http://youtube.com/watch?v=zvNn1raVikw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hrDnpYDQauw
Rant to end all rants. A must watch, really. Usually I'd roll my eyes at such rants as they're often beating a dead horse, but it's so well put that I can't help but smile.
Seriously though, it looked like Olbermann was going to have a stroke for a second.
****, that felt good to watch. I'm really pleased that he mentioned even things that I haven't heard about in mainstream media like how Bush's library's content will be censored to make him look good.
Wow, it's about time somebody said that.
[SIZE=5]SHUT. THE. HELL. UP.
[SIZE=2]*** that was satisfying.[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
You should look up a few other Keith Olbermann Special Comments.
he's spot-on about some parts, and spot-off about some parts. I hate to break it to you guys, but I am against pulling out of Iraq. Granted, invasion was wrong, but if we leave Iraq, the middle east will go to hell. Iran and/or Syria will move into Iraq with the power vacuum created, and middle eastern imperialism will begin. I seriously can't believe democrats don't realize the huge problem with "pulling out" of Iraq. This isn't viet nam. There is a vast danger in leaving Iraq open for the taking.
I also don't like that he called McCain Bush's twin. John McCain is a vast improvement, and I hate to break it to Olbermann, but a great many democrats (not crazed, brainwashed zealot far-left democrats) acknowledge that John McCain is a good guy, a good candidate (for a republican), and a huge step up from Bush. most of the democrats I've spoken with (keep in mind, I'm in Phiadelphia, in a very left-oriented political spectrum) have said that John McCain is a good person, and they wouldn't lose too much sleep if he won the election, though they'd prefer (Hillary/Obama). I hate how Keith ranks McCain in with Bush. Such an insult to a great man who has served his country his whole life. I think McCain is one of the few candidates in many years who is running for president, not for self-glorification, but because he honestly cares.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;847404]he's spot-on about some parts, and spot-off about some parts. I hate to break it to you guys, but I am against pulling out of Iraq. Granted, invasion was wrong, but if we leave Iraq, the middle east will go to hell. Iran and/or Syria will move into Iraq with the power vacuum created, and middle eastern imperialism will begin. I seriously can't believe democrats don't realize the huge problem with "pulling out" of Iraq. This isn't viet nam. There is a vast danger in leaving Iraq open for the taking.
Because American imperialism is so much better in the eyes of an Iragi. Seems to me like we're just prolonging the inevitable. Iran and Syria aren't going anywhere, so unless we invade those two countries, Iraq will always need us.
btw, Dems aren't for an instant withdrawl, they're for timetables and getting contractors the **** out.
So you are saying that two wrongs DO make a right in this case, since the bad guys aren't going anywhere anytime soon? Neat addendum to the old proverb.
And um, the majority of anti-war democrats ARE in favor of pulling out of Iraq, and very soon, and the main players they want removed ARE the soldiers. How do you not know this? Did you miss the memo or something?
The plan that takes 2 to 3 years to safetly bring out most (NOT ALL) of the troops back in small numbers at a time is the "very soon" plan? It's clear from your comments who hasn't been getting the memos. Hillary and Obama are for bringing most of the troops back, not ALL. It's a misconception to think its even possible to move out, in less than a month, all the military equpiment currently in Iraq. What the Anit-war people are saying is we don't want 4 more years of this bull ****.
As for your "two wrongs doesn't make a right", I don't see how the hell killing ourselves for something that isn't going to be stopped as being a matter of what's right or wrong, but a matter of inteligence. I see the right course of action as getting the hell out of there and figuring out an effective way of handeling the situation, SINCE MILITARY ACTION IS NOT WORKING. Maybe we should try a different approach besides bullying the middle east.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
Obama:
(Begin withdrawal May 1 2007; finish by March 31 2008. (Apr 2007)
(Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)
(Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
Hillary Clinton:
Goal to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
Can't leave Iraq safely without a plan. (Jan 2008) -brilliance!
Have nearly all combat troops out in a year. (Jan 2008)- oh nevermind
(Begin troops withdrawal within 60 days after elected. (Jan 2006)
(Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office. (Jan 2006)
4 years (the largest given time table) is a pretty quick removal of "all" troops. Granted, Hillary supports leaving some troops there for "counter-terrorism purposes", but I think that is just a fart in the wind.
there's the memo you missed
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;847702][URL]http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm[/URL]
Obama:
(Begin withdrawal May 1 2007; finish by March 31 2008. (Apr 2007)
(Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)
(Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
Hillary Clinton:
Goal to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
Can't leave Iraq safely without a plan. (Jan 2008) -brilliance!
Have nearly all combat troops out in a year. (Jan 2008)- oh nevermind
(Begin troops withdrawal within 60 days after elected. (Jan 2006)
(Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office. (Jan 2006)
4 years (the largest given time table) is a pretty quick removal of "all" troops. Granted, Hillary supports leaving some troops there for "counter-terrorism purposes", but I think that is just a fart in the wind.
there's the memo you missed
wtf are you talking about with me "missing the memo"? You've just posted sources that varified what I said. You told me they wanted to move troops out immediately and I told you it would take a few years or so and that not all the troops would leave. The only difference here is you think a few years is immediately, and that a few troops is none.
[quote=specopssv44;847737]Maybe not, but its undeniable that Iranian imperialism would be dangerous for everyone else in the world, especially America. Thats reason enough for me. Sometimes there isnt a fairytale ending to real stories. Often times, in the real world, it comes down to one group of people thriving at the expense of another, and if staying in Iraq means we help block Iran from potentially gaining power/lethality, then so be it.
Im all for world peace and all that happy horse****, but not to the extent where it puts my family at risk. pacifism has never solved anything on the global spectrum.
And being overly aggressive has made us much more safer... I hate arguing with people who put their arguments in the path of "my family's safety", as if I'm just being a selfish prick of an orphan who just doesn't understand. You have a right to your opinion, though I find it a bit insulting. News flash, you DON'T KNOW if you're safer. you DON'T know the Iranians. You DON'T KNOW because you're more caught up in fear of another terrorist attack happening than actually looking at the matter in hand, because if you had, you would realise Iraq ISN'T defenseless to Iranian rule, and wouldn't just submit to their political powers. The world safer? You don't know that, and saying be safe than sorry, those are just fear induced answers for blindly following w/e the **** Bush has us do. Iran isn't Nazi Germany, and Iraq isn't Japan, so I'm a bit confused as to how this logic of pacifism isn't working, developed from WW2 examples, somehow relates to the current situation of American presence in a foreign country... People against the war are not hippie blind idealists, but scholars, politicians, AND ****ING GENERALS. It's not some wish woo conspiracy of anti-war pansies, but those who've analysed this situation and have deemed the whole thing a **** basket, wasting tax dollars more so than providing actual security.
tl:dr I doubt we're safer.
actually, I said "very soon", not immediately. I can also tell that you didn't read the entire thing I posted, just what coincided with what you agreed with. Notice both support gradual withdrawal of all combat troops, and also said that if elected they would pull all troops out within a year of taking office. "Within a year" is that "very soon" thing I said earlier (which you somehow misread as 'immediate'). So no, I did not varify [sic] what you said. Regardless, 3-5 years is "very soon" to pull out all troops. So yeah, they support a very quick withdrawal. I hope you learn to read soon
Is BJ completely ****ing up what I've said for the sake of insulting me? Well, this train's never late...
This is a matter of opinion with time, not reading comprehension smart one. Funny how you go to such lengths to criticise me when you've completely forgotten what I initially said, and continued the progression of challenging me over the stupidest miniscule claims that have nothing to do with w/e you're *****ing about.
[quote=WillisGreeny]btw, Dems aren't for an instant withdrawl, they're for timetables and getting contractors the **** out.
I stated instant, as in the operation wasn't going to be over night. You post this shortly after to counter what I said.
[quote=BJ blaskowitz]And um, the majority of anti-war democrats ARE in favor of pulling out of Iraq, and very soon, and the main players they want removed ARE the soldiers. How do you not know this? Did you miss the memo or something?
why...just why did you bother posting this? My post had nothing to do with whether or not Dems wanted to get troops out, but in the time it took to get them out. I used the word INSTANT, which would only make sense for someone to argue against if they felt the troop withdrawl was instant.
Which leads to this data:
[quote]Obama:
(Begin withdrawal May 1 2007; finish by March 31 2008. (Apr 2007)
(Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)
(Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
Hillary Clinton:
Goal to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge. (Sep 2007)
Can't leave Iraq safely without a plan. (Jan 2008) -brilliance!
Have nearly all combat troops out in a year. (Jan 2008)- oh nevermind
(Begin troops withdrawal within 60 days after elected. (Jan 2006)
(Withdraw troops within 60 days after taking office. (Jan 2006)
4 years (the largest given time table) is a pretty quick removal of "all" troops. Granted, Hillary supports leaving some troops there for "counter-terrorism purposes", but I think that is just a fart in the wind.
there's the memo you missed
What's this? Time tables? ok, since all I've talked about has been that there WERE TIME TABLES, and that you can't tell the difference of "complete withdrawl" vs "starting withdrawl", this doesn't do anything to support how I'm wrong. Infact, it shows I'm right, that there isn't an instant withdrawl, but a time table.
You've been arguing with me because I said there wasn't an instant withdrawl, so unless you have other reasons for constantly hammering out ridiculous insults, it meant you thought it was instant. Holy ****, you're going to now split hairs between "very soon" and "immediate"...w/e
out.
irony is funny.
your quote:
btw, Dems aren't for an instant withdrawl, they're for timetables and getting contractors the **** out.
contractors =/= combat troops. I gave links to prove the difference. You seem to overlook that again and again.
Timetables=/= withdrawal. I gave links and quoted proof of a desire for a hasty retreat. Both of which were quoted as wanting to remove ALL personnel in Iraq within a year. Yet you keep bleating that it's exactly what you've been saying all along. Right. Shove on, kid.
What's the realistically worst thing that could happen if we decided to say **** all to Iraq?
I think the idea that we could actually "fix" Iraq is pretty amusing. They're screwed, quite simply. Saddam, as bad as he was, was a very effective agent of stability there because anyone he percieved as a threat was eliminated. There were no terrorists in Iraq because he didn't want rogues with weapons challenging his authority. I don't think there's a solution because the insurgents obviously blend in pretty well with the population, and their government has no bite at all. They're like a virus; once the infection is there, getting rid of it is all but impossible.
Honestly, how do you find the terrorists? The answer is that you never will find all of them, because more are made as the doctrine is spread around and people become more hopeless and more desperate. Killing them just creates more to take their place. With a conventional army, you can't win a fight like that. This is where the parallels to Vietnam are being drawn, and the analogy is valid. Because we can't really eliminate the enemy, we can never really leave, and when we eventually do, everything will be quickly undone.
I'm not buying the fa
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;848041]irony is funny.
your quote:
btw, Dems aren't for an instant withdrawl, they're for timetables and getting contractors the **** out.
contractors =/= combat troops. I gave links to prove the difference. You seem to overlook that again and again.
Timetables=/= withdrawal. I gave links and quoted proof of a desire for a hasty retreat. Both of which were quoted as wanting to remove ALL personnel in Iraq within a year. Yet you keep bleating that it's exactly what you've been saying all along. Right. Shove on, kid.
They're for timetables, as in they're FOR TIMETABLES OF TROOP WITHDRAWL, NOT INSTANT WITHDRAWL...you're a moron. Getting Black Water out has been numerously been linked with getting troops out, so to distinguish the two is not only a terrible attempt of showing how I'm an idiot, but completely stupid to the point.
So what did you think I meant from saying timetables, mr. adult? For filing taxes? I didn't want to think you were a complete moron, but apparenty in your attempts of saving face you don't care how fukken dumb you come off as. Go to the retirement home, Mr. 20 something, with all your "wisdom". Now, where's those ignore features?
you're talking in circles. You keep ignoring that pressing a "one year retreat for all troops" is a hasty withdrawal of all combat troops. I hate to break it to you, but the crux of your argument (I'm using the terms loosely here) is that civilian contractors are combat troops. Not much sleep is being lost over civilian contractors, making 90K a year and there voluntarily, and they do not make up the majority of troops in Iraq. That disregards Black Water and any other civilian mercenary groups, as they have yet to be mentioned (I don't know why you did so, frankly). There is a reason to distinguish armed forces and civilian contractor security, because they are two different entities and the latter makes up a small portion of "contractors" in general (this may blow your feeble mind, but there are engineers and city planners and the like over there too, falling under "contractor" labels. Contractors work under civilian contracts. The more you know) Furthermore, I don't have to show anything. You ARE an idiot.
