commentary like the kind found on the Olbermann show can be a breath of fresh air, bear in mind that this is what these people were hired to do, by a major major corporation no less.
The powers that be will not put someone on the air whom they believe can negatively affect their their business or institutions.

I think you're absolutely correct. It's a sad truth that the mainstream media will only allow bits of genuine criticisms under the umbrella of 'satire' or 'comedy'.

This is probably also a symptom of how fragile the average U.S. citizen's psychology is when dealing with important political issues. Sad, really.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Dr. O' Nothing wrote:The powers that be will not put someone on the air whom they believe can negatively affect their their business or institutions.

So the media is a completely neutered and managed subsidiary of the ruling elites? That sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Since you have already ruled out the internet as a venue for political persuasion:

dr o'nothing wrote:However, if you are truly interested in becoming a presuasive political force, i don't think this is place, or the way to go about it.

Can you let us in on where the 'secret location' is? Where is the 'right place' to deliver a political message?

I'm hesitant to start debating with you again Bob, but i need to point out that you are misinterpreting my statement: "However, if you are truly interested in becoming a presuasive political force, i don't think this is place, or the way to go about it."

This was not to say that politics shouldn't or can't be discussed with some efficacy online. It was directed only at your style of debate which is usually replete with invective, judgment, etc. My thinking was/is that you seem to be alienating more people here than persuading them and that your style may be better suited for face to face discussions, or maybe to a book that people can choose to read or ignore.
So, excuse what may seem to be a personal attack, as i've already stated i've no interest in mixing debate with personal slurs, etc. but i wanted to answer your question.
I was merely pointing out that a lot or relevent info gets passed over when online debaters engage in personal attacks aside from the pertinent info.
Hey, its a free forum though...that's just my take on it.

Secondly,
When you say:
"So the media is a completely neutered and managed subsidiary of the ruling elites? That sounds like a conspiracy theory."...

...It seems like you are baiting me to say something but i'm not sure what.
The phrase 'conspiracy theory' holds no meaning for me any longer. It is usually used to easily and sometimes unjustly discredit someone and/or their ideas. It's a trite and empty term.
But saying 'completely neutered, etc.' is putting words in my mouth.
I will say that the above is true, but only to an extent. Its just simple economics, not conspriracy.

Andrew L. wrote:a great interview w/ Chomsky trouncing UK journalist Andrew Marr, a pious and incredulously liberal twit.

Hey! Leave Andrew Marr alone! He's got a good face full of nose and ears and pointy bits.

Wikipedia wrote:In one of his books, [...] Marr also recounts an incident where he was approached by a man in a shop who said, "Here, you look just like that Andrew Marr... you poor bugger."

Rick Reuben wrote:

Dr. O' Nothing wrote:[
i need to point out that you are misinterpreting my statement: "However, if you are truly interested in becoming a presuasive political force, i don't think this is place, or the way to go about it."

You are appointing yourself the spokesman for an entire forum which does not think as one. Therefore, you are a bitter thought cop. Instead of being open about your attitude by writing, "I think RR should be banned from the forum", you wrap it up in some bullshit about how 'this isn't the place'. You don't complain about this 'place' being used to discuss politics that are safe and predictable.

Hang on, Bob. How does the phrase "I think" imply he's appointing himself spokeman for anyone? Doesn't that automatically render every subsequent assertion his personal opinion, no more and no less?