Finally! These two loud mouth lefties masquerading as objective Journalist are silenced

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But Olbermann has an established record as a partisan commentator.

Does he not?

What are you talking about... Olbermann makes O'reilly look pale in comparison.

Heck he even makes John Stewart seem smart. Nah I cannot go that far. John Stewart is an idiot. Hence why he has 18 year old kids watching him..

I don't have any particular regard for any of these people. The US has an established problem with the quality of its news media and the presentation of news personalities as partisan ideologues.

John Stewart doesn't fit that bill of course, neither does Stephen Colbert - they're satirists rather than idealogues.

[Heracles 417]

That must be what they mean by "strict constructionist".

Damn blacks and women taking away our rights to make someone else clean my kitchen and pick my cotton.

Damn gays wanting to take away my rights to tell someone else how valid their relationship is and define marriage for them.

I been to quite a few places in the south and met a quite few people whose great great grandparents where slaves, yet they still keep in touch and meet up with the family, blood-line, who owned them.

You may also want to look at what actual percentage of white Americans owned slaves at the time. The last time I checked the figure was roughly 1.9%. Yet approximately 4% of African Americans are convicted of a crime. Therefore following on with your logic, all African American in 2008 are criminals. That is, considering all white Americans were evil slave owners based on the ridiculously small number of Americans who actually owned slaves.

I am sure you are a nice guy, honestly, but that post is just hilarious. I have no idea what you think you are saying, but what you actually posted is like reading Lewis Caroll.

I'll sum it up.

• Approximately 1.9% of Americans owned slaves during the 19 century.
• Approximately 4.0% of African Americans in 2008 have been convicted of a crime.

Many now make it out as if all white Americans owned slaves. Therefore anyone white should basically be responsible, be default, for slavery. That is, regardless of the fact that under 2% of Americans , at the time, actually owned slaves. In terms of statistics that figure is insignificant. Nonetheless, lets assume all white Americans should take responsibility and apologize for slavery. Which is generally the attitude within various white/black communities

So I am thinking, can the same be said about all African Americans being generally responsible for the crime rate in America. Considering that 4% of African Americans are responsible for crime. Consequently, shouldn't all African Americans then apologizes for the thousands of people who have been murdered and are a victim of crime, at the hands of an African American. The same way white Americans are being made out to be responsible for the 1.9% who owned slaves centuries ago.

I think having either community apologize for the actions of the few is ridiculous. Million dollar question, is what is good for the goose good for the gander...

Edited September 8, 2008 by Aficionado

[Peikko 1,575]

That must be what they mean by "strict constructionist".

Damn blacks and women taking away our rights to make someone else clean my kitchen and pick my cotton.

Damn gays wanting to take away my rights to tell someone else how valid their relationship is and define marriage for them.

I been to quite a few places in the south and met a quite few people whose great great grandparents where slaves, yet they still keep in touch and meet up with the family, blood-line, who owned them.

You may also want to look at what actual percentage of white Americans owned slaves at the time. The last time I checked the figure was roughly 1.9%. Yet approximately 4% of African Americans are convicted of a crime. Therefore following on with your logic, all African American in 2008 are criminals. That is, considering all white Americans were evil slave owners based on the ridiculously small number of Americans who actually owned slaves.

I am sure you are a nice guy, honestly, but that post is just hilarious. I have no idea what you think you are saying, but what you actually posted is like reading Lewis Caroll.

I'll sum it up.

• Approximately 1.9% of Americans owned slaves during the 19 century.
• Approximately 4.0% of African Americans in 2008 have been convicted of a crime.

Many now make it out as if all white Americans owned slaves. Therefore anyone white should basically be responsible, be default, for slavery. That is, regardless of the fact that under 2% of Americans , at the time, actually owned slaves. In terms of statistics that figure is insignificant. Nonetheless, lets assume all white Americans should take responsibility and apologize for slavery. Which is generally the attitude within various white/black communities

So I am thinking, can the same be said about all African Americans being generally responsible for the crime rate in America. Considering that 4% of African Americans are responsible for crime. Consequently, shouldn't all African Americans then apologizes for the thousands of people who have been murdered and are a victim of crime, at the hands of an African American. The same way white Americans are being made out to be responsible for the 1.9% who owned slaves centuries ago.

I think having either community apologize for the actions of the few is ridiculous. Million dollar question, is what is good for the goose good for the gander...

I am quite aware that you think you make sense and that these statistics and all prove your point. Ever more Lewis Carroll. Although, to be fair Lewis liked to say things that he knew didn't make sense but he made them sound as though they did, which is sort of the opposite of what you are doing, in a way.

Seriously, it's a marvellous insight into the mind of BY. Fantastic.

As for the OP, never watched the program referred to, or the jounalists that presented it so I shall not be missing them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the distinction is fairly clear. Slavery was mandated by the government of the time which represented the White American people of that time. Given that the government is in many respects an entity, it does have some obligation to address the legacy of the previous administrations.

That has absolutely nothing to do with individuals apologising for things, or blaming individuals for the mistakes of their ancestors - merely a sense of collective recognition that people did suffer as a result of those policies, that the legacy of those policies continues today and that such disparities need to be addressed.

[IAMX 3,055]

I think the distinction is fairly clear. Slavery was mandated by the government of the time which represented the White American people of that time. Given that the government is in many respects an entity, it does have some obligation to address the legacy of the previous administrations.

That has absolutely nothing to do with individuals apologising for things, or blaming individuals for the mistakes of their ancestors - merely a sense of collective recognition that people did suffer as a result of those policies, that the legacy of those policies continues today and that such disparities need to be addressed.

But approximately 4.0% of African Americans in 2008 have been convicted of a crime!!

That must mean white man didn't do any of this and blacks are, indeed, suppressing the white man. When we get out of this suppression, we need a White History Month to remember all we've been through in this country. Suppressed by gays, overbearing women, blacks, Japanese people, atheists and agnostics (they're all the same anyways), and disillusioned white-on-white haters.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think the distinction is fairly clear. Slavery was mandated by the government of the time which represented the White American people of that time. Given that the government is in many respects an entity, it does have some obligation to address the legacy of the previous administrations.

That has absolutely nothing to do with individuals apologising for things, or blaming individuals for the mistakes of their ancestors - merely a sense of collective recognition that people did suffer as a result of those policies, that the legacy of those policies continues today and that such disparities need to be addressed.

But approximately 4.0% of African Americans in 2008 have been convicted of a crime!!

That must mean white man didn't do any of this and blacks are, indeed, suppressing the white man. When we get out of this suppression, we need a White History Month to remember all we've been through in this country. Suppressed by gays, overbearing women, blacks, Japanese people, atheists and agnostics (they're all the same anyways), and disillusioned white-on-white haters.

Don't forget illegal alien cheerleaders.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the distinction is fairly clear. Slavery was mandated by the government of the time which represented the White American people of that time. Given that the government is in many respects an entity, it does have some obligation to address the legacy of the previous administrations.

That has absolutely nothing to do with individuals apologising for things, or blaming individuals for the mistakes of their ancestors - merely a sense of collective recognition that people did suffer as a result of those policies, that the legacy of those policies continues today and that such disparities need to be addressed.

But approximately 4.0% of African Americans in 2008 have been convicted of a crime!!

That must mean white man didn't do any of this and blacks are, indeed, suppressing the white man. When we get out of this suppression, we need a White History Month to remember all we've been through in this country. Suppressed by gays, overbearing women, blacks, Japanese people, atheists and agnostics (they're all the same anyways), and disillusioned white-on-white haters.

You say that - but people here have started threads grumbling at the existence of a black history month and pondering why it is we can't have a White History Month (ya know - for political correctness). Curiously I'm still rather unclear of what a White History Month or "Pride" day would entail...

[kaydee457 13]

But Olbermann has an established record as a partisan commentator.

Does he not?

Olberman anchors a NEWS program and covers NEWS events. He crosses the line when his biased, one-way commentary creeps into what's supposed to be his impartial reporting of the news.

That's the gist of why the both of them are being canned.........

