The Conservative Cave

Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: GOP Congress on January 09, 2011, 03:31:03 AM

Title: but what does Keith think?
Post by: GOP Congress on January 09, 2011, 03:31:03 AM
NOTE: I would not normally print entire articles, but I'm not sure if this will get taken down. Besides, I'm commenting in the middle of much of it.

Speaking of Olbermann, here is his commentary:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40981503

Quote
Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. We need to put the guns down. Just as importantly we need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently.

TRANSLATION: You repug 2nd amendment types, put away your guns, you murdering bastards

Left, right, middle - politicians and citizens - sane and insane. This morning in Arizona, this age in which this country would accept  "targeting" of political opponents and putting bullseyes over their faces and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows, ended.

This morning in Arizona, this time of the ever-escalating, borderline-ecstatic invocation of violence in fact or in fantasy in our political discourse, closed. It is essential tonight not to demand revenge, but to demand justice; to insist not upon payback against those politicians and commentators who have so irresponsibly brought us to this time of domestic terrorism, but to work to change the minds of them and their supporters - or if those minds tonight are too closed, or if those minds tonight are too unmoved, or if those minds tonight are too triumphant, to make sure by peaceful means that those politicians and commentators and supporters have no further place in our system of government.

If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bullseye targets on 20 Representatives including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics, she must be dismissed from politics - she must be repudiated by the members of her own party, and if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling, and they must in turn be dismissed by the responsible members of their own party.

Translation: If you back Sarah Palin, you support the murder of a nine year old girl. No middle ground here.

If Jesse Kelly, whose campaign against Congresswoman Giffords included an event in which he encouraged his supporters to join him firing machine guns, does not repudiate this, and does not admit that even if it was solely indirectly, or solely coincidentally, it contributed to the black cloud of violence that has envellopped (sic) our politics, he must be repudiated by Arizona's Republican Party.

Translation: If you back Jesse Kelly, you support the murder of federal judges. No middle ground here.

If Congressman Allen West, who during his successful campaign told his supporters that they should make his opponent afraid to come out of his home, does not repudiate those remarks and all other suggestions of violence and forced fear, he should be repudiated by his constituents and the Republican Congressional Caucus.

TRANSLATION: If you back Allen West, you support the slaughter of innocent bystanders. And we know it's called the Republican "CONFERENCE", not "CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS", but that's because you are stupid

If Sharron Angle, who spoke of "Second Amendment solutions," does not repudiate that remark and urge her supporters to think anew of the terrible reality of what her words implied, she must be repudiated by her supporters in Nevada.

TRANSLATION: If you back Sharron Angle, you support the actions of every murderer of a gun in this country.

If the Tea Party leaders who took out of context a Jefferson quote about blood and tyranny and the tree of liberty do not understand - do not understand tonight, now what that really means, and these leaders do not tell their followers to abhor violence and all threat of violence, then those Tea Party leaders must be repudiated by the Republican Party.

TRANSLATION: If you believe in the Founding Fathers and the tenets of the Original beginnings of the Republican Party, you must be repudiated by the Republican Party.

If Glenn Beck, who obsesses nearly as strangely as Mr. Loughner did about gold and debt and who wistfully joked about killing Michael Moore, and Bill O'Reilly, who blithely repeated "Tiller the Killer" until the phrase was burned into the minds of his viewers, do not begin their next broadcasts with solemn apologies for ever turning to the death-fantasies and the dreams of bloodlust, for ever having provided just the oxygen to those deep in madness to whom violence is an acceptable solution, then those commentators and the others must be repudiated by their viewers, and by all politicians, and by sponsors, and by the networks that employ them.

TRANSLATION: Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, you guys suck because you each get more viewers in a day than I do in a week. So poo on you.

And if those of us considered to be "on the left" do not re-dedicate ourselves to our vigilance to eliminate all our own suggestions of violence - how ever inadvertent they might have been then we too deserve the repudiation of the more sober and peaceful of our politicians and our viewers and our networks.

TRANSLATION: Boys and girls, you have new life to spout your anti-GOP slogans on DU and Kos. Go to it!!

Here, once, in a clumsy metaphor, I made such an unintended statement about the candidacy of then-Senator Clinton. It sounded as if it was a call to physical violence. It was wrong, then. It is even more wrong tonight. I apologize for it again, and I urge politicians and commentators and citizens of every political conviction to use my comment as a means to recognize the insidiousness of violent imagery, that if it can go so easily slip into the comments of one as opposed to violence as me, how easily, how pervasively, how disastrously can it slip into the already-violent or deranged mind?

TRANSLATION: See, I am wrong too, maybe I'm the one who sent Loughner over the edge! Actually, I didn't, but it helps me set up for the big finish ahead.

