Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Keith Olbermann Countdown Obama Muslim President Secret Conspiracy' to 'Keith Olbermann, Countdown, Obama, Muslim, President, Secret, Conspiracy' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Truckchase:

Here's a large part of the over-arching issue as I see it: There now seems to be some sort of inherent equity in ideas in our culture. When any news outlet can create two sides to an issue, they do, regardless of the strength of the "sides". To see the world in such a way is scary; very few things are inherently "right" or "wrong", there are all sorts of variables that must be weighed. Since we've (we as a society) begun splitting what once were relatively complicated issues into polarized opposites we unintentionally enabled the side effect of this sort of equity of voice, in that people entirely unqualified to weigh in on a topic now feel empowered to do so by hitching their wagon to whichever "side" more closely resembles what they believe to be their set of values. People who at one time would have been laughed out of a public forum now fall in line behind an overly-simplistic rallying cry.

That's a big part of what's keeping these kinds of hateful and misguided ideas from being squelched -- the media has become entirely dominated by false equivalence (aka "Opinions on shape of Earth differ" journalism). There's no attempt to illuminate truth, and call bullshit when they see it, instead they just give a megaphone to "both" sides' bullshit, and refuse to validate or invalidate what's being said, at risk of offending either party's supporters (and thereby risk losing their subscription/viewership).

Some blog I read put it really well about how the mindset of business of mass media has changed. It went something like: It used to be that the programming was the product, the listeners were the customer, and advertising was the vehicle that made it possible. Now the listeners are the product, the advertisers are the customers, and the programming is the vehicle that makes it possible.

That essentially sums up the entire reason why we've seen mass media turn into what it has across the board, not just in journalism.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Truckchase:
Enlighten me then, why is this something that is worthy of intelligent debate? In an environment free of the political machine you're inferring doesn't exist, how does this continue to get (inter)national attention?

Uh, maybe we got our wires crossed somewhere -- I'm in vigorous agreement with you, I just think blaming "Fox News" is far too narrow, it's the whole political right in America that's to blame.


My bad, for some reason I read your post as sarcastic, which is especially odd because I've read alot of your posts previously and didn't really have a basis to think as such. I need 1>more coffee and 2> to stop multitasking so much.

You're right, I'm just particularly miffed at Fox for this one because of the continued devoted coverage.

Here's a large part of the over-arching issue as I see it: There now seems to be some sort of inherent equity in ideas in our culture. When any news outlet can create two sides to an issue, they do, regardless of the strength of the "sides". To see the world in such a way is scary; very few things are inherently "right" or "wrong", there are all sorts of variables that must be weighed. Since we've (we as a society) begun splitting what once were relatively complicated issues into polarized opposites we unintentionally enabled the side effect of this sort of equity of voice, in that people entirely unqualified to weigh in on a topic now feel empowered to do so by hitching their wagon to whichever "side" more closely resembles what they believe to be their set of values. People who at one time would have been laughed out of a public forum now fall in line behind an overly-simplistic rallying cry.

Don't let that first sentence be misleading however, I would never condone silencing any idea. I'm simply stating that when a decision point is boiled down to two competing extremes, it's generally one extreme or the other that will prevail. Right now the conservatives in the US aren't afraid to take their message to a (what I believe to be) unreasonable extreme on a regular basis because of the vocal support of persons who formerly didn't take part in serious political discussion for fear of being mocked due to their lack of education, ability, or downright anti-social tendencies.

And that's why I love Videosift, because most of the people aren't like that.

>> ^Truckchase:

Enlighten me then, why is this something that is worthy of intelligent debate? In an environment free of the political machine you're inferring doesn't exist, how does this continue to get (inter)national attention?


Uh, maybe we got our wires crossed somewhere -- I'm in vigorous agreement with you, I just think blaming "Fox News" is far too narrow, it's the whole political right in America that's to blame.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Truckchase:
I can't believe this is an issue up for debate. Fox news is killing our nation.

The entire farce that is the right-wing political machine that cultivates this kind of shit for their own purposes is what's killing our nation.


Enlighten me then, why is this something that is worthy of intelligent debate? In an environment free of the political machine you're inferring doesn't exist, how does this continue to get (inter)national attention?

>> ^Truckchase:

I can't believe this is an issue up for debate. Fox news is killing our nation.


The entire farce that is the right-wing political machine that cultivates this kind of shit for their own purposes is what's killing our nation.

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by Tymbrwulf:
*quality post by Olbermann. Below is a slight critique of your arguments (in bold), @Matthu.

>> ^Matthu:

Olbermann is a very smart and rational guy. His points are all spot on. I'm not as smart, educated or politically informed as him but...
In regards to his pointing to the goals of the founding fathers, that shit is just about out the fucking window. It went out the window when we circumvented, misrepresented and distorted the views of the founding fathers countless times to get where we are now.(@darkrowan's argument summed it up pretty nicely)
As far as religious tolerance. I donno... it sounds good and righteous... but maybe it's fucking not.('What if?' arguments are never strong, and only used to scare people into agreeing with you)
Though it's pretty darn close to ground zero, that's barely the point. One thing worth considering, is that we don't know what they're preaching and praying for in these places.(Sounds like you should do some research and find out) Doesn't their official doctrine, the Koran call for the abolishment of all other forms of worship?(Ask any moderate Muslim if this is true) Sure, we don't know what they're preaching and therefore ought not act upon information we can't know. But it worries me a little.(You just contradicted your own argument in the same paragraph. Islam has been around a relatively long time, it's the second largest religion. Under your assumptions we would be facing one hell of a holy war, but we're not! Also, using the "worries me" argument is another form of fear mongering to try and get people to agree with you. People usually fear what they do not know/understand.)
Lastly, I wish there was this level of outrage against damned churches being built anywhere. I'm fucking sick of the church wasting our resources. The average salary of a priest is 'bout 30k a year. That's as much as a teacher. (Religion can be considered the world's oldest Corporation. They get great perks, have great real estate, and even have their own banks! I don't necessarily disagree with you on this one.)
Also, muslim people reproduce like crazy. A lot of these women are fucking baby factories. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 kids easy. That's nothing. I mean, haven't/aren't they pretty much taking over europe? And then demanding seperate legal systems to settle their crimes?(@volumptuous pretty much tore you up on this one)
Where will humanity be in 50 years when 80% of the population belongs to a fundamentalist anti science cult.
And aren't most muslims fundamentalists? [citation needed] I could be wrong here.(And you might well be without doing any research and just playing off assumptions) I know the extremists are the minority, but as far as those who try and follow the Koran's teachings to the T, they are the majority, no?[citation needed] I'm saying a greater percentage of muslims are fundamentalists compared to the percentage of christians who are fundamentalists, no?[citation needed]
How long after they are 50% of the pop. will they be 100% of the pop?(More fear mongering)
Make no mistake about it, christianity might be just as much of a cult, but it's entered the modern era. Islam is a dark ages cult.(Christianity is only 600 years older than Islam)
No rights for women like that... we cannot tolerate that.(We shouldn't tolerate it anywhere) As much as I sometimes wish I lived in the 1850's and could command my gf around, that's not right.
So ya. No rights for women, no rights for mosques?(Maybe you should ask a moderate who believes in Islam his thoughts on this? His views on the matter might surprise you.)
I donno. You decide.
Arguments made are always better when research is done and you can source them. You might even answer a lot of your own questions while looking up this information. Just to clarify, I'm not a Muslim. I don't consider myself a follower of any religion, but I'm not "worried" about what might happen if they "have lots of terrorist babies and breed everywhere".

*quality post by Olbermann. Below is a slight critique of your arguments (in bold), @Matthu.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by darkrowan:
Sorry Lore, I disagree. *promote

>> ^lore_weaver:

Olbermann is wrong here. "Ground Zero" is not the place to build any kind of religious center. A place demolished by religion shouldn't be a place for religion to grow.
Put a swanky office building up already.
No "Prayer Space" in a place demolished by religion, please. I don't care what religion it is. None of it should be there.


Can't help but get the sense that you didn't really watch the movie at all. Like Olbermann said it's not ground zero at all, it's just another part of freaking Manhattan that is totally uninteresting to anyone at all until someone decides to build an Islamic center there. Then shit hits the fan.

And should they then also close down the current Islamic prayer space and tear down the several Churches there? That doesn't seem realistic, fair nor right in any sense at all.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
The people need to educate themselves about what really matters,

Yep.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^rougy:
There is little correlation between what Obama says and what Obama does.

It's not even that, so much as what Candidate Obama said pre-2008 vs. what President Obama says now.
That's what's grating on me at this point. I expected him to be merely center-left in policy, but I figured he'd at least make an eloquent case for progressive ideals on a regular basis.
Instead, he seems to want to avoid any and all political or ideological confrontation.
We don't need unity, we need for the left to beat the right so thoroughly they can't win an election for dog-catcher until they tilt way back to the left themselves.


You mean campaign promises, and actually keeping them?

Huh, seems like we've been down that road. The big ones for me are Extraordinary Rendition, and Habeus Corpus. Demoralized Idealist. Same shit, different day. The people need to educate themselves about what really matters, false wars, bailouts, Military Industrial Complex, Militarization of the Police, Prohibition, Equal Rights for all types of sexuality, and lastly this idea that Transparency is good in speeches but in practice it's a dangerous thing.

>> ^rougy:

There is little correlation between what Obama says and what Obama does.


It's not even that, so much as what Candidate Obama said pre-2008 vs. what President Obama says now.

That's what's grating on me at this point. I expected him to be merely center-left in policy, but I figured he'd at least make an eloquent case for progressive ideals on a regular basis.

Instead, he seems to want to avoid any and all political or ideological confrontation.

We don't need unity, we need for the left to beat the right so thoroughly they can't win an election for dog-catcher until they tilt way back to the left themselves.