Olbermann is a graduate of Cornell University...
Posted By: Keith Olberfann on 2008-09-20
In Reply to: Olbermann is a commentator...not a journalist... - sam
and you are a graduate of what?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Lydia Cornell Blogs The Truth
Death Is Sexier Than Sex (to Ann Coulter)
 Guest Blogged by Lydia Cornell
Sex is sort of losing its appeal. Death is sexier these days, at least that’s the impression I get from Ann Coulter, who makes a living calling for the killing of Liberals and repressing the free speech of Democrats. She may appear to be joking, but she is not. And Coulter actually claims to be a Christian. Like Pat Robertson and George W, she seems to take perverse delight in defining Christianity as the opposite of itself, so I suspect she belongs to the Antichrist trinity or the Taliban sect of Christianity.
I never mix religion with politics, but for Christ’s sake, don’t they know that Jesus was a Democrat? In fact, a bleeding heart liberal?!! The Great Peacemaker was the very essence of love and compassion; he was revolutionary in his softness and forbade vengeance of any kind. How the Christian right has twisted Christ’s peaceful message is one of the riddles of our times. I’ve been bewildered to the point of jaw-gnashing agony at how certain fundamentalists can call themselves Christian, when they do not follow the teachings of Christ! I feel I’m going insane. Right after the 2004 election when You-Know-Who was elected, I actually developed a nervous tic in my left eye, like the Police chief in the Pink Panther, who was driven berserk by Inspector Clousseau. Of course there's no comparing the lovable Peter Sellers with the witless, war-mongering leader of the free world, but I don't want my eye twitch to come back so I'm trying to stop hating him so much. I think I figured out a way to talk to Ann Coulter: turn the other cheek and let her hit that one.
But it's so twisted and malevolent that Bush called himself a Christian and did the exact opposite of what Christ would do by rushing to war with 'shock and awe' -- and claiming he had an audience with God in this decision! The other day a plumber came to fix our sink and told me his wife has breast cancer; since I've had many miracles from prayer I told him I’d pray for her. Then I quickly apologized, I'm a democrat -- but I pray. He laughed really hard and said, Yeah well I think Bush is a war criminal.
Are we in the Twilight Zone? The only God I know is the God of Love. These right-wing Christians are engaged in the most dangerous perversion of Christianity I've ever seen! And despite what Cheney said recently defending our mission in Iraq -- all successful revolutions start from within; nothing is ever truly won by force. We could have gained allies in the underground and hovered over Saddam for years instead of carpet bombing precious Iraqi children, entire cities and looting ancient Babylonian museums. And by the way, whatever happened to that warehouse of weapons that was 'misplaced?' Does anyone remember what I’m talking about?
Anyway, Coulter seems to be a turn-on for certain young Republicans (the ones that go on field trips to hear Coulter spew hate...with jokes at anywhere between $16,000 and $30,000 a pop.) It was bad enough when our heroes were just anorectic models and athletes, but now we have a new generation of hate-speak-worshippers. It’s true, hate sells, but I predict that the most exciting thing on the horizon is peace, even between Republicans and Democrats. Fighting and divisiveness are getting boring; 'moderate' is the new sexy. I mean in a world where everything is so intensely fringe, the only way to go is to the center, toward harmony. Think of Halle Barry, the most gorgeous mixture of black and white. Think of the 'Gang of 14': meeting in the middle, working things out, getting along -- it's ground-breaking! In other words, loving your enemy -- which is what The Great Peacemaker taught and what any good Christian would advocate.
Southern Kentucky University
Something bad is going on at Southern Kentucky University, men with guns on campus!
Bill Ayers spoke at Millersville University in PA
Yesterday. This is a college that prepares students for teaching jobs. You can see part of his speech here:
http://www.wgal.com/video/18971823/index.html
There was a one-on-one interview with him at:
http://www.wgal.com/video/18971823/index.html
Did you graduate kindergarten this year?
This is an opinion piece from a graduate of
Will not be accepting this as gospel without further resarch and investigation. My gut's telling me somebody somewhere is trying to serve a partisan agenda. Pardon me while I go check a few facts, read the bill for myself and get a few more viewpoints before buying into this hook, line and sinker.
they had to join a community service organization to graduate?
x
Certified graduate of the *How to Insult like a kindergartener* school of insults. SM
Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
Why settle for a Harvard graduate who sees a vision of a kinder world.
I didn't believe him initially. I felt he had a hidden agenda, pay back time for the wrongs done to his ancestors until I saw his family photos, mom and grandpa as white as mine. This guy was raised as a white boy. And maybe that is why he expects more from the black men (raise your kids).
Give him a chance. Listen to his speeches over the years. Research him.
Though honestly, I would vote for Lou Dobbs in a New York minute.
Olbermann right on...
Finally, finally people are beginning to discuss this openly. On Hardball Chris is talking about this with a lot of people (including our first Homeland Security guru) who had some knock-down drag-out (verbal) disagreements with Cheney over terror alerts. Ridge would say you want me to raise the level for THAT???? and of course Cheney wanted him to, any time anything turned sour for the GOP. Another reason that Bush et al wanted to make the British investigation public right now is that they want to get started on Iran before Bush is out of office so they had to speed those detail-oriented Brits along, time's a flyin', got another war to start. God help us all.
Olbermann gets a bull's eye on this one...sm
Now, if he would just take things a few steps further.
Olbermann (and sometimes Maddow)...
are equal-opportunity offenders. Olbermann has begun to criticize Obama regarding things Olbermann doesn't agree with. He doesn't just blindly follow and agree with everything because Obama is a Democrat.
Olbermann is off the chain crazy...LOL...nm
Two Fantastic Olbermann videos.
(I hope this post doesn't get deleted. I'm copying and saving this, just in case, and then if it's deleted again, maybe I can just email the links to those who might be interested in seeing these excellent clips.)
#1: Reinventing the Geneva Conventions (with Jonathan Turley regarding Bush wanting to cover his butt for past illegal deeds):
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=0A4170EF-8025-4E39-A3D3-1AC55264927D&f=00&fg=copy
#2: It's Unacceptable to Think (Bush's response to Colin Powell's thoughts)
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=42E1A2A9-D35F-4453-868B-A96C9E0D2B34&f=00&fg=copy
Olbermann is an idiot pundit.
He has not now, nor has he ever been a newsperson. He needs to go back to interviewing sweaty football players. He's a dunce.
Olbermann is a commentator...not a journalist...
and he was removed from his "journalism" spot on MSNBC to a strict commentator position because of his obvious bias toward Obama and playing fast and loose with the truth. He doesn't know if it is true or not, he just repeated rumor. It is a fact that she has not belonged to the assembly of God church since 2002. Her present pastor confirmed that, as did her former pastor. No one disputes that...except maybe Olbermann, but the only truth he recognizes is something that supports Obama.
Right, Olbermann and "tingle up my leg" Matthews.
nm
Yep....it's Olbermann....so if you don't like him, no need to go any farther in message...
lame duck watch
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/26186747#26186747
Olbermann, Maddow, and Limbaugh
Can't stand any of them. Two are on the left, one on the right, and they are all cut out of the same cloth, in my opinion. Blustering, self-righteous, and intolerant. Maddow is a little more subtle, but very full of herself and her narrow opinions. I agree more with what Rush says, but can't stand to look at him or listen to him. What a big, self-important windbag.
Keith Olbermann responds to Rumsfeld
One of Keith's best moments, IMO.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
Olbermann: "You owe this country an apology." sm
Another great special comment from Keith Olbermann.
It was an abomination. Even Keith Olbermann condemned it.
there are a couple of differences. The Palin effigy was put there by the owner of a private residence who used his own possessions. What could they have charged him with? He cant vandalize his own home. The Obama effigy was was hung on a state university college campus using state property f an educational institution who is responsible for the safety of all of its students....that would be all males, female, blacks, whites and foreign nationals. They are in a position to make SOME sort or statement that condemns the action and assured student and parents that measures will be taken to prevent a fraternity prank for "gettng out of hand" again. Burglary and vandalism charges see reasonable, since that it what they did. And by the way, another major difference. Can't recall too many chapters in American history when women were hung by racist lynch mobs...black, on the other hand...well, that's another story. It was not even a decade back here in East Texas where a black man was kidnapped, tied to the back of a truck with a Confederate flag on the back of it, and dragged to his death, dismembered and beheaded. They tried the "boys willbe boy's" defense. It didn't work. The two (of the 3) perpetrators who could be proven to be racists were sentenced to death because it was a hate crime. The third one scraped by with life in prison because his racism could not be proven.
Keith Olbermann is a complete fruitcake!
He sits and states that Texas gets 88% back of every dollar they send to the federal government but another states (midwest) only gets 40+%. Is he really that brainwashed? Does he not even think for a moment that Texas has to pay for all the illegals in their state and bear the burden of all the freebies these freeloaders gets? Healthcare, food, clothing, housing, and the lists go on and on to the tune of millions and millions. You better believe they need to get EVERY penny back... as far as I am concerned, 88% should be 100%.... BTW we all should be keeping our 100% earnings. Constitution states individual citizens are NOT to pay taxes to federal government, ONLY corporations.
Olbermann would kiss the backside of Hitler and bow at his feet if he were still alive. This man is absolutely sickening!
Olbermann is disgraceful, but I'd be interested in knowing...
...where the Constitution prohibits the federal taxation of citizens, if you would please quote me the article and section.
Olbermann? -the mentally deranged commentator?
nm
Hmmm.....Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann....
removed from anchor duties for election coverage and relegated to commentator only. Talk about backlash.
anything olbermann, shlll for the left, deserves a reply...nm
//
Yup - a message froma Keith Olbermann stooge
Bushwacked is a term that nutcase Keith Olbermann uses.
So what's your point.
William Ayres, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann.....
x
Hey, JTBB, did you happen to catch Janene Garofolo last night on Olbermann? sm
Her psychological analysis of Lamebaugh and the type of people who ""follow""him was right on the money!! I guess there is whole lot of self-loathing going around on this board!! LOL
|