For tonight we stand at one of the clichéd crossroads of American history. Even if the alleged terrorist Jared Lee Loughner was merely shooting into a political crowd because he wanted to shoot into a political crowd, even if he somehow was unaware who was in the crowd, we have nevertheless  for years been building up to a moment like this.

Assume the details are coincidence. The violence is not. The rhetoric has devolved and descended, past the ugly and past the threatening and past the fantastic and into the imminently murderous.

TRANSLATION: DU, Daily Kos, and the Administration daily briefing is...oops, I mean, Rush, Sean, Mark, and Glenn has caused this murder, pure and simple.

We will not return to the 1850s, when a pro-slavery Congressman nearly beat to death an anti-slavery Senator; when an anti-slavery madman cut to death with broadswords pro-slavery advocates.

TRANSLATION: It was Bush's fault!

We will not return to the 1960s, when with rationalizations of an insane desire for fame, or of hatred, or of political opposition, a President was assassinated and an ultra-Conservative would-be president was paralyzed, and a leader of peace was murdered on a balcony.
We will not.

Because tonight, what Mrs. Palin, and what Mr. Kelly, and what Congressman West, and what Ms. Angle, and what Mr. Beck, and what Mr. O'Reilly, and what you and I must understand, was that the man who fired today did not fire at a Democratic Congresswoman and her supporters.

TRANSLATION: You mean republican bastards listen up now...this is on YOU.

He was not just a mad-man incited by a thousand daily temptations by slightly less-mad-men to do things they would not rationally condone.

He fired today into our liberty and our rights to live and to agree or disagree in safety and in freedom from fear that our support or opposition will cost us our lives or our health or our sense of safety. The bullseye might just as well have been on Mrs. Palin, or Mr. Kelly, or you, or me. The wrong, the horror, would have been - could still be just as real and just as unacceptable.

TRANSLATION: Next time, the target WILL be on you, Sarah Palin. And I'll be happy as a clam inside as I'm denouncing republican thug militia types on the outside when it goes down.

At a time of such urgency and impact, we as Americans - conservative or liberal - should pour our hearts and souls into politics. We should not - none of us, not Gabby Giffords and not any Conservative - ever have to pour our blood. And every politician and commentator who hints otherwise, or worse still stays silent now, should have no place in our political system, and should be denied that place, not by violence, but by being shunned and ignored.

It is a simple pledge, it is to the point, and it is essential that every American politician and commentator and activist and partisan take it and take it now, I say it first, and freely:

Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans.

TRANSLATION: Hopefully, this speech will end Palin's presidency forever. Mission accomplished.

Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: Revolution on January 09, 2011, 03:43:37 AM
Oh Lord. Glad I didn't watch tonight. Except, if I HAD watched, my eyes would not be bloodshot after that.

Notice how many times he said "repudiate?" Asshole. It's like they're now attached to the word.
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: CactusCarlos on January 09, 2011, 04:14:25 AM
Quote
If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bullseye targets on 20 Representatives including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics, she must be dismissed from politics - she must be repudiated by the members of her own party, and if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling, and they must in turn be dismissed by the responsible members of their own party.

Hey Keith, who gets dismissed for these?

Public radio producer fantasized about watching Rush Limbaugh die (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/public-radio-producer-fantasized-about-watching-rush-limbaugh-die-journoli)

Punch Sarah Palin cartoon (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PUjJef9llCg/SP06b07PVBI/AAAAAAAABDc/4J3B99eMU-s/s320/punch+palin.jpg)

TV Host Bill Maher Suggests Dick Cheney's Death Would Save Lives (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256650,00.html#ixzz1AWznZ3r1)

Poster:"City to Bush - Drop Dead" (http://amcop.blogspot.com/bush%20drop%20dead.JPG)

Sarah Palin with a target over her face (http://leftofdayton.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/palin-target4.jpg)

Kill Bush poster (http://static.binscorner.com/d/death-threats-against-bush-at-protests-i/125107024155.jpg)

Daily Kos put "bulls eye" on Gabrielle Giffords back in June of 2008 (http://i52.tinypic.com/qsa8zl.jpg)
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: JohnnyReb on January 09, 2011, 04:17:47 AM
Obama said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun."

Well, democrat dude brought a gun to the fight and shot up a democrat gathering because the democrats there weren't democrat enough.

...and Olberwomann and his fellow leftist journalist have done more to promote violence than the handful on the right.
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: formerlurker on January 09, 2011, 07:34:32 AM
Keith's wisdom (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#40983401)


No finger pointing inward -- amazing I know.   Palin is of course at fault and should be run out of politics.

Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: formerlurker on January 09, 2011, 07:36:34 AM
KEITH OLBERMANN: Finally tonight, as promised, a "Special Comment" on the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona today. We need to put the guns down. Just as importantly, we need to put the gun metaphors away and permanently. Left, right, middle, politicians and citizens, sane and insane. This morning in Arizona this age in which this country could accept the, quote, "targeting," of political opponents and putting bull's-eyes over their faces and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows has ended. This morning in Arizona this time of the ever-escalating borderline ecstatic invocation of violence - in fact or in fantasy - in our political discourse, has closed.

It is essential tonight not to demand revenge, but to demand justice, to insist not upon payback against those politicians and commentators who have so irresponsibly brought us to this time of domestic terrorism, but to work to change the minds of them and their supporters. Or if those minds tonight are too closed or if those minds tonight are too unmoved, or if those minds tonight are too triumphant to make sure by peaceful means that those politicians and commentators and supporters have no further place in our system of government.

At his news conference this evening, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik took the extraordinary step of reporting not details of the crime scene alone but rather of the political and cultural climate: "I think it's time as a country we need to do a little soul searching because I think that the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from the people in the radio business and some people in the TV business, and what we see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised. It may be free speech, but it does not come without consequences. Arizona has become the Mecca of prejudice and bigotry."

And Sarah Palin whose Web site put and today scrubbed bull’s-eyes targets on 20 Representatives, including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part - however tangential - in amplifying violence and violent imagery in American politics, she must be dismissed from politics. She must be repudiated by the members of her own party. And if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling. And they must in turn be dismissed by the responsible members of their own party.

If Jesse Kelly - whose campaign against Congresswoman Giffords included that event in which he encouraged his supporters to join him firing machine guns - does not repudiate this, does not even admit that even if it was solely indirectly, or solely coincidentally, it contributed to the black cloud of violence that has enveloped our politics, he must be repudiated by Arizona's Republican Party.

If Congressman Allen West, who, during his successful campaign, told his supporters that they should make his opponent afraid to come out of his own home, does not repudiate those remarks and all other suggestions of violence or forced fear, he should be repudiated by his constituents and the Republican congressional caucus.

If Sharron Angle - who spoke of Second Amendment remedies - does not repudiate that remark and urge her supporters to think anew and again of the terrible reality of what her words implied, she must be repudiated by her supporters in Nevada. If the Tea Party leaders who took out of context a Jefferson quote about blood and tyranny and the tree of liberty, do not understand, do not understand tonight, now, what that really means and these leaders do not tell their followers to abhor violence and all threat of violence, then those Tea Party leaders must be repudiated by the Republican Party.

If Glenn Beck - who obsesses nearly as strangely as this Mr. Loughner about gold and debt - and who wistfully joked about killing Michael Moore, and Bill O'Reilly who blithely repeated "Tiller the killer" until the phrase was burned into the minds of his viewers, if they do not begin their next broadcasts with solemn apologies for ever turning to the death fantasies and the dreams of blood lust, for ever having provided just the oxygen to those deep in madness to whom violence is an acceptable solution, then those commentators and the others must be repudiated by their viewers and listeners, by all politicians who would appear on their programs including President Obama and his planned interview with Fox on Super Bowl Sunday, and repudiated by the sponsors and by the networks that employ them. If all of these are not responsible for what happened in Tucson, they must now be responsible for doing everything they can to make certain Tucson does not happen again.

And if those of us considered to be on the left do not rededicate ourselves to our vigilance to eliminate all our own suggestions of violence, however inadvertent they might have been, however mild they might have been, then we, too, deserve the repudiation of the more sober and peaceful of our politicians and our viewers and our networks. Here, once in a clumsy metaphor, I made such an unintended statement about the presidential candidacy of then-Senator Clinton. It sounded as if it was a call to physical violence. It was wrong then, it is even more wrong tonight, I apologize for it again, and I urge politicians and commentators and citizens of every political conviction to use my comment as a means to recognize the insidiousness of violent imagery that if it can go so easily and slip into the comments of one as opposed to violence as me, how easily, how pervasively, how disastrously it can slip into the already violent or deranged mind.

For tonight, we stand at one of the cliched crossroads of American history, even if the alleged

terrorist, Jared Lee Loughner, was merely shooting into a political crowd because he wanted to shoot into a political crowd, even if he was somehow unaware who was in that crowd, we have, nevertheless, for years been building up to a moment just like this. Despite the YouTube videos of what appears to be Loughner referring specifically to the Eighth Congressional District of Arizona, Gabby Giffords’ district. Assume the details are coincidence, the violence is not. The rhetoric has devolved and descended past the ugly and past the threatening and past the fantastic and into the imminently murderous.

We will not return to the 1850s when a pro-slavery Congressman nearly beat to death an anti-slavery Senator and when an anti-slavery madman cut to death with broad swords pro-slavery advocates. And we will not return to the 1960s when, with rationalizations of an insane desire for fame or of hatred, or of political opposition, a President was assassinated. And an ultraconservative would be-President was shot at and paralyzed and a leader of peace was murdered on a balcony.

We will not because tonight what Mrs. Palin and what Mr. Kelly and what Congressman West and what Ms. Angle and what Mr. Beck and what Mr. O'Reilly and what you and I must understand was that the man who fired today did not fire at a Democratic Congresswoman and her supporters. He was not just a madman incited by 1,000 daily temptations by slightly less madmen to do things they would not rationally condone. He fired today into our liberty and our rights to live and to agree or disagree in safety and in freedom from fear that our support or opposition will cost us our lives or our health or our sense of safety.

The bull’s-eye might just as well have been on Mrs. Palin or Mr. Kelly or you or me. The wrong, the horror would have been, could still be just as real and just as unacceptable. At a time of such urgency and impact, we as Americans - conservative or liberal - should pour our hearts and souls into our politics. We should not, none of us - not Gabby Giffords, not any conservative - ever have to pour our blood. And every politician and commentator who hints otherwise - or worse still stays silent now - should have no place in our political system and should be denied that place, not by violence, but by being shunned and ignored.

It is a simple pledge, it is to the point, and it is essential that every American politician and commentator and activist and partisan take it and take it now. I say it first and freely. Violence or the threat of violence has no place in our democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or anything in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans. Good night and good luck



Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/01/09/olbermann-suggests-palin-other-conservatives-slightly-less-madmen-gun#ixzz1AXrgrIii
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: txradioguy on January 09, 2011, 08:06:14 AM
Physician heal thyself.
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: RightCoast on January 09, 2011, 08:40:51 AM
Wow, it seems like only the conservatives are ever wrong...
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: BlueStateSaint on January 09, 2011, 09:16:13 AM
Wow, it seems like only the conservatives are ever wrong...

Remember, they're the smarterest people in the country! ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: Freeper on January 09, 2011, 09:18:34 AM
Do they even listen to Beck?
Hell I have heard him and Sarah Palin both say that violence is not the answer on his show.
Funny how that never gets reported but all Palin has to do is mistakenly say North Korea instead of South Korea and that is in every newspaper in the world. Yet when they say they do not condone violence no one seem to hear it.

Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: RightCoast on January 09, 2011, 09:20:20 AM
You will see hate like you've never seen before from the left over this...I have a feeling gun control and fairness doctrine all gain traction in the senate.
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: Freeper on January 09, 2011, 09:35:11 AM
You will see hate like you've never seen before from the left over this...I have a feeling gun control and fairness doctrine all gain traction in the senate.

All the left has, is hate. They hate everyone who thinks different than they do. So they assume since they hate us so much that we too must be full of hate as well.
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: RightCoast on January 09, 2011, 11:18:14 AM
All the left has, is hate. They hate everyone who thinks different than they do. So they assume since they hate us so much that we too must be full of hate as well.


Remember the attacks against Rush after the Oklahoma Federal building? Bill Clintoon himself blamed the right wing specifically for that attack. It's going to be much worse then that because the victim was a Dem. Even if it was Ariana Huffington or Michael Moore that pulled the trigger the assault against the right will be legend.
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on January 09, 2011, 01:16:23 PM
Quote
but what does Keith think?

FIFY.
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: ColonialMarine0431 on January 09, 2011, 05:40:33 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Liberal%20Baiting/Keith%20Olberman/124669668_5bec064b77_z2344.jpg)
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: Ptarmigan on January 09, 2011, 05:48:51 PM
 :mental: :mental: :mental: :mental: :mental: :mental:
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: dandi on January 09, 2011, 10:44:05 PM
What does keef think?

Who gives a shit?
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: DefiantSix on January 09, 2011, 10:52:50 PM
What does keef think?

Who gives a shit?

Given how consistently constipated up to his beady brown eyeballs Keef is, I'm willing to bet that he himself hasn't given a shit in at least 20 years.
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: Boudicca on January 10, 2011, 05:45:30 PM
Obama said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun."

Well, democrat dude brought a gun to the fight and shot up a democrat gathering because the democrats there weren't democrat enough.

...and Olberwomann and his fellow leftist journalist have done more to promote violence than the handful on the right.

Classic!  I would've bolded it, but that's a masculine characteristic! :p
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: true_blood on January 10, 2011, 07:58:17 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Liberal%20Baiting/Keith%20Olberman/124669668_5bec064b77_z2344.jpg)
EPIC!! :lmao: :rotf: :cheersmate:
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: true_blood on January 10, 2011, 07:59:36 PM
Right after the shooting, I knew they would go after the "guns" issue.
Anything they can use to their leftist agenda.
Title: Re: but what does Keith think?
Post by: Boudicca on January 10, 2011, 08:00:55 PM
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Liberal%20Baiting/Keith%20Olberman/124669668_5bec064b77_z2344.jpg)

Shit (pun intended), was Keef a twin then?  I had NO idea. :whistling: