Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Prop 8

[BroncoInferno]

Beautifully stated...

[epicSocialism4tw]

Keith Olbermann doesnt deserve a link.

The guy is worse than Hannity.

At least Rush is an intelligent shill. This guy is a self-important hack of a sportsreporter.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

Keith Olbermann doesnt deserve a link.

The guy is worse than Hannity.

At least Rush is an intelligent shill. This guy is a self-important hack of a sportsreporter.

Obviously, you didn't watch the video. That would have been intellectually honest, something you are incapable of. Or, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you can explain what points Olbermann made in the video that are wrong. I await your response.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Obviously, you didn't watch the video. That would have been intellectually honest, something you are incapable of. Or, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you can explain what points Olbermann made in the video that are wrong. I await your response.

Yep.

Angrydramaqueen with more of the same "if you can't refute the message then attack the messenger" dishonesty we've come to expect from the radical right.

These people's SOP is "when you're wrong and you know it, attack, attack, attack!"

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Obviously, you didn't watch the video. That would have been intellectually honest, something you are incapable of. Or, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you can explain what points Olbermann made in the video that are wrong. I await your response.

You must have missed the purpose of my post.

It was simple.

You are no better than the "Hannitized". "Olbermannized."

If that ideological slumlord isnt intellectually dishonest, then I dont think that there is such a thing.

Tear the fixture from your brainstem. Remove yourself. You will be better off...well, I guess that some people get so scared of reality that they run right back to it. Are you one of those? Who knows.

Anyhow, have fun with your little Olbermann. Ubermench. Overman. Whatever.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

You must have missed the purpose of my post.

It was simple.

You are no better than the "Hannitized". "Olbermannized."

If that ideological slumlord isnt intellectually dishonest, then I dont think that there is such a thing.

Tear the fixture from your brainstem. Remove yourself. You will be better off...well, I guess that some people get so scared of reality that they run right back to it. Are you one of those? Who knows.

Anyhow, have fun with your little Olbermann. Ubermench. Overman. Whatever.

How about watch the video, access Olbemann's points, and then refute them if you find them inaccurate? Are you capable of that intellectually honest procedure?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

You must have missed the purpose of my post.

It was simple.

You are no better than the "Hannitized". "Olbermannized."

If that ideological slumlord isnt intellectually dishonest, then I dont think that there is such a thing.

Tear the fixture from your brainstem. Remove yourself. You will be better off...well, I guess that some people get so scared of reality that they run right back to it. Are you one of those? Who knows.

Anyhow, have fun with your little Olbermann. Ubermench. Overman. Whatever.

Ha ha ha!

Make it about ideology vs. evaluating the validity of arguments or ascertaining the truth or falsehood of specific claims.

No wonder your "movement" is circling the drain.

[Garcia Bronco]

I'll watch it, but if he says something stupid I am turning it off. For the purposes of this viewing, we'll exclude his name.

[Garcia Bronco]

He says he doesn't understand. He says he doesn't have a vested interest. He doesn't understand that Civil Unions exist. He doesn't understand that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

He says he doesn't understand. He says he doesn't have a vested interest. He doesn't understand that Civil Unions exist. He doesn't understand that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Um, Civil Unions don't exist. And, as Olbermann correctly pointed out, the definition of marriage HAS been changed a couple of times in the countries history: slave marriages were not legally recognized, and marriages between blacks and white were not legally recognized in many states. So, the definition was changed in those cases. The idea of a "traditional" marriage, therefore, is pure BS. It's just plain bigotry. Period.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Um, Civil Unions don't exist. And, as Olbermann correctly pointed out, the definition of marriage HAS been changed a couple of times in the countries history: slave marriages were not legally recognized, and marriages between blacks and white were not legally recognized in many states. So, the definition was changed in those cases. The idea of a "traditional" marriage, therefore, is pure BS. It's just plain bigotry. Period.

Call it what you want, but marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or woman and a woman, or a dog and a man, or a woman and a cat. Where does the madness end? I support equal protection under the law and support civil unions, but don't call it marriage. I also believe the government should not be in the marriage game anyway.

Slave marriages were also recognized. It depended on what the owner wanted. And California recognizes civil unions.

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Yep.

Angrydramaqueen with more of the same "if you can't refute the message then attack the messenger" dishonesty we've come to expect from the radical right.

These people's SOP is "when you're wrong and you know it, attack, attack, attack!"

dont even start you ****ing hypocrit. You are the FIRST one to attack the messenger and completely ignore the message whenever a point is made from a source you dont like.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by spdirty

dont even start you ****ing hypocrit. You are the FIRST one to attack the messenger and completely ignore the message whenever a point is made from a source you dont like.

Really?

Give me some examples.

That's what I thought, you lying sack of sh*t.

[Drek]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Call it what you want, but marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or woman and a woman, or a dog and a man, or a woman and a cat. Where does the madness end? I support equal protection under the law and support civil unions, but don't call it marriage. I also believe the government should not be in the marriage game anyway.

Slave marriages were also recognized. It depended on what the owner wanted. And California recognizes civil unions.

The madness ends when all the uneducated masses like you realize that gender and sexual orientation do not and never have fit into the puritanical boxes you've been brainwashed into thinking they belong in.

Homosexuality and cross-gender identification have been part of human society since the first hunter gatherers roamed the earth. That is the facts and it doesn't matter how hard you believe in something else, those facts are not going to change.

As long as you make someone else acquiesce to your beliefs so you can feel comfortable you're suppressing their civil rights.

[Pseudofool]

As long as you make someone else acquiesce to your beliefs so you can feel comfortable you're suppressing their civil rights.

Word.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Drek

The madness ends when all the uneducated masses like you realize that gender and sexual orientation do not and never have fit into the puritanical boxes you've been brainwashed into thinking they belong in.
Homosexuality and cross-gender identification have been part of human society since the first hunter gatherers roamed the earth. That is the facts and it doesn't matter how hard you believe in something else, those facts are not going to change.

As long as you make someone else acquiesce to your beliefs so you can feel comfortable you're suppressing their civil rights.

. Homosexuality is choice driven and just because people make those choices doesn't mean they have a right to anything. Further, you have no idea what the nomads of the earth did thousands of years ago. Those are not facts but your opinions. I am sure even a dumbass who thinks geology is science understands the difference between facts and opinions. Well, obviously not.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Drek

As long as you make someone else acquiesce to your beliefs so you can feel comfortable you're suppressing their civil rights.

I believe murder is wrong. AM I supressing murderer's civil rights?

You guys could also take a few moments and actually look up the word bigotry as well. You might learn something.

[barryr]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Really?

Give me some examples.

That's what I thought, you lying sack of sh*t.

Spoken from a prime example of the dumbing down of America. Go to school.

[enjolras]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I believe murder is wrong. AM I supressing murderer's civil rights?

You guys could also take a few moments and actually look up the word bigotry as well. You might learn something.

Ok:

bigotry:
"the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So we need the definition of bigot:

"a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

What are we supposed to learn from that exactly? The argument against homosexuality is very much a bigoted one.

[enjolras]

While we're on the subject:

I believe murder is wrong. AM I supressing murderer's civil rights?

I LOVE this game:

Murder infringes on someones right to..you know..exist.

Gay marriage infringes on someones right to........

If you get murdered you no longer exist. Gay people get married and it affects your life in what way exactly?

Oh ya it doesn't.

[enjolras]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I also believe the government should not be in the marriage game anyway.

Slave marriages were also recognized. It depended on what the owner wanted. And California recognizes civil unions.

If you don't want the government in the marriage game, then what's to stop people from calling their particular union 'marriage'?

Oh and slave marriages where never recognized by the government. There is actual case law from that period dealing with that, as slaves did not enjoy much in the way of legal status (although it was illegal to murder them, but executions where ok... the difference being quite unclear). If the owner wanted to 'recognize' it, then fine.. the government did not. Which meant that when the owner died and the kids decided to sell the slaves the married couple had no rights as to how the sell proceeded. That is the particular case that I'm familiar with.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by enjolras

While we're on the subject:



I LOVE this game:

Murder infringes on someones right to..you know..exist.

Gay marriage infringes on someones right to........

If you get murdered you no longer exist. Gay people get married and it affects your life in what way exactly?

Oh ya it doesn't.

Homosexuality is a choice. Just like murder is a choice. Marriage is a holy communion between a man, woman, and God and should not be infringed upon by sexual deviants. Quit being a bigot towards religious institutions.

[Pseudofool]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Homosexuality is a choice. Just like murder is a choice. Marriage is a holy communion between a man, woman, and God and should not be infringed upon by sexual deviants. Quit being a bigot towards religious institutions.

How can you be sure it's a choice? What scientific fact do you base this on? It's an assumption, and what's worse, it's the basis by which you marginalize a whole swath of decent people.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Pseudofool

How can you be sure it's a choice? What scientific fact do you base this on? It's an assumption, and what's worse, it's the basis by which you marginalize a whole swath of decent people.

Synaptic plasticity.

That is the only real science that we have regarding this issue.

Nobody is saying that these arent "decent people", but that they make choices that are incompatable with what marriage is supposed to represent and exist as in our society.

It should not just be an excuse for tax breaks. It should be the foundation of a family of man and woman and offspring.

You have to jump through some pretty obvious hoops to get to the place where gay marriage and marriage would be equivalent practices.

What about the fundamentalist polygamist mormons? Why do we impede on their right to polygamy?

What about the pedophiles?

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Pseudofool

How can you be sure it's a choice? What scientific fact do you base this on? It's an assumption, and what's worse, it's the basis by which you marginalize a whole swath of decent people.

It's a choice plain and simple. People have all types of urges that have a genetic base. Everything reduces to biology, but acting on those urges are choices.