You use the term "time table" too loosely as well. They mention "time tables" (and very short ones, I might add [how about you address that point this time, dip****]) in one hand and then "within a year" in the next. One is a very short time table, and the other is a ridiculously short time table. I will give you that they are both time tables, but based on your vague definition of a "time table", McCain's "100 years" remark is a "time table" as well. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. You're missing the point that the time limitations given by democrats are all too short and too hasty. Prove me wrong and I'll talk to you. Address my points singularly and I'll talk to you. Failure to do any of this doesn't warrant a response, because it's like arguing with a wall (or a small child). I would point out your numerous spelling and grammatical errors to point out how "fukken dumb" you sound, but I think the majority reading can figure that out on their own. Go back to grade school, Mr mental midget. And do ignore me. It really hurts my feelings and I assure you I will most definitely lose sleep afterwards. I promise. I estimate a time table of sleep loss to be somewhere around jack and shit.
Fate=What's the realistically worst thing that could happen if we decided to say **** all to Iraq?
Realistically, bona fide supporters of terrorists, such as Iran and Syria will enter Iraq in the power vacuum that is created. The ****storm that we created by entering Iraq in regards to anti-US and anti-Israel sentiments, as well as the potential for not only great amounts of wealth to Iran (already under embargoes by the UN) from Iraq's oil supply, compounded with another staging area for Al-Quaida training and preparation/logistics (anyone who thinks that Iran and Syria don't support terrorist groups such as AQ and Hezbollah are fooling themselves) in the middle-east, which could and most definitely WILL destroy the precarious balance of power in the Middle East, toppling it towards the anti-western, fanatical Islamic side. Coming from a Westerner whose country has given tons of support for Israel, the expanding of the sphere of influence of a country led by a fanatical dictator who has sworn the destruction of Israel and constantly threatens the West, which he quaintly refers to as "the devil" with his legions of suicide bombers, is something I'd rather avoid. If you think it is difficult to monitor and prevent terrorist attacks with such wishy-washy "allies" as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, imagine if the land-mass available for terrorist operations expanded to the size of Iraq, with its natural resources and jobless, poor economy. The danger is very, very great, and frankly, I've heard from quite a few friends from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, and the like, that all of the US's allies know this shift in power can and will occur if the US pulls out. That's not imminent bad news for the United States (at least not in an obvious sense), but it does spell a very certain danger for an already surrounded Israel and the aforementioned friends, as well as southern Europe.
Insurgents in Iraq, as well as terrorists located therein, have already been seen and documented using Iranian weapons against the coalition presence there, however this isn't a Mujahadeen scenario in the Afghani-Soviet struggle in which the weapons beneficiaries turn on the suppliers, because in this case, both sides share the same theological and authoritarian aims.
It's pretty obvious what can and will happen if the US beats a hasty retreat. While I agree we shouldn't have intervened in the first place, I think this "fed up with it" mentality is obscuring the Americans' vision as to the greater consequences if we just say "**** it" and pull out too soon or too hastily (which I feel is anything under 10 years). Granted, staying would open us to more of the same in regards to troops/civilian losses and the war-weariness we're already experiencing, but I think to make the same mistake twice-that being to make a VAST military decision to move troops out (the first being going INTO Iraq), would prove extremely dangerous to the delicate situation we've created. It was immature and rash to go in there, but it's even more immature and rash to not at least attempt to clean up our own mess (it's also very inconsiderate!). You can't solve a royal ****up with a royal ****up. I don't have a quick solution (I don't believe there is one), but think that a good president (not a complete dip****) and a good cabinet (without all of their hands in the pot and an agenda, working more in conjunction with military leaders (who ya know, are sort of experts at this whole thing [see also Japan, Afghanistan (much less private dealings there) and postwar Europe]) might be able to assuage the chaos Bush and his good-ol-boy system have established. That could very well be Obama, Hillary, or McCain, but until they realize that we are in this for a relatively long haul (pulling out entirely should be the very last resort), the situation could get MUCH worse.
edit: and Viet Nam is a terrible example to parallel with what's going on in Iraq. A much better topic to research would be the French presence in Algeria, which led to a not-so-happy ending (or a delightful one! depending on your side)
people freaking out aside
i watched this twice when it was shown last week and favorited both parts on youtube. this is one of the most amazing rants about anything i have ever heard. ever.
keith olbermann 2008-2016 please
I usually agree with Keith Olbermann's views, but I've noticed several times where his biases show through and compromise the actual journalism portion of his show. He seems to have supported Barack Obama from the beginning. I prettymuch have too, but I'd hope that an honest journalist would leave their preferences and opinions out of information.
However, Countdown isn't a real newscast. It's a satirical show, and the humor, often dark, is based on real events. For example, when he names off the 3 worst persons in the world and names Bill O'Reilly as #1, obviously there are worse people in the world than Bill O'Reilly. But he mentioned O'Reilly in a comedic fashion, usually.
I've noticed that when Olbermann is actually delivering news, information outside of Countdown, he doesn't allow his bias to show through. When he would report the results of the GOP Primaries earlier this year, he'd never mention anything partisan or accuse anyone of anything like he does on Countdown. He'd simple analyze the results and explain what they meant to the viewers.
Regarding Iraq, thanks to homework done by the Bush Administration, there is no good course of action in Iraq. Regardless of what a jerk Saddam Hussein was, he certainly was better than what we've given them now. I mean, at least you could go to the store without bombs exploding, guns firing, and returning to find your house in flames and stuff.
But it's a bit late for "should haves", obviously. We're there now. And while the country is far from stable, it will become increasingly unstable if we remove our troops, as they are the primary reason the place is stabilizing. You see, that country is only stable when there is strict rule and military personnel all over the place, patrolling. Sort of like when Saddam was in power. The only real peace for that country will be when a similar regime to that of Saddam Hussein rises to power and rules with an iron fist.
[quote=Mr. Specopsman]Maybe not, but its undeniable that Iranian imperialism would be dangerous for everyone else in the world, especially America.
You'd have to define "dangerous". Is the average citizen of Iraq in less danger without Saddam Hussein? If Iran did get all imperialist, would we be in danger?
If so, what kind of danger? Like, Iran might invade America? And they might remove our government and replace it with one that they fashion for us, and perhaps they'd leave their troops all over America to ensure our safety? Would we be in danger?
[quote]
Im all for world peace and all that happy horse****, but not to the extent where it puts my family at risk. pacifism has never solved anything on the global spectrum.
I'm sure you're familiar with Mohatma Gandhi and his method of rebellion against the UK. He never entered combat once. In fact, when the Indians got frustrated and began using violence against the British, they actually were set back in their pursuit of independence from Britain. It was only when they stopped the violence in favor the passive resistance that Gandhi used that they made progress.
You see, dictators don't want to kill everyone. They will people, sure. But only a few to make an example. If they kill too many people, there will be no one to oppress.
And look at India now. They're an independent country, and they didn't have to have a bloody conflict to achieve it. Very few people were killed, and they got what they wanted.
India is a unique example. There aren't many stories like that one. But it is possible, and the concept can be transferred to any group of people that's being oppressed.
But back to Iraq. What's the solution? Well, there isn't one. When a country has stable leadership and they're not threatening neighboring countries, there's no reason for change to come from outside that country. If the people in the country are displeased with their government, they'll remove it when enough of them are so unhappy that they're willing to do what they need to. Like we did, and like many other countries have done.
So they need some form of stability. We're sort of providing it by using our military as police officers in Iraq. It's tough since most of our guys don't speak arabic, but even so, when an insurgent is considering blowing up some civilians, he might reconsider if he sees the US Military nearby, since he probably won't be successful. Maybe the Iraqis didn't have the freedom to carry around powerful explosives they wouldn't be able to that. And maybe if we identified the suicide bombers, and then publicly executed their family after they committed their crime. Then others would see the execution and realize that blowing stuff up will result in the deaths of both the guy himself, and his family. Then they wouldn't be doing it as much. Maybe if we made it clear to neighboring countries to stay out of Iraq. Like if we had a war with them or even a brief military skirmish that never escalated to war, the neighboring countries like Iran would stay out of Iraq.
Maybe if we ran that country exactly like Saddam Hussein ran it, there'd be no roadside bombs, Iranian influence or insurgents.
But I doubt we'll do that. Until someone does, things won't improve dramatically. Maybe Iranian rule would be healthier for them. It would be more similar to the rule of Saddam Hussein than the non-functioning, Weimar Republic-esque democracy we've decided they want.
Let Iran have Iraq. Why would we care, as Americans? I mean, there aren't WMDs in Iraq that Iran will get their hands on. Iraq is a mess of problems. Let Iran take over and have their troops die in Iraq, trying to stabilize it. Let them spend billions of dollars on that place. There's nothing in it for us. Once Iran takes over, they'll obliterate Al-Qaeda and any other Sunni organization.
You may worry that they'll facilitate the training and organizing of terrorists, who will eventually carry out attacks on America. Well, that's already going on. It won't change if Iran were to take over in Iraq. They'd be Shia terrorists instead of Sunni, but that's about it. Besides, you can't stop terrorism. It will always exist. If we force it out of Iraq, they'll just regroup elsewhere. It doesn't matter what we do, it will always exist. It's just something you have to accept about life. We can't do much to really even reduce it, by the nature of it. We can accept it, and prepare ourselves to defend against it in the event that we find ourselves on a plane with a hijacker or something.
Feion, your ability to completely miss a point is staggering.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;848479]Feion, your ability to completely miss a point is staggering.
And your ability to call people *******s, dip****s, and idiots because of loosely used words is staggering.
I doubt its my usage of the word "timetable" that's bothering you, but that I indirectly said continuing being in Iraq would be stupid, which you strongly believe, isn't. Agree to disagree. I don't know everything about the war in Iraq 100%, but I have studied WW2 and Vietnam. When the government made a big deal about how the surge would get troops out, and then later requested more troops after the surge was a success, the war felt like it was going nowhere. That, and McCain saying "Americans don't care if we're there for 100 years" bothers me too. I do care how long we stay there, and I do wonder if we're doing the right thing by keeping a presence in Iraq. I enjoy your distain for the current administration and the next possible administration, but just because I conclude to a different plan that involves less troops in the area doesn't warrent being a moron, since many retired generals have also mentioned the exact same plan.
I understand Iran will most likely take control of the region, but I don't understand how our presence there will ever be unneeded to prevent the take over. I've studied WW2, and I know how we left Japan, but that involved 2 atomic bombs, and a *** diety to relenquish his power. It's a different war, and vietnam was also a different war, but what's similar to vietnam and Iraq is the length of time we're continuing to fight in a region where the people don't look different from the enemy, and the US in the position where the enemy will never need to surrender AKA never win. I'm not saying things are exactly the same, but there are similarities that involve a lot of troops being killed for something that, unless we start doing stuff differently, won't change.
I think you're creditable to what you say, but I don't like being called stupid, so I'm sorry if my illy written posts may have implied you're dumb in any way. I'm not hellbent on much, so my opinions shift daily when people voice good arguments. Reading what you had to say would have changed my mind about certain things more quickly, but hearing how dumb I am for being a punk kid, or how I'm not the perfect poster, doesn't make it easy.
What we agree with:
A year is short for a withdrawl
The administration isn't handeling the war well.
Evacuating troops in Iraq will cause a blow up of bad ****.
I'm with you, in thinking there's a better solution out there that isn't just withdrawling troops or keeping troops there. Maybe it's knowing my family members and friends are there that affects my view. The feeling that if they die, they'll be dieing in vain. More importantly, it's knowing that's how they feel aswell.
let's all just enjoy the rant for what it is... a rant.
His [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/12/olbermann-slams-clinton-i_n_91256.html"]latest rant[/URL] is pretty awesome too.
I almost spewed water when I heard about Hillary's comments that happened shortly after mentioning Obama, relating to Kennedy's assasination. I wonder what makes her think she's so much safer, or for anyone who runs a campaign like hers. Obama is a token black, just as much as she's the token aristocrat/women, and they both really don't have the "experience".
I don't understand Hillary supporters. I keep hearing "It's about time we had a women running things", as if Bush represents all men, and Obama is just another dumb male. eeeh~
Well, I posted earlier right after just hearing the media's side of it, but after seeing the real clip, it's not nearly as bad as all the hype. The question she was asked had to do with her reasons for not dropping out, inwhich she mentioned Bobby Kennedy being assasinated as an example of how some primaries had ended unexpectedly. It was more strange than anything else to bring up Bobby, but Obama had nothing to do with what she was trying to say (though, some connections could be drawn if wanted). After seeing the whole clip without CNN or Fox's help, it's clear that Hillary was trying to say how unpredictable outcomes can be, not that OBAMA WILL DIE JUST LIKE KENNEDY!!! BUAHA HA HAAA.
That would have been a more entertaining slip up. :horse:
[youtube=5vyFqmp4wzI]5vyFqmp4wzI[/youtube]
Eeck, fukken Media.
[quote=Fei-on Castor;849589]
EDIT: I think that most Clinton supporters think that she more to offer than just the fact that she is a woman. On the contrary, I'd bet that many of them would say that they support her based on her ideas and policies, and they don't even care that she's a woman.
And I only go out with girls that have great personalities, and not because of the big boobs and nice ***. It would be shallow of me to think only looks mattered...It's the personality. :horse: