‘Just Another Fox News Bigot’: Did Olbermann Pull a Rick Sanchez on O’Reilly?
- Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:34am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Keith Olbermann refused to be left out of the O’Reilly/“View” incident yesterday. Making sure to add his opinion regarding the “walk-off” tirade of Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, Olbermann named Bill O’Reilly the “worst person” in America.
But Olbermann didn‘t just scold and mock O’Reilly, he pulled a Rick Sanchez and used the “B” and “I” words:
Lost in that, of course, is that Bill O., without benefit of a script, revealed himself to be just another Fox News bigot, and Islamophobe.
Mediaite’s Glenn Davis is flabbergasted by the claim:
Is that enough to reasonably call him a “bigot and Islamophobe”? Of course not. As we said before, unless you’re a truther, the statement “Muslims killed us on 9/11″ is technically true at a basic, and yes, dangerously oversimplified level. … O’Reilly’s sentence lacked nuance, but it wasn’t bigoted, nor did it prove Islamophobia
Olbermann also used the segment to take a pot shot at Glenn Beck, saying that O’Reilly is “just parroting Gretchen Carlson and Glenn Beck over there”:
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 569 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 394 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 385 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 368 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 324 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 385 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 394 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 324 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 385 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (379)
badswing
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:02amwhy do we continue to follow this man!!!! he has 10 viewers daily yet WE continually mention his name. stop talking about him and maybe his viewership will go down to 5 and msnbc will finally cut him off. BTW, 30 for 30 newest show (espn) has a clip of him reporting the death of a former croatian basketball player. if you want a good laugh check it out. (not about the player! but about his dress and facial hair…too funny)
Report Post »Richard Johnson
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:00amKeith, does he actually have viewers?? amazing.
Tea Party, nope
Report Post »Republican rhinos? most likely
Dems? quiet a few
Radicals? they worship him.
QuietRiot
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:57amKieth ,
Report Post »You know its the end of the season and I know some families from 911 would love to have batting practice with you we can meet at the WTC for practice….. 7 pm sharp……. ? OH bring your friends …..
25R624
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:55amKeith Olbermann is irrelevant. He will be deactivated.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:54amDid Olbermann pull a “Sanchez”? Absolutely NOT! After all, Sanchez’s sin was calling a fellow bigot, a bigot! Those on the left can call the people at Fox ANY NAME IN THE BOOK and their fellow bigots will back them up!
Report Post »PatriotRider
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:53amGotta hand it to O’Reilly, I’d of went postal on those cackling old hens. Why, oh why, are people watching this stuff. For the news value? NOT! Those two hags and Olberduche should just go away.
Report Post »zeno malan
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:12amAdd your comments
Report Post »missmarie
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:52amOff topic, I know! Please, can anybody help me? I’m trying to find out which government agency holds approval authority for this process – not getting answers in Washington. Story was reported on 10/12/10 “China stakes claim to S. Texas oil, gas” By Monica Hatcher – Houston Chronicle
“As part of the deal, the largest purchase of an interest in U.S. energy assets by a Chinese company, CNOOC has agreed to pay about $1.1 billion for a chunk of Chesapeake’s assets in the Eagle Ford, a broad oil and gas formation that runs largely from southwest of San Antonio to the Mexican border.
CNOOC also will provide up to $1.1 billion more to cover drilling costs.
The deal represents China’s second try at making a big move into the U.S. oil and gas market, following a failed bid five years ago to buy California-based Unocal Corp.
Intense political opposition over energy security concerns derailed that $18.4 billion deal. But analysts expect few political or regulatory hurdles to the CNOOC-Chesapeake deal.”
Report Post »Cabo King
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:52amOlberman your a hack—bill best selling book is no big deal, think anyone wouild buy any book you wrote?? i’ll bet if Olberman wrote a book it would go to #1 in Russia
Report Post »Citizen
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:50amIt doesnt help them to label everyone as bigots and islamophobes, Those repeated attempts to slander people who view islam and sharia law with suspicion is backfiring.
They want to shame people into not saying anything, the 9-11 terrorists were muslims, the people who trained and help plan it were muslims and the people cheering in the streets after were muslims.
are all muslims violent ? – no, but their very own religious text tells them to be.
Report Post »drbage
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:02amDon’t forget that the majority of their money comes from Iran which by its own words is an Islamic Republic. I say majority because who can forget the $600,000 that Code Pink gave to the poor, suffering Iraqis fighting against the horrible Americans in Falujah. I’d like to ask Jihadi Jodie or Socialist Sean for explanation about a couple of things.
Report Post »1. If America is so evil, why do you still live here? Why don’t you just move to Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, or Iran?
2. If America is so evil, bigoted, racist, etc., etc., why are there thousands of people who scrimp and save and go through the process of legally emigrating to this country? Why are there thousands of people who daily walk across our unprotected borders to live and work here?
what4
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:49amThis guy needs a long walk on a short pier!!
Report Post »cruisemates
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 8:15pmABC is obviously person trying to infiltrate this group to disrupt and confuse it.
I am a second generation American, with 50% Lebanese blood. On one side of my family are a number of Syrian Orthodox Christians, many of whom were more or less expelled by the Israelis in 1948. Some of my relatives are bitter about that, but I am not because I feel the presence of Israel there is best for world peace and in my heart I am American, not Philistine, Phoenician, Palestinian, Orthodox Christian, Maronite or anything else.
I have no idea why you think we need an ancient history lesson of the strip of land now known as Israel, but once again, you are pedantic and boring.
This nation (USA) has technically been at war with various Muslim groups since its inception beginning with the Barbary Coast in the 1790s. The Turkish Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in WWI. Iran under Khomeini took American hostages and held them under President Carter. There is a long history of diverse groups of Muslims hating us – NOT the other way around – and we were mostly unaware of it before 9/11.
If there is any hate in this matter, it is coming from their side – not ours. We don’t hate all Muslims any more than all Muslims hate us. But your argument that we are politically incorrect for using the term “Muslims” to refer to the people who attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11 is ignoring a long history of “radical” Muslims hating Americans.
As Bill O’Reilly rightfully said, Muslims attacked the World Trade Center just like Nazis committed the Holocaust. Are we being insensitive if we don’t say “Nazi extremists?” I don’t think so. The holocaust reflects on all Nazi’s except those who denounced it or tried to stop it. It defines Nazism.
The German people have come out since WWII and made extreme declarations condemning the acts of Nazis. Please tell me which Islamic groups have done the same for the attack of 9/11?
I am sorry to put this so crudely, but I am just tired of your pro-Islamic propaganda here. We “get it.” There are mostly good Muslims and the religion did not attack us. However, I contend most Americans believe there has not been a sufficient denunciation of the act of 9/11 by so-called moderate Muslims, and I suggest that is at the root of our basic mistrust and wariness towards the religion in general.
