« Disingenuous Headline Of The Day | Main | Neocons ROCK! »

You know, Keith Olbermann really is that stupid

I tend to get a lot of e-mail from idiots. They've signed me up for various and sundry mailing lists, send me stories and articles from out-and-out moonbats (alter.net, The Nation, and some Artist are fairly common). I guess it's their way of "educating" me. I've had to set up filters for them, but every now and then, they sneak past them.

But among the muck and mire, every now and then I'll find something that's worthwhile.

I don't know much about Keith Olbermann. I understand he used to be mainly into sports, and was regarded as all right there. I hear he used to do political stuff before, but was fired or had to quit that. And I believe that he has some sort of running grudge against Bill O'Reilly that seems to be a bit like a 3rd-grade crush.

He is one of the current darlings of the far left, and his "commentaries" are widely regarded by those who seem to have only a passing familiarity with reality. And someone decided that I just desperately needed to see one of them, so they sent me a link to this one that runs almost 11 minutes.

I couldn't watch more than a few minutes of it, but the gist of it involved the assault and near-beating death of Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts by Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina on May 22, 1856. Sumner had given a fiery anti-slavery speech some days before, so Brooks had sneaked up on him on the floor of the Senate and beaten him savagely unconscious with his cane, only stopping when his cane broke. Sumner spent 3 years recuperating from the assault, and never fully recovered. Brooks' constituents, when they heard about the attack, sent him dozens of canes to replace the one he'd broken over Sumner's head.

Olbermann's point in bringing up one of the more shameful incidents in Congressional history was to liken Sumner to a current Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, who spoke out last week and was rhetorically beaten by President Bush and legions of others. Olbermann speculated about to whom Bush would send new canes, and who would be those canes' targets.

Living next door to Sumner and Kerry's home state, I happen to know a little about the incident, and I can look up more details -- which apparently is beyond the grasp of Mr. Olbermann and his staff. His comparison might seem appropriate on the surface (if you're a complete loon), but it falls apart when actual facts are brought into play. For example:

1) Sumner was a Republican, his assailant a Democrat.

2) Sumner was physically assaulted, nearly killed, and never fully recovered until the day he died. No one, to the best of my knowledge, laid a finger on Kerry. The parallel would be to Kerry's presidential ambitions, not his person.

3) Sumner was assailed for speaking his opinion forcefully. Kerry was denounced for three inter-related reasons: A) his initial misstatement, which insulted not Bush, his intended target, but the men and women serving in Iraq; B) his refusal to admit error for days; and C) his non-apology apology, where he didn't regret his own words, but that others had been wrong to interpret them as they did.

4) The rampant physical thuggery in the mold of Brooks' craven attack on Sumner is still around in politics today, but it's pretty much exclusively the domain of the far Left against those it sees as its enemies on the Right. Witness the treatment of the Minutemen at Columbia University. The trends of throwing pies at conservative speakers at colleges (William Kristol, David Horowitz, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter) .(OK, Buchanan was hit by salad dressing, but the point is still valid.)

Even the counter-examples of "Republican thuggery" seem to show the Left in a bad light. Recently, a blogger was pysically hauled out of a George Allen campaign event by Allen supporters after he shouted rude questions at Allen. It was later revealed that the blogger himself had initiated the violence, forcefully shoving a security guard out of his way to get to the candidate.

And are these isolated incidents, aberrations from the norm? Considering the loud cries of support from the Left over these attacks (I seem to recall lots of approving laughter over these assaults, and a decided lack of criminal or other sanctions against the perpetrators), I'd have to say no.

Yes, the Sumner-Brooks incident is a good cautionary tale for today. But please take a hard look at who the modern-day Senator Sumners are, and who are the heirs of Representative Brooks -- and remember that Brooks' attack was a foreshadowing of the Civil War.


Comments (70)

You listened to a few minut... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

You listened to a few minutes and drew a conclusion - which of course was completely incorrect had you watched the whole piece. If you had watched the whole piece you probably would have disagreed with it and that is fine. Having not done so you look the fool.

That says everyhting anyone needs to lnow about what you post.

Hugh, unless he took back t... (Below threshold)

Hugh, unless he took back the comparison of Kerry to Sumner, I heard all I needed to.

All right, I went back and watched the whole thing. I quit after 4 minutes the first time, and I saw that I'd missed seven minutes of standard Bush-bashing. I feel SO much more enlightened.