[HAL 9000 96]

But Olbermann has an established record as a partisan commentator.

Does he not?

Olberman anchors a NEWS program and covers NEWS events. He crosses the line when his biased, one-way commentary creeps into what's supposed to be his impartial reporting of the news.

That's the gist of why the both of them are being canned.........

Yes, he did. SO?

But along that logic... same can be said for others on the 'other side' of whatever political spectrum you subscribe to.

[Heracles 417]

I think the distinction is fairly clear. Slavery was mandated by the government of the time which represented the White American people of that time. Given that the government is in many respects an entity, it does have some obligation to address the legacy of the previous administrations.

That has absolutely nothing to do with individuals apologising for things, or blaming individuals for the mistakes of their ancestors - merely a sense of collective recognition that people did suffer as a result of those policies, that the legacy of those policies continues today and that such disparities need to be addressed.

But approximately 4.0% of African Americans in 2008 have been convicted of a crime!!

That must mean white man didn't do any of this and blacks are, indeed, suppressing the white man. When we get out of this suppression, we need a White History Month to remember all we've been through in this country. Suppressed by gays, overbearing women, blacks, Japanese people, atheists and agnostics (they're all the same anyways), and disillusioned white-on-white haters.

You say that - but people here have started threads grumbling at the existence of a black history month and pondering why it is we can't have a White History Month (ya know - for political correctness). Curiously I'm still rather unclear of what a White History Month or "Pride" day would entail...

Heeeeeey you guys have a new member to add to the group SVRT. Good Stuff.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But Olbermann has an established record as a partisan commentator.

Does he not?

Olberman anchors a NEWS program and covers NEWS events. He crosses the line when his biased, one-way commentary creeps into what's supposed to be his impartial reporting of the news.

That's the gist of why the both of them are being canned.........

Well they're not being "canned" - the network has had a reshuffle is all.

[kaydee457 13]

But Olbermann has an established record as a partisan commentator.

Does he not?

Olberman anchors a NEWS program and covers NEWS events. He crosses the line when his biased, one-way commentary creeps into what's supposed to be his impartial reporting of the news.

That's the gist of why the both of them are being canned.........

Well they're not being "canned" - the network has had a reshuffle is all.

Semantics....they've been canned and they know it. How about "passed over", "shelved", or simply demoted as one of the articles states? Ok with you?

[britty 1]

obama's pic belongs in the inexperience block, not palin's.

Jeez, replace the pictures with Dems, and suddenly space is an issue....

Barack Obama - Sweetheart land deal with indicted mobster, Tony Rezko

Barack Obama - good friend of terrorist William Ayers, and of course the lovely racist Reverend J. Wright

...too many for NObama so I'll move on to the other reprobates......

Michelle Obama - hates her country, unless of course her husband gets elected (fairweather patriot)

Bill Clinton - sexual predator and serial perjurer, risking servicemen's lives to distract the nation from his scandals

Hillary Clinton - accomplice to sexual predator (see above), and gatherer of illegally obtained FBI files on opponents

Joe Biden - responsible for current mortgage mess due to his 2005 bankruptcy bill at the request of the major banks

I could go on forever with this list, and can if needed ??

[panamania79 2]

[britty 1]

obama's pic belongs in the inexperience block, not palin's.

Jeez, replace the pictures with Dems, and suddenly space is an issue....

Barack Obama - Sweetheart land deal with indicted mobster, Tony Rezko

Barack Obama - good friend of terrorist William Ayers, and of course the lovely racist Reverend J. Wright

...too many for NObama so I'll move on to the other reprobates......

Michelle Obama - hates her country, unless of course her husband gets elected (fairweather patriot)

Bill Clinton - sexual predator and serial perjurer, risking servicemen's lives to distract the nation from his scandals

Hillary Clinton - accomplice to sexual predator (see above), and gatherer of illegally obtained FBI files on opponents

Joe Biden - responsible for current mortgage mess due to his 2005 bankruptcy bill at the request of the major banks

I could go on forever with this list, and can if needed ??

oh i'm sorry i nearly forgot one.... Barack Obama - coke head.....