Is it “hateful” to be wary of people who have hurt us deeply? Tell that to the battered wife.
I must protest the reverse responsibility for bad acts you are putting on America. We did not ask to be attacked on 9/11, but your diatribe is directly along the lines of “we were asking for it.” If you do not agree I have to ask how you would respond if another 9/11 terrorist attack happened tomorrow? It appears to me you would say we were asking for it by our political incorrectness.
Are we not on a high terror alert right now? Are there not warnings of increased “chatter” happening right now?
Report Post »SND97
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:49amO’Reilly this morning said he is going to start fighting like hell to correct all this correctness crap, instead of backing down he is going to fire it up GOOOOOOOOOOO BILL!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:13amThis isn’t about political correctness. It is about being correct. If I make the statement: pies have apples in them. This is false and can be demonstrated by producing a key lime pie. If I make the statement: Irish people are drunks. This is false and can be demonstrated by producing Christine O’Donnell. If I make the statement Muslims killed us on 9/11. This is false and can be demonstrated by producing Cat Stevens or Kareem Abdul Jabbar. The point is, you don‘t need to rely on the weak PC argument of avoiding hurting people’s feelings in order to argue that O‘Reilly shouldn’t make the statement he did. You simply can point out that it is logically incorrect to make such a statement. These statements can be easily corrected, by the way. Apple pies have apples, Irish in AA are drunks, and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists killed us (including innocent Muslims) on 9/11. I can‘t read O’Reilly’s mind to know why he made an incorrect statement, but will give him the benefit of the doubt since he apologized that he doesn’t hate Muslims or feel intolerance toward them. But he does look foolish not being able to use language more precisely, and very hypocritical calling for their sensitivity in locating an Islamic Cultural Center while simultaneously showing little sensitivity himself.
Report Post »Bob_R_OathKeeper
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:27amABC – Muslims did attack us on 9/11, do you think if you could confront any of these low-life terrorists and tell them they aren’t Muslims, what do you think they would tell you? If you even make it out with your head intact. Do you know what a Caliphate is? Their whole goal is to spread Sharia Law from mountain top to mountain top and they will continue this little by little until it’s too late and idiots like yourself would just let it happen, WTFU!
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 12:18pmBob, you cannot understand the logical mistake called fallacy of composition even after it was clearly explained to you, and you’re calling me the idiot? Nice try.
That the 9/11 perpetrators were Muslim doesn’t mean that Muslims killed us anymore than the fact that they had two legs means that bi-peds got us. If you cannot understand that you are using making gross generalizations about a group based upon a very, very small sample that is hardly representative of the whole group, then you are the one who is intellectually challenged. If you complain about violent Islamic fundamentalism or terrorism, then you are on solid ground. It’s when folks like you use gross generalizations that you get into trouble. Honestly ask yourself, if I went around protesting all human beings because of 9/11, would I be making much sense? You sound about that silly when you make such incorrect statements. Again, it is the dumb conservatives that claim that people like me are trying to be too sensitive or we’re too dumb, but the reality is that it is you who cannot use language precisely–because you do not think precisely. This is important, since the people who want to build the Islamic Community Center near the 9/11 site are Muslim but they are not violent Islamic fundamentalists, so by lumping them in with actual terrorists you can look reasonable in your outrage even though the reality is that you are blaming the wrong people by using imprecise labels and in reality look rather foolish. Kind of like imprisoning Irish people–since they are bipedal animals–for the behavior of the 9/11 terrorists. Go learn what fallacy of composition is, and, more generally, how to think and write, before calling me stupid. I have more intelligence than you in my left big toe nail.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 12:49pm@ ABC your ignorance of the islamic political ideology is quite apparent. you have no understanding of it . there is no such thing as “moderate muslim” there are only those who follow islam to the letter, and those who dont understand it. period
Report Post »GOTT-EM-MAUSER
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:06pmWell ABC, Congratulations on having those Smart Toe Nails of yours, cause the rest of you got a super dose of the stupids from the gene donors. ALL MUSLIMS are ENEMIES of the CONSTITUTION and the PEOPLE of the United States. The MUSLIMS HIDE behind a false curtain of RELEGION when infact they are TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL THUGS. Their “RELEGION” sanctions and encourages the MURDER of all of us that do not agree with them. Unfortunately that includes ME and MILLIONS of others.
That having been said, we can’t wait for them to “Come On Down” and we’ll dance. “THE ONLY GOOD MUSLIM, IS A DEAD MUSLIM”
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:23pmPsychosis continues to confirm that he is a dullard. Saying there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim is like saying there is no such thing as a non-alcoholic drinker of wine. I have many good friends who are moderate Muslims so you are making wacky statements that do not comport with the facts. You are aptly named. But you are a genius and an imminently reasonable person compared with Mauser, whose statement is so completely and demonstrably false that one shouldn’t deign to respond to it. There were German Nazi’s with more humanity than someone like you, who claims that my good friend’s two children, aged 7 and 9, should die because of your bigotry. Very nice humane ideas bouncing around in your head. And you’re passing judgment on my thinking… Wow.
Report Post »TMACK
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 3:19pm@GOTT-EM-MAUSER – “THE ONLY GOOD MUSLIM, IS A DEAD MUSLIM”
Your ignorance astounds me…and the above statement by you clearly demonstrates that you are a BIGOT of epic proportions. You have personally offended me for reasons that are not even worth the energy to type them so I will refrain from further comment.
Report Post »Mary M. Tebbe
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 3:35pmABC: Wow, you are on a roll today. I’ll try to comment on some of the things you said. Forget the logical stuff that you think you are expounding on, because I don’t find it so. First of all who is the Palestinian? He is the ancient Philistine, the ancient enemy of the Israelites of long ago. He is first an Egyptian people that an ancient Pharaoh settled in the ancient land of Canaan when he conquered the land. These people became known as Philistines. Later a seafaring people of Crete settled and intermarried among these Philistines and became known as Philistines as well; both a Hamitic people. These Philistines were later named Palestinians by the Greeks who wanted to be known as originators of history. So, you see, they have absolutely no real claim to the land of Modern Day Israel, but we don’t know that, because that part of history has been conveniently erased to throw us off on the pages of history. So, that should take care of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict right there!!!
Report Post »You say that Iraqis were not involved in 9/11. Of course they were. They were involved in training terrorists. The reason that we are in Iraq today has to do with ancient history. Of course, we don’t remember that either because history has been so distorted. The Bible tells us that Babylon would be destroyed TWICE. It was destroyed by the Medes and the Persians, and again with the help of The United States of America. The Bible tells us that Babylon is the nation that took the Southern Kingdom of Judah captive. But it also tells us the reason for the double punishment. The first time it was punished by the Medes and the Persians was to set the tribe of Judah free so that they could return to the Promised Land. The second time it was to be destroyed was because they had mistreated the tribe of Judah more severely then God had intended. God wanted the tribe of Judah to be punished for their sin, but Babylon, the Bible tells us meant to completely destroy them. The other reason that God meant for Babylon (today’s Iraq) destroyed was because they burned God’s Temple in Jerusalem. If you know the Bible, and you seem to know so much, then you can look that up for yourself. The Bible even asks who would be a man after God’s own heart that would bring this about in the last days, and now we know that it was President George Bush. Of course we will understand that a lot better when we get to heaven and God reveals the reason for everything that has happened here on earth throughout history. I write all about that in my book.
Now, Saudi Arabia is Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar that I mentioned to you earlier on this blog. This Ishmaelite, the Bible tells us, would be a wild donkey of a man, and would be hostile to every man, including their brothers (I won’t get into who his brothers are right now). He is a terrorist, and has always been. Nothing has changed about the characteristics of this Shemitic race of Ishmaelites.
You fault Bill O’Reilly for agreeing that the Islamic mosque should not be built at ground zero. I’ll give you a different take on it. I write in my book, and prove it, that we are an ancient Israelite people. In Israel, long ago, God told the Israelites that they were to have no false god sacred stones, temples, etc. on their soil. It angered God. If we remembered today that we are an ancient Israelite people, we would not allow any false god temples in our country today. Do you see how history has been distorted, and we can no longer carry out our ancient Israelite practices?
Now, you say that Christians hate Muslims. Actually, no we don’t. We understand that when Jesus Christ died, he died for the sins of the whole world, and included in that were the Muslims. It is interesting to note that Aljazeera is reporting that 16,000 Muslims are coming to the Lord on a daily basis in the Middle East. Isn’t that wonderful! Even the Muslims are finding the TRUE GOD ALMIGHTY.
cruisemates
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 3:56pmPlease people –
You are arguing semantics – not the issue. ABC – all you are doing is advocating political correctness. I choose to disagree with you. The phrase “Muslims killed us on 9/11″ is semantically correct, and although you may say it is politically incorrect you will never win the argument that the phrase O’Reilly uttered is NOT not factually true.
You sound very intelligent, but your wisdom is misguided. You are pedantic and boring. And you obviously did not major in English. You may be a troll, as you remind of the people who were trying to get us to deny our own eyes and believe that the 20-2 rally had as many people as Glenn beck. It didn’t.
Here is a link to many saying s about “The truth”
http://www.best-quotes-poems.com/truth-quotes.html
One stands out to me in reference to you:
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Vladimir Lenin. (and Ed Schultz)
I prefer this one:
“Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn’t.” Mark Twain
Report Post »Mary M. Tebbe
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 5:23pmABC: You aren’t as bright as you think you are, and you don’t understand my book, because I haven’t told you anything about it. 6,300 pages is a lot to discuss. And you are wrong again in much of what you said. Like I say on this website, we are all entitled to our opinion. That’s about all yours is worth.
Report Post »TMACK
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:48amJust when I was convinced Chris Matthews was the biggest moron on the planet…Olbermann opens his big pie-hole again.
Report Post »Deda1
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:48amWith Sanchez gone Oberslob is now the dumbest man on cable.
Report Post »BigPaulie
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:47amBlaberman is the biggest idiot on the tv. He is still on tv isn’t he? What a hateful piece of garbage.
Report Post »kuzy101
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:02amActually Ed Schultz is a bigger idiot….watch the Ed Show on MSNBC. I think the only people that watch this stuff are conservatives that want a good laugh like I do.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:17amI agree with Kuzy. I am left of center, and I cannot stand the Ed Show.
Report Post »Jharvey505
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:46amAs they both woddled off the stage, it appears as though it was planned all along.
Report Post »Breaker 19
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:53amI thought the same thing! They were both worried that all the creme filled doughnuts would be eaten so they made a preemptive move to the treats, look closley you can see them licking their lips!
Report Post »JBaer
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:43amBecause O‘Reilly didn’t use the p c words “terrorist” or “extremest”, the left blows a gasket!
Report Post »We sensible people knew exactly what he meant! For petes sake, there were no Lutherans causing mayhem on 9-11, they were all Muslims!
Rogue
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:27amActually, we are not supposed to use the term “terrorist” anymore as well, according to the Obama admin. I guess it must be insensitive towards islamic extremists. Give it a little more time, and we’ll only be able to refer to these groups as “grumpy muslims”.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:16amWho said we cannot use the word terrorist? This is a free country, and that is a useful word. I thought the issue was more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where one man‘s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Incidentally, the British called the American revolutionary soldiers that used guerilla tactics terrorists as well, although they used different words appropriate for that era. Having said that, I‘d be surprised to find anyone who wouldn’t allow you to call the perpetrators of 9/11 terrorists.
Report Post »drbage
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 12:30pmABC, it was this administration that chose to eliminate the words terrorist and Moslem from the official vocabulary. According to Ms Napolitano, we are not conducting a war on terror, it is an overseas contingency operation. The military in their report on Major Nadal did not once mention the fact that he is Moslem, despite the fact that all the witnesses to the killing said that he was shouting “Allahu ahkbar!” Their vocabulary change reminds me of reading Harry Potter where everyone knew who they were talking about, but they did not date say the name.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 12:49pmDRBAGE, you do understand that Napolitano saying that we are calling the Iraq War something other than a war on terror reflects the fact that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 so that is a more accurate moniker that any thinking person should approve. Further, limiting the use of the word terror or terrorism in that single context hardly constitutes a total ban on the word in all contexts–just because I don‘t sleep with my wife in public libraries doesn’t mean I don’t have a healthy sex life. God, I cannot believe how illogical and imprecise conservatives are in their thinking and writing.
As for the crazy guy who killed all those soldiers, it is interesting to note that whlie conservatives are up in arms that Major Nadal’s religion was not mentioned, they are not similarly up in arms that Scott Roeder’s Christianity was not mentioned, much less invoked, during his trial. Both men killed because of moral beliefs grounded in their religion, but you only attribute Nadal’s actions to his religion. Either both men’s religions are to blame and should be invoked as criminally violent ideologies or neither one should. So, tell me, which is it? Should Christianity have stood trial alongside Scott Roeder or were prosecutors correct to not invoke Islam while seeking conviction against a very messed-up military officer? You have to choose, since these cases are logically analogous.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:17pmDr Bage, deciding to stop calling the Iraq War a fight against terrorism make sense since that country wasn’t involved in 9/11 or terrorism–at least not the way our “ally” Saudi Arabia has been involved. But that doesn’t mean that the Obama administration put a ban on the word terrorism in general. How illogical can you be? Also, please explain why you are not similarly upset that the prosecution did not mention that Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. Tiller in a church, is a Christian? Maybe because you refuse to say that all Christians are violent like Roeder but are willing in the same situation to accuse all Muslims of such violent thinking. When you start criticizing Christianity and all Christians for the acts of Roeder, then I’ll demand that the military put Islam on trial along with Major Nadal. We can disagree about a lot, but facts and logic must remain consistent.
Report Post »w4jle
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:30pmABC, your arguments are full of logic holes. All the terrorists of 9/11 were Muslim. Therefore Muslims attacked us. Did all Muslims attack us? No, but those that did were Muslim. Your Key lime pie argument is a red herring and placed on any logic diagram is nonsense.
Report Post »Assigning additional adjectives to the particular group of Muslims that attacked us simply fulfills PC requirements.
jillulu
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 2:03pmThanks JBAER. I don’t ever understand why people get so torqued when someone forgets to say a word or to qualify it. When you are in a confrontational setting – or heck, anytime you have one person speaking extemporaneously, there is the opportunity for someone to forget or misspeak a word and have it change context. But boy do the libs love to twist things into something they are not.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 2:35pmW4, it is actually your arguments that are full of holes, not mine. Let’s take your statement:
“All the terrorists of 9/11 were Muslim. Therefore Muslims attacked us.”
Now, I’ll make an identically analogous one:
“All the pies I ate on 9/11 made me violently ill. Therefore, pies make people violently ill.”
Those statements are both true as far as they go. But you and I both know that that is not as far as O’Reilly went. He connected that statement to his reasons for denying an Islamic Center near 9/11–a center being build by Muslims who did not attack us on 9/11 nor even condone such acts. He also ignores that scores of victims of 9/11 were also Muslims. In effect, he is standing there warning people about eating pies and how they make you violently ill without acknowledging that only a very, very tiny percentage of pies result in violent illness. You can choose to ignore the entire context as well as the logical mistake (i.e., fallacy of composition) but that requires a lot of intellectual dishonesty and makes me wonder why would someone work so hard unless they really were unjustifiably distrustfull, if not completely intolerant, of other groups in our society. But even if that question remains a puzzle, hopefully, I’ve clearly demonstrated why my demand for more precise language has nothing to do with being PC.
Report Post »kanobile
Posted on October 16, 2010 at 1:37pmFinally, an individual who cuts right to the chase, speaks the truth and and makes a valid point. My respect to you.
Report Post »John 1776
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:41amWow. I guess the truth is not allowed at MSNBC. Next they will call people bigoted if they say the sky is blue.
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:41amI think it’s about time to organize a boycott of all his sponsers….
Report Post »SND97
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:40amDoes anyone care what Doberman has to say? He is a non-issue anymore. Bye Keith..your a nobody
Report Post »CanadianTory
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:57amOlberman is quite possibly the “WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD” on MSNBC. Its like he watched a couple of and is doing what he thinks they do except really really badly.He think’s that running his mouth and making crazy allegations is how its done on FOX so to get more ratings for the network he will do the same thing except louder and more obnoxiously.
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 12:53pmKeith O. even talks down to his viewers…his worst people of the world segment – there is no such word as “worsest” I think MSNBC treats American viewers like they are dumb – no wonder nobody is watching them anymore.
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:40amOlbermann constantly flings wild accusations about conservatives like a monkey throwing it’s own….well, you know!
Report Post »M31Sailor
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:40amThis is like being called a Doody Head by a 5 year old
Report Post »drbage
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:53amOr the old childhood adage, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”
Report Post »Crowley
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:08amHaha, you nailed it.
Report Post »TrueGrit
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 12:30pmWhen I can’t take any more corporate day stufff.I turn to you guys.
I can always find great wit…
Doody Head…I was LOL.
Thanks.
Report Post »Maybe the GEESE Know More than the BEES Know
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:40amolberdude’s “worst, worster, worstest” people segments are soooo inspiring!
Report Post »NOT
Toader Gloat
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:39amOlberman has to get press somehow…pretty simple.
Report Post »SnapTie
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:38amLean forward grab the remote and never watch KO KO.
Report Post »JD Carp
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:47amYou shouldn’t boycott Olberman,, Behar, or Maddow. If not for PMSNBC and other liberal media, these folks would be on welfare and unemployment insurance. They also serve to inform and empower conservatives with intel on how these poor uninformed, misguided souls have been taught to think. From their ramblings we can learn how to teach their followers how to become leaders and walk out of the darkness into the light of truth.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 12:23pmThat won’t be a problem for me. I NEVER watch that jerk.
PatriotShops.com
Report Post »*************************
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 2:56pmOlbermann who? Don‘t about what’s-his-name on the what’s-that-network. Viewer-ship and advertisers have tanked and their going bye-bye. However, tune in if you have a morbid-car-crash interest. :)
“Hus du gezen in deine leiben. They darker than us! Woof!” -Indian Chief, Blazing Saddles
Report Post »(Yiddish translation: Have you ever seen anything like this in your life?)
mygirl1
Posted on October 16, 2010 at 8:18pmABC: If you’re not a muslim then you are an infidel dog. Period. End of story. Think your muslim friends will support you under Sharia law? Will you enjoy dhimmitude? Will you enjoy being a second or third class citizen to a muslim? Imam Rauf stated at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting that ‘muslims were peaceful law abiding citizens” of any country wherein they were a minority
Report Post »starman70
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:37amIs Olberman not just a leftist bigot?
Report Post »ishka4me
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:48amI do watch olbermann. He gets me very angry and motivates me. i think the majority of his audience are conservatives , tunning in to see what the left is thinking
Breaker 19
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:50amKeith Olberman is a **** – he is so enraged because of gender issues. I laugh knowing that he was a sports broadcaster – Great tightend?
No need to accuse me, Yes, I am an Olberphobe!
MattyFos
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:57amI forgot all about Olbermann, what with MessNBC’s new blowhard Ed Shultz taking the title of “craziest left” on MessNBC.. Obey couldn’t stand being in third place to Shultz and the Justin Beiber look-a-like… Welcome back Obey, once again you prove just how crazy, angry and BIGOTED you actually are.
Report Post »CultureWarriors
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:01amWell, he is a punk and he lives in his mom’s basement. But the big question is, who watches him anyway?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ3OxZhXKQ0
Report Post »slickmeister
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:01amWhat? All this time I thought Olbermann was doing a comedy routine!
Are you suggesting this man actually believes the BS he spews?
TruthTalker
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:01amOberman definitely has “Mommie Issues”
Report Post »msnbciscomedy
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:06amHe so wishes he was relevent. His little cheesy routine of throwing papers at the camera is so tired and over used. What a freakin dork. He and Bill Mahr are about as pompas as you can get.
Report Post »LSX
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:19amLeftist bigot?
Isn’t that an oxymoron? Maybe just a moron!
.
Report Post »5
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:22amOverbite won’t get in trouble. Bill is on FOX News. Not CNN.
You can say anything you want about Fox which is BULL CRAP.
Bob_R_OathKeeper
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:29amI just took an Olbermann and wiped my Obama.
snowleopard3200
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:30amOlberman seems to bespeak of a simple idea that encompasses much of MSNBC – speak lies, anger and hate filled speeches, while ignoring the reality of truth.
So much for their intentions of “Change” they made a few days ago.
http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm (mixed art)
Peters
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:48amIshka4me:
You are right; conservatives are watching. There’s a connection between that and the performance that Olbermann puts on each evening. In fact, he packs so much material into each segment, so much diatribe that he has to rattle at a pace that he looks as if he’s a wild scared animal backed into a corner . . . Childish nonsensical insults are hurled at the audience to keep them back as if he’s growling and showing his razor sharp liberal teeth.
If Olbermann, if liberals in general, really and sincerely wanted to cure the world of what ails it, there would be a liberal someone, somewhere at some point in time, a someone that would come forward and see the benefits of constructing a bridge to cross the divide of our differences in understanding of the world in which we share; or are supposed to share.
But let’s all come to a serious understanding: Liberalism does not want to compromise with anyone or anything. Understand that liberalism forms coalitions that are highly narcissistic in their sense of self preservation and advancement of their causes. However, as a result of their narcissism, they will be cannibalistic if and when they need to be. But worse, liberalism’s collective narcissism and focus on satisfying itself, blinds it so much so to our reality that many times it fails to understand that ultimately, it is gnawing on its own leg.
But Olberman, he’s fully aware of this, as are many other liberals of his character, such as Mathews or Colbert. These characters, Olbermann, they look a lot like that cornered and scared animal when they perform. Their fear, generated through serious misunderstandings of the audience in front of them has them instead of showing their liberal teeth go so much farther demonstrating that if they must they will consume themselves right in front of us to scare us away.
Olbermann, we most certainly are watching you; but we have the intestinal fortitude to watch you commit these heinous crimes against yourself. We are not scared, and we will not go away until flies begin to hatch from your sallow media carcass.
Obamasucks
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:48amI have a question, did more people view this clip on The Blaze, or did more people actually watch Olberman’s show. I think The Blaze wins!
Report Post »HKS
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:50amDoes this guy really have any reason to live? What a miserable human.
kennycannon
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:51am@ISHKA4ME – You are so right. I’d bet that about 25% of his and Mr. Ed’s viewers are conservative people getting angry. I watch Special Report (after GB) every night but DVR Mr. Ed. I also watch Olbermann every night either at 8 or on my DVR.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:58amDefinition of “bigot” from Merriam-Webster’s dictionary: ” a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
By this definition, I think there is a lot of bigotry going around. Clearly, O‘Reilly’s continual statements that generalize the behavior of Muslims as terroristic while ignoring that there were Muslims who were victims of 9/11 mean that he is stubbornly holding on to views and making statements that are not “technically true” as Glenn Davis asserted, but absolutely false. However, I am not sure that he is making them because he is intolerant of Muslims or hates them. But I do think that he likes the ratings boost that comes from making controversial statements, and that boost likely comes from bigoted fans of his. To make the nuanced and accurate statement, that a small subset of Muslims, so small that they are smaller as a percentage of the adherents to Islam that they rival the number of violent killers amongst the Christian faith–as evidenced by our shameful numbers of locked-away felons in this country–, perpetrated a terrible act that also happened to kill scores of Muslims, who are part of the “us,” since they are Americans and have as much a right to be in this country and whose religion is as legitimate and important to the fabric of the US, a country that is constitutionally bound to remain neutral in religious matters, and thus the act should merely be described as terrorists vs victims rather than Muslims vs us. This kind of statement doesn’t get ratings, so showmen like O’Reilly do not make them. He profits from exciting the bigots, while pushing up to the line himself.
abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:03amPeters: interesting comments. Please definte “liberalism” and explain why it is necessarily narcissistic and uncompromising. Also, please explain how conservatives ARE compromising in stark contrast. That would definitely help illuminate your thoughts.
Report Post »pmacres
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:11amexactly, I do the same thing, I should turn him off and his ratings will sink further….
Report Post »5
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:24amDon’t SHOW THIS CLOWN. IT’S THE ONLY WAY HE IS SEEN.
WHY WOULD WE PUT ON PEOPLE WHO ARE LOSERS?
WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAY?
Report Post »NOT ME. NO FACE TIME FOR YOU.
nc freedom
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 11:47amOblowhard was a sports announcer, that qualifies him to be a political expert based on his narcissism and the need to hear himself speak. Eventually they will self distruct. I refuse to watch any show on any NBC owned company including Sunday Night Football, Weather Channel etc. Even the Weather Channel spews Odumbo! Talk about state owned television!
Report Post »Dojo
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 12:55pmFrom ABC “To make the nuanced and accurate statement, that a small subset of Muslims, so small that they are smaller as a percentage of the adherents to Islam that they rival the number of violent killers amongst the Christian faith–as evidenced by our shameful numbers of locked-away felons in this country–..”
Report Post »It appears by this statement that you are comparing the Muslim fanatics killing in the name of ISLAM and the hundreds of thousands of Muslims cheering them on to the US Prison population.
How many of the “shameful numbers of locked away felons” do you honestly believe are robbing/killing/maiming in the name of Jesus or the Christian faith? I can think of two off the top of my head. There is NO comparison. We lock them away. And you certainly don’t see the multitudes supporting them!
abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:12pmDojo, so your argument is that because the very tiny group of Muslim murderers kill in the name of Islam while the tiny group of Christians kill because they ignore the teachings of Christ, it is ok to slander the vast majority of Muslims who do not condone such behavior. Ok, this is another logical fallacy since the stated reasons for killing by either the Muslims or the Christians do not apply to the non-killing members of each of these religions that are MUCH LARGER in number. Therefore, your argument still makes no sense. Also, before you get too superior thinking that Christians do not kill for their religion, take a look at Scott Roeder. Also, remember that the conflict in Ireland and the war in Bosnia involved Christians killing other Christians for religious reasons. The numbers involved in both places easily exceeds the numbers involved with Al-Qaeda and other Muslim terrorist groups. So I really don’t see any distinction in the behavior of different religious groups when I study just the last 50 years–never mind when I contemplate in shame the atrocious record of Christians attacking other religious groups over its lengthy hisory. In any case, even if you could argue that Islam is inherently a more violent religion, it still doesn’t mean that you can lump the hundreds of millions of peaceful adherents to that faith with the tiny minority that murders (wrongly) in Allah’s name. You really should pay careful attention to how you think. It impacts seriously what conclusions you draw, and you don’t want to keep making such mistakes in your thinking. All conservatives should take a logic class before writing in public blogs. It would limit the embarrassment.
Report Post »dutchess
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:16pmWe have become so politically correct that we can’t even speak the facts any longer– it is a fact that at least 19 muslims were involved in the attacks of 9/11– and no one watches msnbc anyway so don’t worry about obermann, he’s just blowing in the wind–
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:25pmDutchess, why are conservatives so PC that I cannot make the simple statement that at least 19 people with c**ks got us on 9/11? I mean, you prudes won’t let me even say the word during the evening news, much less put up pictures of them? Why is that? You guys are so PC and make no sense at all!!
Report Post »OHTAY
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:38pmWho is keith olberman?
StMichelob
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:43pm@ Peters. Wow. I always look forward to your posts. VERY insightful, well thought out and well written. I‘ll bet Bill O’ gets a giggle from your pith, and Chrissy M gits a “shiver” up his spine. The truth police such as yourself are what makes these sad, grown boys feel like the trapped prey animals that they are, knowing that the fight/flight reflex has come down to one option: fight. Or die. Anyone ever read “Watership Down”? These guys have “gone tharn”
Keep rockin’ it, Peters. We need you out here.
Report Post »Dojo
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:55pmTechnically I was responding to your specific statement comparing Muslims and Christians, and then of course in your original statement where you used evidence of a prison population as some sort of comparable situation.
There was no attack on you, just a questioning of exactly how you were connecting the dots.
Just like yesterday when Whoopi tried to throw out McVeigh as a response to Bill. As a knee jerk response, it sounds good and quasi rational. But it makes no sense once you think about it. Osama, Atta and his crowd killed in the name of Islam and millions of Muslims cheered.
McVeigh killed because of Waco and it had nothing to do with Christianity. Him being raised in a Christian nation does not mean he is a Christian.
And we captured and executed him under the rule of law.
And you may be right. Maybe a history lesson is in order. I’ve never pretended to be an expert. But while the lines drawn in Ireland seemed to be across Christian denominations, my memory and understanding was the core conflict was centered around British Rule. (I’m going to review Wikipedia after this post to be sure) The Protestant‘s didn’t British rule, which the Catholic majority was in favor of. Yes, there is an annual parade celebrating a hundreds of years old military victory that increased tensions, but that is side bar and has nothing to do with the “Troubles” It was Political, not ethnic, and not religious.
re: Bosnia/Serbia. That had as much to do with Slobodan Milosovic ego and ethnic tensions in the region. Slobo took advantage of it for political purposes.
I just can’t accept your comparison of what is happening in the Muslim world, which teaches world domination and subjugation of all non-muslims to the examples you have given so far.
For me to buy into it, we would have to reach back centuries to find anything even remotely comparable to what is happening today.
I love a good debate and am always eager to learn. Please show me the error of my ways, preferably without insults. I will be listening and open minded. But if this is all you have, I remain unconvinced.
Report Post »chazman
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 2:02pmOlberman is gay. His best buddy is Seth McFarland of Family Guy fame, who is also gay. I’m glad he has just been outed. Maybe this will help him deal with life a little better.
solaveritas
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 2:30pmBumpersticker: “KISS MY OLBERMAN!!”
But, hey, be easy on Keith. He is only trying to be outrageous so he can keep his job. Where else could he find employment if he loses this gig!!
Report Post »sausageking
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 2:52pmOlberman and Bill Maher are both bigots.
Report Post »Mary M. Tebbe
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 2:52pmABC: starman70, I hope you don’t mind me butting in here on your site, but I need to address some of the things that ABC is bloviating about. First ABC, thank you for defining bigot. I think that fits Olbermann rather nicely. Mr. Olbermann will NEVER be a Bill O’Reilly! :)
Report Post »My husband grew up in Pakistan among the Muslims, and he can tell you a lot about them that you have no knowledge about. They are not a very tiny group of Muslim extremists. There are a whole lot of them, and they will come forward to do the bidding of their imam’s when needed. They are taught hate from the Quran from an early age, and yes, they do hate CHRISTIANS and JEWS; period. I have studied the Quran for a long time…not just reading its pages, but studying it. Love is not preached from the Quran. These people want to rule the world, and they believe that some day they will actually accomplish this. If you are not a Muslim, then you would be one of the people they would eventually want to exterminate, and they won’t think twice about it. The Muslims that killed us on 9/11 were extremists, but they were still Muslims. You nor they can change that. You are trying desperately to be politically correct; just the thing you fault us for. Hmmmmm! My husband can tell you what they do to thieves…right before his eyes, as a child in Pakistan, they killed them. Yet, most of the Muslims in Pakistan think nothing of stealing. My husband watched one night as a Muslim came into their home through the skylight with a long curved knife and crept through their home stealing. He lay quietly and watched, not to make a sound, so he would not be killed. Muslims hate the Americans. They envy us, and they also admire us, all the while acting as our enemies. When you are a six year old and Muslims are throwing rocks at you and break your back, then you have something to say about your knowledge of who and what a real Muslim is. That’s what happened to my husband. Oh, there is so much more I could tell you, but you appear to know so much already. LOL
I don’t know why we keep thinking that we should somehow treat the Muslim religion as something very sacred. It is a false religion, an ancient form of Allah the son-god, which was also called Baal by the Phoenician/Canaanites, and was known by many other names as well. Allat was his female consort. Mohammed just gave this Allah another story. It is a religion steeped in slaughter/bloodshed. Mohammed was an Ishmaelite, a descendant of Abraham through the outcast son of Abraham, and Hagar the Egyptian. It has been a LONG STANDING FEUD that does not appear that it will heal anytime soon between Isaac‘s and Ishmael’s descendants. Well you are bloviating about the Muslim, please give historical fact along with your fine words. I think over a period of 17 years of being in Pakistan as the son of missionaries my husband could tell you a thing or two about this group of people!
abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 2:54pmSo clearly, you don’t need to go back centuries to find examples showing moral equivalence. And even if you did, it still doesn’t change the reality that what is true for the tiny part is definitely not true for the whole. Hopefully, you see the point.
Report Post »Peters
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 3:13pmABC you asked: “Peters: interesting comments. Please definte “liberalism” and explain why it is necessarily narcissistic and uncompromising. Also, please explain how conservatives ARE compromising in stark contrast. That would definitely help illuminate your thoughts”
Understand this is a condensed conversation.
“Liberalism” is not what it was originally intended to be. It was hijacked and is now representative of the corrupted thought of the socio-political left world-wide. When speaking of liberalism in the sense that we speak about it here, in contemporary terms, we are defining that corrupted state of being, of collective thought, both individually and as a socio-political movement.
However, because socio-political movements are the results of collective individual human actions, of human thought and thought processes, of ambitions and objectives, liberalism is an absolute dynamic of the human condition that engages in the manipulations of thought, reasoning and cultural conditioning. And because of this, and because it is corrupted, it is best summarized by simply stating that it has become a mental disorder as Dr. Michael Savage has talked about. It’s a disorder that by way of natural human development seeking power and influence will potentially destroy all in its path seeking what it desires and what it needs to maintain itself and its belief system. As a result of this, varying levels of natural narcissisms come heavily into play when discussing and defining contemporary liberalism.
In this all, great complexities are buried. It is a disorder that is very observable but its onset is so unique to each individual, and is due to so many environmental variables, that it becomes a very complicated and drawn out conversation of observations. It’s a conversation that is filled with complexities interwoven with social and psychological concepts that would very much involve talking about the maturing ego or lack of a mature ego, and then the protection of that ego with excesses of energy, hyper thought and ill conceived ambitions that are wrapped up in excessive narcissisms. Liberalism, on an individual basis then, becomes the effect of the emotions of empathy from one extreme to the next and is therefore always filled with illogical contradictions.
But keep in mind, this is but a fraction of liberalism defined.
Conservatives compromising with liberalism:
Understanding conservatism is synonymous with understanding a true awareness of the world in which we live, that man (and yes that includes woman) must live in an orderly society. Conservatism understands that compromise is not used when the order of society is put at risk. And because as stated above, that liberalism evolved into a corrupt socio-political movement, naturally, conservatism will not and should not compromise with it until a resurgence of morality returns to the liberal ideology.
Liberalism needs to reinvent itself to become viable in the realm of conservative thought; in other words it needs to lay its weapons down and return to a peaceful past. However, that probably is not possible due to the nature of contemporary liberalism being dictated by a individual collective narcissisms as outlined above. An argument could be made that true and pure liberalism, as in such notions as tolerance for example, actually exists most, and in a most enlightened state, within conservative thought, contrary to popular liberal teaching.
The compromise that needs to come from the left is heavily based upon a new course of evolution in individual self awareness and a collective self awareness, that as a socio-political movement, liberalism has been diverted and driven into darkness. Because of the nature of narcissism however, liberalism cannot recognize that its problems are with itself. And until liberalism evolves out of its current and deceptive darkness of immorality and untruths, it is doomed to always be an enemy of conservatism.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 3:59pmOlberman is most certainly a bigot. During a tirade against the Tea Party, he once stated “and you don’t see any homosexuals at Tea Parties”.
Seriously? How do you “see” homosexuals, Keith? Please explain how I can physically profile a homosexual? I don’t know that I could pick a homosexual out of a lineup.
Report Post »Cemoto78
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 4:01pmIdiot.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 4:29pmTebbe, you are drawing a lot of conclusions about your husband’s experience in Pakistan, which is only one country in the much larger patchwork of Islamic communities. Further, it is a country that has been a basket case since its founding in 1948. So drawing conclusions about Muslims from one historical instance is rather like drawing conclusions about African Americans on the basis of their experience in post-Katrina New Orleans. In fact, if you were to replace “Pakistan” with “New Orleans” and “Muslim” with “Black” and “Quran/mosque“ with ”Bible/Black Church,” you would find that your claims are rather incendiary and certainly not true. To claim that you saw looting and rioting by Blacks in New Orleans doesn’t describe or account for Condi Rice or Geoffrey Canada. Much of the bad behavior in New Orleans reflected the fact that people were living in a place with a failed government (multiple, actually, at the local, state and national level). Similarly, Muslims in Pakistan live in a similar state. Further, as missionaries, your husband and his parents were there for the express purpose of convincing those people that their ideas were inferior, which, while easy to do in areas of facts and logic (e.g., building a better auto, organizing a better society, winning a logical argument about false claims in a blog), it is not something one can easily do when it comes to religion. If I started to assert that Christianity is a terrible religion that enslaves children’s minds and has been forced upon large portions of the world at sword-point, you will undoubtedly get mad at me and not treat me with respect, so it would not be surprising to hear that the son of people doing such work would not have a happy experience in Pakistan. Finally, one of my closest friends from high school is a Muslim Pakistani, and I have met his family members from his place of birth there, and they are not remotely like the people you describe. You are describing the whole with a particular part, and it is the same mistake that O’Reilly makes. That you do not see it is puzzlling.
You also say that you have studied the Quran, but then you go on to make statements about the book that no scholar of Islam or religion in general would say. It is no more false than Christianity, which is like Islam, a descendant of Judaism. And Christianity clearly involves the borrowing of pagan ideas like the resurrection that come from other religions, as well as the thought of Plato. Islam has its predecessor beliefs that it has borrowed, but it is no more or less rooted in legitimacy in that regard. Actually, Islam reflects a closer kinship to Judaism than Christianity does. A friend, who teaches religion at an Ivy League college would disagree with you vehemently, as would many other scholars in the field (e.g., Elaine Pagels, et. al.)
Again, this is not about being politically correct, but factually correct. And you clearly are not. Perhaps you have “studied” the Quran, which is to say you’ve read it, but your claims about it are not remotely true or supported by the work of real scholars. More importantly, your claims about Muslim behavior on the basis of a particular historical case that is not representative shows just how often conservatives like to generalize to large populations of innocents the evil deeds of a few bad apples–unless, of course, those bad apples come from their own basket.
Report Post »bruno13
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 4:36pmTrying to get inside the mind of a liberal wingnut is a nightmarish thought to me! What if you got stuck in there?
Report Post »Mary M. Tebbe
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 4:54pmABC: More bloviating!!!!! You make me laugh! I could talk circles around you, having written a 6,300 pages total rewrite of distorted history and I would be happy to take on that challenge. Read your piece again…it’s rather silly, but I suppose that you sound intelligent to yourself. There are NUMEROUS SCHOLARS that would wholeheartedly agree with me about Islam. And I have not told you the half about the Pakistani. Of course there are wonderful Pakistani people, and my husband had many many Pakistani friends. But we are taking about an ideology here and yes it is a false religion. Go on the internet yourself, and you can read all about its origin. I can’t have a conversation with someone like you who knows everything about everything and wants us all to understand that today.
Report Post »Uncle Sambo Lives Here
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 5:06pmABC, Ms. Tebbe gave some specific FIRST-HAND experience. You have nothing but some skewed ideas. Go pound sand.
Report Post »Max jones
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 5:23pmTO ABC…..At the heart of the “Islam as murderers of Americans” claim, is the covert and overt support terrorist groups receive from the common muslim through their mosques and islamic charities. Not helping the image is the deafening silence of Muslims everywhere, concerning terrorist activity. Add to this the actions of European Muslims raising hell along with those in the U.K. Not the mention the various “FAHTWAS”. from which, many western intellectuals, must protect themselves …..where are the ‘moderates’ in Islamic society? They just don’t seem to exist. You, sir. are willfully blind or ignorant in your self destructive political correctness. The ‘New world order’ is waiting for you. Face it, you have liberal guilt that you have not washed away in the blood of the LAMB. Most of us will stand against the heathen hordes, just like we will stand against their BOSS. The rest of you will do what ever is expedient. You may as well resign yourself to the slavery which is all the Muslim thinks you are worthy . You sound like a grade ‘A’ coward to me.
Report Post »Tuesday
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 5:46pmI don’t get to see or hear Olbermann anymore, unless he is featured in some other site. From all accounts, and what little I have seen, he ought to be retired already. He is one-sided, unusually shallow and a hateful commentator. He has no place in broadcast journalism. Come to think of it, he is no journalist! Someone said he was rather good as a game commentator. He should have stuck to athletics.
Report Post »Dojo
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 6:23pmABC. There will never be an end to this debate. Neither Anecdotal evidence nor Generalizations will convince either one of us. So I’m just going to take some time to vent since you bring up the term bigot and I freely admit some preconceived biases and on a bad day, hatred (both are elements of bigotry I believe), which I will explain.
First: you mention Turkey and Malaysia. I’ve been watching those two countries. Both have growing populations of extremists. Turkey has it’s own issues with the more extreme elements gaining ground in public office. There have been some recent stories of attacks on Christians in Turkey. Re: Malaysia. Jemaah Islamiyah is another example of a growing problem.
I will be quick to admit that I’ve had a deep seated mistrust of the Muslim community ever since shortly after 9/11. Not before that time, but after. Before that time, I viewed terrorist attacks much like random Africanized bee attacks. Unfortunate, but what are you going to do? Crazy’s everywhere. I was more in tune with the liberal side, treating terrorists as aberrations and not indicative of the Muslim religion. I even bought into Clinton’s approach to treat it as a police matter.
What changed me? It started with listening to a local Imam the week after 9/11 visiting our church and trying to convince us that Islam is peace, then proceeded to unhook all good will he had earned by blaming the Jews and our support of Israel as the reasoning for their actions. Then hearing it repeated for almost ten years now.
It continued with watching videos of hundreds of thousands cheer the towers coming down. Listening to Muslim imams in Lebanon, Egypt, the UK, Canada and across the world say how Islam and Sharia are going to conquer us. Reading OBL’s manifesto right after 9/11 justifying the attacks on grievances I had barely heard of, including the fact that Muslims lost control of Spain hundreds of years ago. Listening to the twisted logic that there are no innocents since we pay taxes to a corrupt government.
The beheading of Daniel Pearl and the stabbing death in the Netherlands. The nightclub bombings that killed so many Australians. The Spanish Train Bombings. The UK Bombings. Most recently, watching the Mumbai attacks. And of course, the Ft. Hood shootings. All screaming Allah Akbar. These are not just anecdotal stories. They are not rare. They are not isolated to a specific area of the world. It’s the tip of the iceberg and world-wide. And supported implicitly by the greater Muslim population’s silence at best and outright complicity at worst.
And day after day, week after week, year after year I’ve been listening to people throwing out McVeigh, Roeder and a handful of others as EQUIVALENT examples of Christian intolerance. It has boggled my mind how people can see these two situations as similar.
As I am a believer in being honest with one self, I shall wear the title bigot, when it comes to followers of Islam. It’s my “cross to bear”. But I feel no shame for it since I didn’t start that way. That will start turning around when I see a Million Muslim march on Washington preaching peace & tolerance – while dragging a few terrorists over to the FBI building while they are in town. Or when Pakistani authorities drag OBL into custody.
I eagerly await the opportunity to turn my attitude back around, but at this pace, I’m not holding my breath. I read a posting a few weeks ago that got my attention. Basically it said “has anyone noticed that if it wasn’t for North Korea and Islam, we would have World Peace?” Sounds simplistic, but I haven’t been able to shoot too many holes in it.
Report Post »BenThereToo
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 6:34pmSuch a clown! And he sits there looking serious when he says obviously stupid things like that.
Report Post »woodlands1
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 6:53pmWatching Olbermann – is like going to the zoo and laughing at the animals(just don’t feed them)
Report Post »belleharbor
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 6:55pmwho watched to see it all 18 in california and 25 in nyc funny they need a home.
Report Post »rich frederick
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 7:51pmI do not like the labels. I however would like to know what one he would apply to a President who does not enforce immigration laws under Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, or who says the Constitution is just a bunch of obsolete, negatives? And his oath was to what? And that makes him a what per Keith’s dictionary? Sort of goes with political people that don’t pay their taxes or lie,,,, and Keith’s definition is? Please, just get him a dictionary, maybe he wasn’t good in English?
Report Post »Robert W
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 8:10pmWhats an oberman?
Report Post »jscottu
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 9:26pmI, too, watch Olbermann to see what he’s up to. I think you are right that a high percentage of his audience is conservative…watching a train wreck.
Report Post »abc
Posted on October 16, 2010 at 1:37amDojo, I agree with you. You do sound like a bigot. Even taking the terrible acts of violence you note into account, the vast majority of Muslims are still peaceful. In the US, they are more peaceful than right-wing nut jobs (http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/). You should try to meet and make friends with some of them, as they might help you get over your negative biases.
Also, if you believe that N. Korea and Islam are the only threats to world peace then you are forgetting China’s rising power which is going to lead to more conflict–who was behind the wars in Vietnam and Korea afterall? You also give Russia too much credit.
Report Post »drbage
Posted on October 16, 2010 at 11:26amWill someone please buy this man a mirror!
Report Post »ViperII02
Posted on October 16, 2010 at 12:48pmYep he is I deleted that channel from my channel line up more than 6500 beers ago…
Report Post »soonergirl
Posted on October 17, 2010 at 11:49amOlberman is worse than that.
Report Post »