No, there's another comparison of Kerry to Sumner. Still running that theme into the ground. And Olbermann harps on the above-disproven myth that the Allen protester was the victim of an unprovoked attack.

There's seven minutes of my life I'll never get back...

J.

Hugh is one of the six peop... (Below threshold)
robert the first:

Hugh is one of the six people that watch Olbermann, that explains a lot.

Olbermann was piss-poor at sports but even worse on political commentary, and he has the ratings to prove it.

Wrong facts and twisted truth, that's our Hugh.

I did listen to the entire ... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

I did listen to the entire thing, and Mr. Olberm4n needs some real help with his anger management, unless he is, as Rush put it, acting. I won't go into anything except the topic, which is handing out canes. Most of the nation was totally stunded by Kerry's comments. It was only after the staffer picked him/herself up off of the floor and figured out how to spin his remarks that the progressives(now that's a real joke) began to relax a litle. Mr. Olberm4n, SIR!, the meaning of Kerry's remarks is quite clear, even if you don't concider his past opinion of the men and women of the military. One does not live their entire life and then at some point say "I didn't mean any of it". John Kerry and his wife are elitists, whose opinion of the "common folk" is "let them eat cake".

I can't resist! We had a senator in GA (Max Cleland) who was missing both legs and one arm. It was determined by the people of this fine state that while he was to be honored for his service and sacrifice, he was not representative of the people of GA, and was thrown out. If veterans, no matter what their wounds, enter politics, they become fair game. Michael Fox was lucky that Rush didn't hit him harder than he did.

Jay:Nice that you ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

Nice that you went back and watched all of it....that was my point. That was my challenge. I've read you chatising others for not reading an entire piece. What's good for the goose....

So, Hugh, now that you've s... (Below threshold)

So, Hugh, now that you've stolen seven minutes out of my life, any comment on the SUBSTANCE of my piece? If not, I'd like to discuss compensation for the brain cells I lost to that garbage...

J.

Hugh:Jay admitted ... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Hugh:

Jay admitted his error, and corrected it. Would be nice to see you do that once in a while.

Hugh,I don't post ... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Hugh,

I don't post here very often, but in this case I need to ask you a question. Are you "pro-life" or "pro-choice"?

I suspect you are "pro-choice" and, if I am correct, how could you (or for that matter any other "pro-choice" reader) condem the actions of someone else who is merely exercising choice in their own life?

I pay for my tickets. If I don't like the movie/concert/event I walk out. I don't wait patiently for it to be over so I can walk out with everyone else. It is my life. I have self determination. Or is it your position that you should be in a position to determine how I live my life?

BTW: NO! This is not an excuse for anyone to hijack this thread and start screaming about abortion. Stay on topic: Olbermann's intellectual prowess and political thuggery to name two.

USMC, I'd prefer to think o... (Below threshold)

USMC, I'd prefer to think of it as "accepted the challenge" rather than "admitted and corrected error." If anything, I think it affirmed my initial judgment on Olbermann's screed. But thanks for your kind words.

J.

USMCI have done ex... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

USMC

I have done exactly that several times...as late as yeasterday as a matter of fact. So there (proverbial tongue stciking out at yoiu).

Peter:

You are absolutley correct. I was out of line with the castration comment. My apology to Mitchell.

Posted by: Hugh at November 3, 2006 09:05 PM

UpsetOld Guy:Somet... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

UpsetOld Guy:

Sometimes it helps if you read and understand what others post

So far, Hugh has managed to... (Below threshold)

So far, Hugh has managed to change the subject first to me personally, then to him. Still no response to the actual substance of my piece.

Now he wants to make it about Upset Old Guy.

The actual substance of my piece hit a little too close to home, Hugh? You have a few pies set aside for people you don't agree with?

J.

Jay:He was using a... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

He was using a metaphor. You certainly have the right to disagree and challenge that metaphor. Isn't that what debate is all about?

I watch him regularly. I love his show with exception of his commentary. They are ridiculously long and his anger gets in his way.

I don't agree with thuggery on the left or the right. I don't agree with what the students did at Columbia- I'd rather they listen and challenge the speakers in a debate. I don't like the thuggery of Coulter or Limbaugh or anyone on any side. Clear enough?

A postscript: I hear nothing from the right condemning Limbaugh's mockery of Michael Fox. Yes, he's fair game for his position. But for his disease USMC? That's mighty "Christian" of the Christian right.

Hugh, I don't care for Limb... (Below threshold)

Hugh, I don't care for Limbaugh. I've said so. But it turns out that Fox was supporting a measure he HAD NOT EVEN READ. That makes him fair game.

Now, Hugh, that you've brought up "thuggery" on both sides, perhaps you'd like to cite a few examples? I came up with half a dozen ones involving the threat of or actual use of physical force, without even trying too hard. Could you find a few from the other side? And I'm gonna hold you to the same standard -- actual physical force, or in the Minuteman case, serious threats of physical force. That's "thuggery."

J.

Hugh:When Fox uses... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Hugh:

When Fox uses his disease in misrepresenting the truth, it isn't wrong for Rush to point this out. Fox made a commercial which misrepresents an amendment on the Colorado(I think) ballet. The commercial makes the voters think that the ammendment is about stim cell research, when in fact it is about human cloning. Fox even admitts that he adjusts the dosage, or even stops, his medications to emphasize his disease. It was Fox who introduced his disease as part of the debate, not Limbaugh.

"I couldn't watch more than... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

"I couldn't watch more than a few minutes of it...."

Jay Tea


I'm sure you couldn't...and likewise your rebuttal falls flat on it's face.

Why do neocons think they can explain things away without listening or understanding or through outright denial?

Olberman was spot on....but in 2 days America will break all of your canes and Mr Bush will HAVE to listen and HAVE to answer.

Jay:As I said, Fox... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

As I said, Fox's position is fair game, no doubt about it. How can you possibly say it's part of that "fair game" to mock his illness? To mock the persn? Any crediblity you might have about the issue does away with your lame defense.

Physical thuggery? No I can't. Verbal thuggery? By the score.

Do you still think mocking a man's illness is "fair game" in debate? After all, that's what political discourse is, isn't it?

Oh, this is too funny... mu... (Below threshold)

Oh, this is too funny... muirgeo chastises me for not watching the entire video, but posts his alleged "thoughts" before reading the comments -- where he would see that that matter has already been addressed and resolved. You're a bit late to the conversation there, chump.

What is that old Bible bit about motes and beams?

J.

USMCSo flopping ar... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

USMC

So flopping around in mockery on the video cam is Ok USMC? That says a lot about how utterly blind to your politics you folks can be. I'm reinforced daily in my own political beliefs by that kind of view.

Geez, Hugh, with all your v... (Below threshold)

Geez, Hugh, with all your vast knowledge and insights (well, half-vast), can't you find a SINGLE example of physical thuggery to cite? I can personally say I'd rather be the subject of the Michael J. Fox "attack" than those I cited above. And I say that as someone with an incurable medical condition that might -- MIGHT -- be beaten with stem-cell research before it kills me.

See, I can play the victim card, too. I just don't like to.

J.

It's wrong of Fox to lie, t... (Below threshold)
Jayson:

It's wrong of Fox to lie, to manipulate BECAUSE he has a disease. Yes it's a shame he's ill, no one denies the severity of diseases people have to live with. But it is wrong for him to totally misrepresent it in order to trick people into voting for human cloning. I don't care if he's got a disease- he's being a liar, and I'm not going to excuse him. Do I think he should be mocked? No. But he SHOULD be called on his deceit.

Jay:You're a sad h... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

You're a sad human to continue to defend the mockery of an illness. Thanks for reinforcing my beliefs.Your desire to be right is your metaphor for your blindness to your cause.

Hugh, are you mocking MY il... (Below threshold)

Hugh, are you mocking MY illness? My medical condition that will most likely cripple me before it eventually kills me? My condition that is already wracking me with complications and limits my actions on a daily basis?

I think I see what you say about "verbal thuggery."

You know, I think I can get used to this victim card. It makes arguing so much easier.

J.

Hugh:Rush, Jay and... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Hugh:

Rush, Jay and I aren't mocking an illness. We are mocking Michael J. Fox, who is either using his illness, or being used, to sell a lie. I had not seen Rush's antics until today (only heard his commentary) and will agree that his "flopping around" was somewhat more than needed. However, I wonder what you thing of Fox's intentionaly induced "flopping around" to sell a lie?

USMC, it's Missouri. It's ... (Below threshold)
Imhotep:

USMC, it's Missouri. It's a constitutional ammendment.

I think the fine people of Missouri should vote and if they vote against stem cell research, should never, ever be allowed to benefit from any health care advance involving stem cell research. They may continue to blood let with leeches, while the rest of the evolved world moves forward with vacinations.

The world is flat in Missouri.

Imhotep:Thank you.... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Imhotep:

Thank you. Missouri. However, I don't think you should unilateraly condemn an entire state, The Democrats there probaly don't appreciate it. Most importantly you are trying to continue the lie. It isn't stem cell research, it's human cloning. Which is exactly why M. Fox came under fire.

USMC:Oh come on ma... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

USMC:

Oh come on man. Flopping around in his chair on his web cam, Limbaugh wasn't mocking hiss illness? You asked me earlier whether I have ever admitted I was wrong. Good grief it's sad that you persist in the defense of Limbaugh. Flopping around in his chair is "commenting" or "disagreeing" with Fox's position or Fox's advertisement? Sad, really sad you folks don't get that

Jay:

I don't know what your last inane comment was about. If you are blind, I am truly sorry for you. Being "blind" in a metaphorical sense does not mock a disease. And, if you are blind I didn't know it. So, keep on trying to defend the indefensible. It just continues to make a statement about you.

Remember now, you're the one who posted a piece without researching what you were commenting about. Remember yesterday you posted another silly piece trying to argue that Iraq was a year away from a bomb in 2001. Was that poor research on your part again? Or was it just \r dishonest?

BTW, does anyone else find ... (Below threshold)

BTW, does anyone else find it enlightening that the sole examples of "thuggery" from the Right are 1) the already-debunked Allen mess and 2) a guy on the radio saying mean things about another guy's TV commercial?

Still waiting for demonstrations of that brutal right wing, people...

J.

USMC,You are corre... (Below threshold)
Imhotep:

USMC,

You are correct. It has been made into a Human cloning issue, because of some very careful verbage in the amendment. The words human cloning are not used, but only inferred by some.

I don't have the exact qoute from the clause, but the words "cloning" are not used, but the generic name for the technique used for 'cloning' Dolly the sheep in the UK was the terminology.

Again, not to be off topic, but the root issue with stem cell/cloning is the question "when does life begin?"

I don't want to continue this discussion here, would be glad to elsewhere; because it's not fair to JT to hi-jack his thread.

Thanks for letting me post.

PS I am not a liberal, I have been raised a conservative.

Jay, For criminy s... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Jay,

For criminy sakes....the Olbermanns commentary is about political thuggery not physical thuggery.

The cane and the beating are metaphors for the Bushivites techniques of silencing people.

Jeez dude...get some Cliff notes....or grow up.

Imhotep:In that ca... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Imhotep:

In that case, I don't think the conservatives of Missouri would appreciate it.

My question is still, "how about Michael J Fox's self induced "flopping around"?

Hey Muir, the post is about... (Below threshold)
epador:

Hey Muir, the post is about the inappropriateness of the metaphor.

Stop trying to be petty and change the subject.

A doorknob is a genius comp... (Below threshold)

A doorknob is a genius compared to Olbermann.
I don't know a single un-institutionalized person that would admit he/she/it has gained keen political insight from this idiotic intellectual paperweight.

USMC,If you were t... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

USMC,

If you were to read just a tiny little bit more about Parkinson's you would know that Michael J Fox's "flopping around was NOT, I repeat, NOT self induced" as Rush's was. Rush deliberatly, callously and with his usual venom mocked a man with a disease that is by all clinical reporting uncontrollable.

In fact, if you were to read about Michael J Fox and his "acting" you would know that the taping of his appearances on Boston legal were taped over and over until they got a shot where his disease was not too evident in the shooting. Between taking the medication to try and control the tremors and lots and lots of film they were able to make it look "made for TV".

Of course I am now convinced radical neocons like yourself and Jay Tea want to continue to deny and deflect from the core of the issue of stem cell research which is based on SCIENCE. Tossing cells into the garbage is preferable to curing diseases.

I'm with imhotep. Let the people of Missouri decide, if they are stupid enough to vote it down then let them be denied the advances of science and its potential cures using embryonic research.
It's high time people take responsibility for their ignorance.

And if you are to READ the amendment you would see this has nothing to do with HUMAN cloning. It's just another RUSH limpballs style fabrication the right wants to hang their hat on. WHEN WILL YOU LEARN?

Jay,You wrote:... (Below threshold)

Jay,
You wrote:

"Hugh, I don't care for Limbaugh. I've said so. But it turns out that Fox was supporting a measure he HAD NOT EVEN READ. That makes him fair game."

I really need to clear up a common misconception that has become accepted as fact, no thanks to the likes of Drudge and other right wing writers.

Michael J Fox was doing a commercial FOR Democrat McCaskill, NOT a commercial for the Missouri Amendment 2 ballot initiative. He even said so during his interview with George Stephanopoulos and if you watch the ad you'll see he makes that clear. Mr. Fox felt that McCaskill would do more in the Senate to support embryonic stem cell research than her opponent Republican Jim Talent would. Isn't that the right of all Americans to decide which candidate would best support the issues they feel strongest about and do all they can to see that Candidate elected? So it should come as no surprise he wasn't up to speed on Missouri Amendment 2 since that was not the reason for his ad.

A small point I know, but it drives me nuts when people have to result to falsehoods, however small or trivial to make their political point. It just makes them look uneducated on the issue for which they are arguing.

USMC,I did see the... (Below threshold)
Imhotep:

USMC,

I did see the Michael J Fox advert and I am not a Neurologist, but those are some very strange movements for Parkinson's Disease. His 'tremor' is sort of Choreoform (Arlow Guthrie type), most Parkinson's tremors are fine motor tremors. I understand that diseases have variants and I believe Mr Fox has a 'variant form' of Parkinson's.

He is an actor, maybe he employes some of his profession in this advert.

Hugh, I do not want, need, ... (Below threshold)

Hugh, I do not want, need, or accept your sympathy. My condition is utterly irrelevant to the gist of my piece -- that Keith Olbermann brought up an actual case of literal, real, physical thuggery to denounce verbal jousting, whilst blissfully ignoring the very real, very literal, very physical thuggery going on -- because that doesn't fit his ideological bent of saying that it's the Republicans being the bad guys.

It's fundamentally wrong. That's on top of its intellectual dishonesty.

J.

J.

Jay,You left one out... (Below threshold)
Dennis:

Jay,
You left one out: The relationship of Kerry's "beating" to a real beating is akin to his "war wounds" to real ones.

Jay:Well fu too. Y... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

Well fu too. You're the one who brought your ilness into the thread.

Fox's abnormal movements we... (Below threshold)
epador:

Fox's abnormal movements were medication side effects, not Parkinsonian, but the side effects are a common cross many PD patients bear. As to whether he deliberately dosed himself to exaggerate the movements in the ad, well, to be honest, I don't care. MJF is a savvy and educated media professional. Whether he dosed himself or not, he knew what the camera would show.

Knowing that, he also knows that opponents might ridicule him and make fun of him - like Rush did.

That's no excuse for RL or MJF.

So why are we even discussing this? In this thread its supposedly about one "pundit's" skills and abilities, etc. or lack thereof. Rush and MJF both have skills they've used to be successful in their own ways, despite health adversities and public scrutiny.

How about KO? Other than a disputed low IQ, I don't see him suffering any health woes.

Oh, and JT, Hugh's last com... (Below threshold)
epador:

Oh, and JT, Hugh's last comment is an excellent example of how folks with personality disorders will turn around the conversation every chance they get to place blame on others rather than themselves for their own words and actions.

Stop Walking on Eggshells is a good start for learning how to deal with such tactics.

Hugh,What's with t... (Below threshold)
millco88:

Hugh,

What's with the fu?? Didn't you just kind of prove Jay's point?? When did people lose the ability to disagree without being disagreeable??

Hugh, YOU brought up Fox, a... (Below threshold)

Hugh, YOU brought up Fox, and his sole qualification for commenting was his illness. I simply took up the standard you established. If serious illness is the qualification for commenting, I wanted to make sure I was counted in.

And if you're mocking me for discussing my medical conditions, then I think you're committing a hate crime. I think I feel my civil rights have been violated.

J.

It is the crazy season; as ... (Below threshold)
robert the first:

It is the crazy season; as usual the truth is an early victim.

I have some questions; maybe someone can help with some info?

1) Rush has claimed that the only promising procedures - close to moving from research to practice - are based on adult stem cell work. Is this true?

2)Some have said that this is not "human cloning". Is there a standing provision in the law, or a ballot proposal, that allows cell cloning but not whole body parts or people? How is this done?

3) Did the fact that Fox did not read the proposal change things? Is he advocating something other than he thought, such as the election of Democrats, or cloning?

3) Is this an "election" issue with more heat than light, or is there a real policy question here?

By the last I mean that if there are no promising procedures other than with adult cells, this proposal lacks meaning. If, on the other hand, there is no clear path to "human cloning" then some might be using scare tactics to further another agenda.

The Governor of Michigan is running on a pro-choice platform: "We will not go back!" This is an example of an "election issue" inasmuch as a State governor is unlikely to have the ability to change the law.

Help!

Jay:I just think y... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

I just think you're goofy and a puppet and classless, that's all.

Lets review. You, not me, brought your illness into the thread . I replied with a sympathetic comment. You replied, essentially, telling me to stick my sympathy. Now you launch into me "mocking" you and hate crimes.

I'm at a loss to where you're coming from except that you are so steeped in your ideology you can't bear to hear from the other side. And when you reply the reply is inane, foolish and without class. That tells me who you are.

Back it up a step there, Hu... (Below threshold)

Back it up a step there, Hugh. In your quest to get the subject off anything BUT the topic at hand -- the rampant thuggishness on the Left -- and chose to bring up Michael J. Fox. I figured if you were going to use illness as a criterion for credibility, I better get my credentials in order. From there, I just ran with the typical BS used by those who employ victim status as a shortcut to credibility.

I would very much like it if you COULD answer the actual subject at hand -- Keith Olbermann's idiotic comparison of verbal rough-and-tumble with an politically-motivated physical assault, when there are real assaults going on out there -- and it's not being done BY the people you and Olbermann oppose, but AGAINST them.

But I think you'd rather find something -- ANYTHING -- else to discuss.

J.

Oh, and Hugh: I'll cop to o... (Below threshold)

Oh, and Hugh: I'll cop to occasionally goofy and classless, most often on purpose. But I'm NOBODY'S puppet.

Sometimes I wish I was, though. I hear that it can be very financially rewarding. Maybe I'll get that lobotomy, shred my conscience, and see if I can get on George Soros' payroll.

J.

Jay:I reponded to ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

I reponded to the thugery (sp) point. I said specifically that the Columbia students were wrong. I said specifiaclly it was wrong anytime anywhere, by anyone. And I added a potscript about the mockery of Fox. Then it became what it became. Clear?

I stand by the Fox point. Utterly disgusting, classless and dishonest to mock him or anyone else with a disease. Yet you never see you rigties condemn that kind of ugly dishonest dialogue. Is it not thuggery for Ms Coulter to wish a bomb be dropped on the NY Times Building? Lets hear you all rationalize that now.

You are as much a puppet of the right as anyone I've ever seen or heard despite your continuing denials.

That stupid piece you wrote yesterday about Iraq is evidence of that.

Hugh, let me spell it out f... (Below threshold)

Hugh, let me spell it out for you:

Wishing a bomb to fall on someone: Crass, NOT thuggery.
Mocking someone for their physical frailties: boorish, NOT thuggery.
Taking someone's misstatement, that they have not bothered to correct, and slamming them over it: Opportunistic at best, NOT thuggery.
Physical assaults and batteries on those you oppose: THUGGERY.

It's like the old saying, Hugh: "Deeds, not words." Or "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

You're equating your side getting called names with the other side being pelted with sticks and stones. Sorry, I'm not buying into that.

J.

Well of course you wouldn't... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Well of course you wouldn't.

No, Hugh, you never replied... (Below threshold)
MItchell:

No, Hugh, you never replied to Jay's questions--to back up your assertion of Rethuglicanism. And even now, can't seem to read a simple post by JT and after being asked twice, still can't answer the question.

You really may have a personality disorder as someone posted, above. You are certainly an anti-social type, if not delusional, from what I have seen of all your rants on this blog.

On the topic of Olby, which you can't seem to follow or comment on in any reasonable way, I beleive Jay's take is correct regarding all the strange stories surrounding this guy. I believe he also suffers from some kind of "disorder," actually seems similar to Hugh's. He's never been able to hold a job for long without rankling the folks he works with. But his tv show has just gotten nutty as hell. Maybe Hugh and Olby will benefit from stem cell research one day!!

He sets up the same straw man that Hugh, Lee et al set up: you say something factually correct, but that insults the tender sensitivities of the Left, and you are set upon as some sort of Nazi, or goon, out to take away all your "liberties," and who is incredibly unfair to others a la Fox. But, it doesn't work out so badly for the Libs., as they are never the recipients of the real Lib. abuse that Jay outlined in his piece.

By the way, I, too, have a chronic disease that one day MIGHT be resolved with fetal stem cells, but I think Fox's whole approach was phony and wrong, and uninformed. And, yes, adult stem cells have been where the only results have come from, despite continuing fed. funding of older lines of fetal cells, and private and state funding (California funds it as well).

So, you guys, as usual, are wrong, wrong, wrong on multiple levels and you can't sustain an argument on Olbermann or the side-track stem cell issue here.

Mitchel old pal, old bud:</... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mitchel old pal, old bud:

You do indeed suffer from multiple diseases.Let Dr. Hugh dx them for you:

1) Myopia

2) Constipation of the brain and its sequela (sp)

3) Diarrehea (sp/)of the mouth.

There is a cure for all those. Repent and move left.

As usual, you illustrate my... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

As usual, you illustrate my point, Mr. Off-Topic Non-sequitur.

We'd do some stem cell research on your tiny clump of cells posing as your brain, but I'm afraid they wouldn't replicate and would soon die.

Which would free up space on this here blog, damn straight!

Mitch:Actually I h... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mitch:

Actually I have an additional dx for you. Dementia....what the hell were you just talking about?

Alas, moving to the left is no cure for that. Sorry buddy.

It's really very simple:</p... (Below threshold)

It's really very simple:

The slightest criticism from the right of a lefty = a fascist attempt to silence those speaking Truth to Power.

Violent attacks by lefties on those they disagree with = exuberant activism, to be praised for its bravery.

Jay sez:Physica... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Jay sez:

Physical assaults and batteries on those you oppose: THUGGERY.

Brian, if you go back to my... (Below threshold)

Brian, if you go back to my original article, you will see a link to a series of photos taken before the incident, showing the "assaulted" guy shoving his way past a security guard to get to Allen. He STARTED the physical altercation he's now complaining about.

Man, it's almost disappointing when the trolls are this easy to bat around. I countered Brian's point 13 and a half hours before he made it.

J.

I saw your video stills, Ja... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I saw your video stills, Jay, along with your invented declaration that "it was later revealed that the blogger himself had initiated the violence". Your stills show a man attempting to walk through a door, and a security guard attempting to physically block him. You don't get to claim victim when you use physical force to block a man walking. Then the two of them tussling with hand and body for the upper-hand position. And no one, even from Allen's staff, has claimed the guy initiated the violence.

But, since you're so deflated after thinking yourself clever for lo those 13 hours, I'll give you another chance. Feel free to point out the scenes from this interaction that support the tackle and headlock on the guy.

Oh... and please learn how to use the term "troll" correctly. You're supposed to know these sorts of things.

(Fixing the broken link)</p... (Below threshold)
Brian:

(Fixing the broken link)

this interaction

A Google alert on Parkinson... (Below threshold)
Sue:

A Google alert on Parkinson's brought me here -- fascination with this craziness kept me reading through the whole thread.

The ignorance expressed about Parkinson's symptoms and side effects -- as well as about stem cell research -- is obvious, but not unusual in the general public. MJF is changing that by his courageous openness with his disease and its symptoms and by getting the issues surrounding treatment into the light. But it is not his disease that qualifies him for commenting. He has informed himself about the disease and the status of research and he has raised millions of dollars to help find a cure for this awful disease. That qualifies him to comment -- he knows what he is talking about. His fame and popularity get him on camera to speak -- his illness makes people stop to listen. He is demonstrating that the illness did not take away who he is or diminish his will and his character. Hopefully he is making people stop and think and come to well-considered personal decisions.

And that is something you guys are not doing -- thinking or being rational. Finding a way to slam the guy you disagree with, baiting one another and quibbling over the words used reflects neither thought nor rational debate. It is a school ground wrestling match -- verbal and virtual though it is.

That is the Rush Limbaugh style of public discourse -- call names, ridicule your opponent, use scorn and derision and character assassination and accusations. And if your argument is really weak, just turn up the heat on those tactics.

This kind of behavior has become so pervasive on our political scene, it is paralyzing our leadership at a time when we need to be taking decisive action to solve very real problems.

I have no idea who the KO person is that you guys are arguing about. If what he does and says is as outrageous in tone as what you are doing, I have no interest in knowing. It is time for sensible discussion of real issues.

Leave the craziness and come back to reason.

Gee, Brian, the "victim" wr... (Below threshold)

Gee, Brian, the "victim" wrote a letter to Alter.net, and that's your evidence?

Photo 1: Stark has his right hand on the guard's lapel.

Photos 3-4: Right hand on lapel, left grabbing wrist.

Photos 5-6: Right hand pressing on guard's chest, left still on wrist.

Seems pretty clear to me...

J.

Gee, Brian, the "victim"... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Gee, Brian, the "victim" wrote a letter to Alter.net, and that's your evidence?

You know full well I linked there for the video. But go ahead, try to distract from the point.

Photo 1: Stark has his right hand on the guard's lapel.

Wrong. He's touching the book, not the lapel. And he's trying to push past someone who's obviously using the physcial force of his own body to push Stark away. Or do you think the guard is just standing there passively minding his own business?

Never mind that you're pretending that when the photographer snapped "Photo 1" is the start of the action. The video shows a different view.

Photos 3-4: Right hand on lapel, left grabbing wrist.

Wrong again. But I wonder why he's holding his wrist. Do you think he has a wrist fetish? Or perhaps he's trying to hold back the hand that had been trying to push him back?

Photos 5-6: Right hand pressing on guard's chest, left still on wrist.

Well yeah, when you push your body forcibly towards someone, they might use their hands to push you back. Unless they're an umpire.

Now, let's talk about photos 9, 10, and 11, shall we?

Well, seeing as 9, 10, and ... (Below threshold)

Well, seeing as 9, 10, and 11 all seem to happen AFTER the ones I cited, I still feel fairly safe in sticking by what I saw earlier: the security guard was in his way, and he shoved the guy aside. Considering the other incidents I mentioned above, I don't think the response was an overreaction.

Or don't you remember Robert Kennedy?

J.

MJF admitted in his own bio... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

MJF admitted in his own biography that he has mislead his audience regarding his symptoms by not taking his meds, or is it that he takes to much, to impress his audience. He, himself, admitted he did so when he spoke before congress.

So, it's a bit damaging to his credibility now to know what he did then, is it not?

And there was no mention of the actual merits of his claims. He may have the disease, but it does not give him carte blanche on the topic.

Brian said:Or do ... (Below threshold)

Brian said:
Or do you think the guard is just standing there passively minding his own business?

Actually, I'd say the guard IS minding his own business -- his business being to keep whackos like Stark at a respectful distance. Kind of the job description of "guard."

J.

Considering the other in... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Considering the other incidents I mentioned above, I don't think the response was an overreaction.

So when you make the first offensive move and block someone with your body, and they try to squeeze past you, the proper response is to tackle them, put them in a head lock, and throw them into window. Got it.

Actually, I'd say the guard IS minding his own business -- his business being to keep whackos like Stark at a respectful distance.

And he does that by standing by passively? Or by forcibly using his body to push someone back?

You're equating the first use of a hand touch with the first use of force. That's naive, or (more likely) disingenuous.

So, of course, irrational a... (Below threshold)

So, of course, irrational and vocally abusive individuals with a history of violent actions should be given unrestricted access to federal officials?

Ah, I love the smell of napalm in the morning. Smells like . . . victory.

I've never had any training... (Below threshold)

I've never had any training as a security guard, Brian, but yes, I think that is an accepted method:

If you're supposed to keep someone from going some place, you place yourself physically in their path. This forces them to either back off or commit to physical means to get past you. Either they have been deterred and are no longer a threat, or they have committed to their goal and have established themselves as a threat and can be dealt with accordingly.

I've never been a security guard, but that matches nearly every confrontation I've ever seen one have. They're not supposed to initiate contact, but the best ones are damned good at arranging matters so that the aggressor HAS to make the first contact, or be deterred from their goal.

J.

Give it up, guys. Stark ca... (Below threshold)

Give it up, guys. Stark came in exhibiting verbal and physically agressive behavior. The guard was doing his job in protecting a vulnerable political figure. Did they get too rough? I don't know, but the guy initiated the scuffle by pushing his way through a door and a guard and continuing to resist.

This sounds like a complaint of someone who hit someone else and then complained because they got hit back harder.

You guys are freaking out about those who defend Rush Limbaugh's perceived verbal infraction, but now you defend this guy? And had this been the other way around, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

You can blather technicalit... (Below threshold)

You can blather technicalities all you want, but Stark deserved a beating and should be grateful he was handled as gently as he was.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy