Olbermann Accuses 'Fascist' Bush of Engaging in 'Terrorism'

By Brad Wilmouth | February 15, 2008 - 05:59 ET

On Thursday's Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann delivered his latest "Special Comment" rant against President Bush, this time attacking him for threatening to veto an extension of the Protect America Act unless it includes provisions to give immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies who have cooperated with government surveillance in the past.

Calling the President a "liar" who was "slinging crap" and using "a form of terrorism against his own people" to gain support, Olbermann accused President Bush of fascism: "If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You're a fascist! Get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism?" (Transcript follows)

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Olbermann also had blunt words for Congressional Republicans who staged a walkout, as the Countdown host called them "crash dummies" who should "keep walking out of the country." Olbermann: "And your minions like John Boehner, your Republican congressional crash dummies who just happened to decide to walk out of Congress when a podium-full of microphones await them, they should just keep walking, out of Congress and, if possible, out of the country."

As Olbermann began his "Special Comment," he quoted the President's contention that "if the bill was good enough" to be passed last summer, "why not pass the bill again?" and then invoked the past legality of slavery and, referring to Executive Order 9066, the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II:

Now, as promised, a "Special Comment." A part of what I will say was said here first on January 31. Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now than it was then. "Who's to blame?" Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, "Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer. The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: If the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?" You know, like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Or Executive Order 9066. Or The Alien and Sedition Acts. Or slavery.

The MSNBC host soon accused the Bush administration of spying on Americans "under this flimsy guise" of seeking out terrorists:

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law which could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who might be stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.

Olbermann accused President Bush of fascism as he attacked the President's State of the Union reference to protecting telecom companies "believed" to have aided the administration:

But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn't even confirm that they'd actually done anything for which they deserved to be cleared. "The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."

Believed? Don't you know? Don't you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you? Does this endless presidency of loopholes and even fine print extend here, too? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You're a fascist! Get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it!

Olbermann added, "What else is this but fascism?" before recounting the appearance of an AT&T employee on his show who talked about his role in such surveillance, comparing it to "Big Brother" The MSNBC host went on to label Bush a "liar." Olbermann: "And if there's one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, it's that he -- well, you -- are a liar."

Citing Bush's contention that passage of the bill was important in protecting Americans against terrorism, the Countdown host soon continued: "This is crap. And you sling it with an audacity and a speed unrivaled even by the greatest political felons of our history."

Olbermann soon labeled Congressional Republicans who staged a walkout as "crash dummies" who "should just keep walking ... out of the country." Olbermann: "And your minions like John Boehner, your Republican congressional crash dummies who just happened to decide to walk out of Congress when a podium-full of microphones await them, they should just keep walking, out of Congress and, if possible, out of the country."

The MSNBC host soon continued: "The lot of you are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic to whom 'freedom' is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for when you want to get away with its opposite."

Olbermann concluded his rant by accusing the President of a "form of terrorism against his own people," and contended that people like him will not "fear" speaking out against the President:

As recently ago as 2006, we spoke words like these with trepidation. The idea that even the most cynical and untrustworthy of the politicians in our history, George W. Bush, would use the literal form of terrorism against his own people was dangerous territory. It seemed to tempt fate, to heighten fear. We will not fear any longer. We will not fear the international terrorists, and we will thwart them. We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety. We will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government. We will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush. Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.

Below is a complete transcript of Olbermann "Special Comment" from the February 14 Countdown show on MSNBC:

Now, as promised, a "Special Comment." A part of what I will say was said here first on January 31. Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now than it was then. "Who's to blame?" Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, "Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer. The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: If the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?" You know, like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Or Executive Order 9066. Or The Alien and Sedition Acts. Or slavery.

Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability. You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger. This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough for even you to understand.

For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and to your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act.

You. By your own terms and your own definitions, you have just sided with the terrorists. You've got to have this law, or we're all going to die. But, practically speaking, you vetoed this law.

It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law which could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who might be stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail. But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn't even confirm that they'd actually done anything for which they deserved to be cleared. "The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."

Believed? Don't you know? Don't you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you? Does this endless presidency of loopholes and even fine print extend here, too? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You're a fascist! Get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it!

What else is this but fascism? Did you see Mark Klein on this newscast last November? Mark Klein was the AT&T whistleblower, the one who explained in the placid and dull terms of your local neighborhood IT desk how he personally attached all AT&T circuits, everything, carrying every one of your phone calls, every one of your e-mails, every bit of your Web browsing into a secure room, room number 641-A at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco, where it was all copied so the government could look at it.

Not some of it, not just the international part of it, certainly not just the stuff that some spy, a spy both patriotic and telepathic, might be able to divine had been sent or spoken by or to a terrorist.

Everything! Every time you looked at a naked picture. Every time you bid on eBay. Every time you phoned in a donation to a Democrat. "My thought was," Mr. Klein told us last November, "George Orwell's 1984. And here I am, forced to connect the Big Brother machine."

And if there's one thing we know about Big Brother, Mr. Bush, it's that he -- well, you -- are a liar. "This Saturday at midnight," you said today, "legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying and what they are planning will be compromised." You said that "the lives of countless Americans depend" on you getting your way.

This is crap. And you sling it with an audacity and a speed unrivaled even by the greatest political felons of our history.

Richard Clarke — you might remember him, sir: He was one of the counterterror pros which you inherited from President Clinton before you ran the professionals out of government in favor of your unreality-based reality — Richard Clarke wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the President would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year."

You are a liar, Mr. Bush. And after showing some skill at it, initially, you have ceased to even be a very good liar.

And your minions like John Boehner, your Republican congressional crash dummies who just happened to decide to walk out of Congress when a podium-full of microphones await them, they should just keep walking, out of Congress and, if possible, out of the country.

For they, sir, and you, sir, have no place in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The lot of you are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic to whom "freedom" is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for when you want to get away with its opposite.

Thus, Mr. Bush, your panoramic invasion of privacy is dressed up as "protecting America." Thus, Mr. Bush, your indiscriminate domestic spying becomes the focused monitoring only of "terrorist communications." Thus, Mr. Bush, what you and the telecom giants have done isn't unlawful. It's just the kind of perfectly legal, passionately patriotic thing for which you happen to need immunity!

Richard Clarke is on the money, as usual. That the President was willing to veto this eavesdropping means there is no threat to the legitimate counterterror efforts still under way. As Senator Edward Kennedy reminded us in December: "The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies."

And that literally cannot be. Even Mr. Bush could not overtly take a step that actually aids the terrorists. I am not talking about ethics here. I am talking about blame. If the President seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water, it means we can safely conclude there is no baby.

Because if there were, sir, now that you have vetoed an extension of the eavesdropping, if some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists. You would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people. You would not merely be guilty of stupidity. You would not merely be guilty of treason, sir. You would be personally, and eternally, responsible. And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing you have proved time and time again, it is that you are never responsible.

As recently ago as 2006, we spoke words like these with trepidation. The idea that even the most cynical and untrustworthy of the politicians in our history, George W. Bush, would use the literal form of terrorism against his own people was dangerous territory. It seemed to tempt fate, to heighten fear. We will not fear any longer. We will not fear the international terrorists, and we will thwart them. We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety. We will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government. We will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush. Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wow.

Well, at least he didn't say Bush was "pimping out" his daughters.....

<sarc off>

"And now, as promised....a Special Comment."

"Hey, Louise, cancel those opera plans!! Olbermann just promised that on Thursday night he's going to do a "Special Comment" on the Protect America Act! Invite Sue and Todd over, we'll all watch it together!!"

And that would be half of KO's audience.....

"This is crap. And you sling it with an audacity and a speed unrivaled even by the greatest political felons of our history."

Aaaah, yes, only Keith Olbermann can say the word "crap" in such a way that turns it into soaring rhetoric; right up there with "audacity" and "trepidation."

And oh, Richard Clarke!! The man who claims that Condoleeza Rice acted as if she had never heard of Osama bin Laden; the man who, if he were half the genius during the Clinton administration that he now claims to be, would surely have removed all terrorism threats...

Good grief!

Keith Olbermann. Is there a more solipsistic, self-absorbed, and self-indulgent, gasbag in all of Cable TV?

 

Anyone that has been reading

Anyone that has been reading my post for the last 6 or 8months knows that I am no fan of Bush but OB is just unhinged.

I think that everyone should make a concerted effort to get him pulled. I mean, dam he is completely un-hinged.

This is the same network that has a $hit fit over the use of pimp!

Even when I watch it on the clips, and I know its coming it still shocks me.

You "sir" are an A$$ hole. 

 

 

 

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

You are right; this stuff

You are right; this stuff is way over the line. It's right out there in Kos and DU territory. But then again, that's KO's audience. So it's obvious that MSNBC not only allows, but encourages these vitriolic, juvenile attacks. And they are juvenile, as much as he tries to dress them up with fancy words and calling the President "You, sir."

Keith Olbermann is a hateful little man.

People said that when Bush was elected in 2000, Rush Limbaugh would have nothing to talk about. Rush is still here. But when Bush is gone, Olbermann will probably self-destruct from all the venom inside him that has nowhere to go.

 

And now, as promised....a Special Comment

Olbymoron, you, sir, need to get a grip. It looks like you have completely
lost sense of all reality. You, sir, are stuck in a deranged world where you
cannot decipher fact from fiction. You, sir, are hell bent on bashing Bush and
don't realize there is only 11 months in his term. Also you, sir, do not
understand the term fascism.

You are a liar Mister Olbermann!

And after showing some skill at it, initially, you have ceased to even be a very good liar. You, sir, have failed
miserably to even hint at what a newsman's job really is. The hate that drools
out of your mouth is total crap. You have no sense of reality of the world
around you.

You. By your own rants and your own definitions, you have sided with the
terrorists. You, sir, think there is no such thing as terrorism. However, sir,
you didn't hesitate to run to a hospital for tests after you received a
letter with power inside even though tests showed the powder to be harmless and
the letter a prank.

It is bad enough, sir, that your true bias shows through in all that you
say. You, sir, cannot handle an opinion different from your own. Mister
Olbermann, you cannot even have a guest on your so-called show without them
agreeing with you or you agreeing with them. And let us not forget your "great
thanks" after each tirade.

Mister Olbermann, you are 'Worse' for your biased
rants you call facts.

Mister Olbermann, you are 'Worser' for your
terrible case of "BDS".

Mister Olbermann, you are "Worst" for your lack of
respect for anyone who does not agree with you or kisses your fat a$$!

Perfect!

We have ABC, CBS and NBC.  Maybe Keith and Joy Behar can form a new one...BDS.

KG, spot

KG, spot on.......... 

 

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party,the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

KO needs KO'd

Either this guy is a total wack job or he just needs to be totally wacked.

Uber-moron

Keith Ubermoron needs to switch to decaf... 

A nation that cannot secure its borders is not a nation.” Ronald Reagan

Ignorance

The ignorant either go to school or are doomed to work in low-paying jobs for the rest of their lives.

The truly ignorant are hired by MSNBC, and are watched by nobody -- except by Newbusters bloggers who have drawn the short straw.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Not a liberal

You can only laugh at KO's repeated claims that he is not liberal. "Fascist" is word used exclusively by idiot liberals, particularly idiot baby-boomer liberals.

Why won't MSNBC cut out the

Why won't MSNBC cut out the middle-man and just hire a spokesman from Code Pink to give speeches and "morale officers" on set to ensure all spoken words are for the common good?

"Boats are safe in the harbor, but that's not what they're made for." -- Maritime quote

contact

Does anyone have contact info for MSNBC. Lets get it spread out there so people can complain.

We need to get a list of

We need to get a list of their sponsors and write to them. Of course, the lefties will call it censorship, but it's exactly the same tack that they took to force Dr. Laura off the air, and other people that they disagree with.

Sauce for the gander.....

This network is the worst

This network is the worst excuse for a news organization since TASS. What the hell is going on over there at NBC that they allow this bilge to be put out there? And they accuse FoxNews of being partisan and slanted to the right and complain and bitch about it? Everytime some brain full of oatmeal says that Fox is biased to the Republicans just keep saying "MsNBC" over and over and over.

Just do what I've done and take CNN,MsNBC,CNNHeadline, CNBC, and the AlGore channel and delete them from your lineup on your satellite. The world's a much brighter, happier, and beautiful place without having to worry about flipping around and seeing Olbermann's face or Chris Matthews' spittle flying. 

You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.

Sometimes You Need To Say Something

Keith Olbermann is a disgrace; how General Electric permits this nonsense, day after day, is beyond comprehension.  To those of you who feel a need to express your dissatisfaction, and I do regularly, you can contact MSNBC via e-mail at letters@msnbc.com.  You can also Google GE Board of Directors, and get to the GE home page and they have a addy that goes directly to the BOD.  Most people think this is a waste of time.  However, I'd point out it wasn't a waste of time for those who reacted to incidents involving Imus, Schuster, and the military ad NBC recently refused to run.  In all cases, they responded rather quckly.  Again, I want to stress, the culprits here are MSNBC and GE Management.  It is they that allow this moron to have his soap box; and it is they who need to be told to get him off the air.

When you do send them an

When you do send them an email, here is how they respond:

 Your message

To: Letters

Subject: Olbermann

Sent: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:09:14 -0800

was deleted without being read on Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:09:40 -0800

Waterboarding is very inhumane, but it did clear up my sinus infection! - Khalfan Khamis Mohamed

BATH-TUB-BOY...

 Here we go again, someone calling President Bush a fascist, & I'm shocked to see this time it is our hero, BathTubBoy. Let me explain something to you Keith, you are an Ivy Leaguer, so I know you are smart enough to understand what I'm gonna say.

If Bush & Cheney were really the evil neocon fascists that you & the other BDS infected morons in the media believe them to be, someone would have dragged your @$$ away to an "undisclosed location". The very fact that your brand of intolerant anger has been allowed on the air & that NOTHING has happened to you, or others like Randi Rhodes, who got beat up by neocon thugs who wanted to shut her up...it had nothing to do with being sh!+ faced & falling down flat on her face. Remember that one?

Look BathTubBoy, the left wingers are far & away the fascist element in America today. Most "progressives" & some "liberals" are much more likely to try to shut down speech they don't like. Yes there are "conservatives" who will make noise about something they don't like, but usually the most they will do is boycott those responsible. "Progressives" & some "liberals" are usuaully the people who will legislate against those resposible. So much for the 1st Amendment & the free speech rights the Founding Fathers installed with the Bill Of Rights.

BathTubBoy, before you shoot your mouth off about fascism in America again, read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism". It might give you some insight to fascism in America...If your open minded enough to actually read it, you might see things that remind you of you. I'm just saying.

 

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

Ohhh, so the liberals are

Ohhh, so the liberals are the fascists? Then shouldn't those who voice disagreement with them or call them fascists be accosted by some Democrat-affiliated thugand dragged off to an undisclosed location, etc etc? This really is the new conservative idee fixe, and it really does seem to come down to "well, the libs have been calling us fascists for years; now that they're back in power, we'll call them fascists!"

Wow, way to be the bigger man. The longer conservatives keep up this line of reasoning and enshrine Goldberg's stupid book, the more they demonstrate that they are as adept at the politics of self-victimization as modern democrats.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Ohhh, so the liberals are


Ohhh, so the liberals are the fascists?

Well, the Democrat congress is already talking about reinstituting the "Fairness" Doctrine, which will go a long way to shutting down conservative talk radio. That's true facism; using the force of law to shut down opposing viewpoints.

What's your point? Bush

What's your point? Bush has also done things that, if properly contextualized, could technically be considered Fascist. The issue is that buffoons like Olbermann don't look at it that way; instead of carefully pointing out that a certain behavior is indicative of fascist tendencies and then discussing how to deal with it, they catapult clear into knee-jerk territory with statements like "why don't you have a t-shirt made up?"

Likewise, yes, the Fairness Doctrine has a certain jackboot 'n truncheon air to it. Fine. Discuss the vicissitudes of this. Write about it. But making the leap to "Democrats are Fascists" is just sinking to an Olbermannly level.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Please list these items that

Please list these items that you consider to be Bush examples of Fascism.

I already did elsewhere in

I already did elsewhere in this thread. See my exchange below with landshark, which ends in an accord. And please note that I do not consider them examples of fascism. I do not believe Bush is a fascist. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm pointing out that they are acts and policies which, if described in a properly vague and decontextualized way, could be made to resemble tenets of fascism. By extension, I'm pointing out that this is exactly what certain conservatives are doing when they blithely refer to things like Fairness Doctrine or healthcare plans as fascist.

You could make Ghandi sound like a jackbooted thug if you phrase things just so. It's dishonest and adds nothing.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

ok, then...

If indeed "[t]hat's true facism; using the force of law to shut down opposing viewpoints," then I'd say McCain Feingold fits the mold pretty-damn-well...
JMR

If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...

→ sarc

OUCH!

♣ a seal

FASCISIM...

Throw in the "Global Warming" debate as well. The debate is over, & if you don't agree, you are a hate monger. The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen wanted to strip TV meteorologists of the AMS certification if you don't buy into "GW" lock, stock, & barrel. Just 1 easy example.

"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise"  Mark Levin

sarc,

Hence one of about twelve reasons for my derision for McCain.

Obama: Elect me and I'll lose the war AND raise your taxes! - Bryan/HotAir.com

From experience....

I can telly ou from experience, that college campi have become breeding groups for liberal facists, who beleive THEIR point of views is the only one and anyone who opposes it must be shut up. As a journalisim major, I witnessed teachers who silenced students and even made fun of them for their views. I saw groups of liberals shout down and drown out Republicans when speaking in class. Offten, my campus was forced to listen to black racists tell white students that, "When the time comes, we will spill your blood", in the name of diversity. You can turn on CSPAN any day of the week and hear democrat after democrat accuse republican speakers of being "jews" in with Israel and a multitude of other hateful, completely dishonest comments.

 

So please, dont tell me that the dems arent a bunch of facists. They beleive their way is the only way (progressive, forward thinking) and anyone who opposes them is a nazi.

Poppycock. You're taking

Poppycock. You're taking vague, entirely nonsepcific examples, some of which you "heard" about to tell me that college campuses are liberal. I know that they are overwhelmingly liberal, but these storm trooper tactics you're discussing are just not the norm.

The Democrats are not fascists (can't anybody spell it right?! There's an S before the C, people). I don't like much of what they have to offer either, but conservatives are only betraying their own insecurity and lack of constructive criticism when they refer to them as such. If the Democrats are bonafide fascists, how are thet a major party? How do they get so many votes and so much support? Is half the country just not as penetratingly intelligent as you, and can't see they're being led to an American Third Reich?

This "look how we're being victimized" rhetoric is a sad last resort. And not much different from "Our party has abandoned us" because of McCain. Your party didn't 'abandon' you; it legitimately nominated someone you happen to disagree with.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Spelling

jasonc: They is spelled, ending with a "y", not a "t", genius!

Right you are. And if

Right you are. And if Theyism was the name of an insidious political movement, and the major topic of conversation, and something that I was accusing Republicans of embracing, and I spelled it "Thetism" in two separate posts, it would be pretty apparent that I didn't actually know much about it.   

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Jason, thats just precious.

Jason, thats just precious. Your only argument is spelling of a word, of which you have several which you misspelled in your rant. Well, you convinced me...lol.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

1. That is hardly my only

1. That is hardly my only argument. I have been arguing for days, on this thread and elsewhere, that use of the term fascist by either side is ridiculous. But it's slowly-increasing use by conservatives of late is particularly suspect because conservatives have been attacking liberals like Olbermann for years now, accusing them of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and so forth. Now, at the drop of a dime, they are engaging in the exact same tactic as they see fit.

2. My misspellings are typos, not repeated misspellings of the key term at hand. As I said, this indicates a lack of familiarity with the concept.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

For facism, one look no

For facism, one look no further than college campuses.  The brown-shirt tactics employed by the mobs that show up whenever a noted "conservative" shows up is quite revealing.

I guess the kids are just blowing off steam, huh?

Haha, so now a few

Haha, so now a few incidents of overzealous policsci-major undergrads shouting at famous people is fascism. And you attribute this to college campuses in general? What incidents, exactly, are you referring to other than the Coulter pie-throwing and Jim Gilchrist? As far as I can tell, those are the only incidents of physically disrupting someone's talk. Standing around campus with placards and petitioning the administration, while perhaps not the best use of a coed's time, is not, I'm afraid, a brownshirt tactic, but a right guaranteed by Amendment #1.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Standing around campus with

Standing around campus with placards and petitioning the
administration, while perhaps not the best use of a coed's time, is
not, I'm afraid, a brownshirt tactic, but a right guaranteed by
Amendment #1.

Jason, they not only stand around with placards, they threaten disruption beforehand if certain people are allowed to speak.

And what about the invited speaker's right to speak without a "heckler's veto"?

Check out some of David Horowitz's experiences on college campuses for examples. He is routinely shouted down; College Republicans who wish to sponsor him are told that they must provide their own security (as opposed to other groups on campus), his events are moved, at the last minute, to tiny conference rooms where the crowds can't possibly fit; they use those and other "innocent" and "administrative" means to shut him down.

Do people actually have a

Do people actually have a 'right' to speak without being interrupted? Tell that to my Aunt Betty, I can't even finish a sentence around her, but it never occurred to me that she was a fascist.

Horowitz, I would argue is a special case; he's dabbled in some pretty thuggish behavior himself, right down to his little blackbook of professors who don't wear flag lapel pins in The ProFessors.

At liberal campuses, Republican clubs are frequently not RSOs (Registered Student Organizations) because they cannot drum up enough members. They are thus ineligible for campus funding and must raise money for their own events. Just as any club whose operations are too small to qualify for funding would have to. This isn't about the student senate or administrators being biased, it is, again, because college students in places like New England tend not to have any interest in joining such organizations. If you don't draw interest, you don't get university money. Not a difficult concept.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Trolling, trolling, trolling......

The relevant question on campus is not "Do people have a right to speak?" - the question is; "do people have a right to hear someone speak (after they've invited the person?)"

My question to you is; why do you never see conservatives engaging in the same behaviour when lefties give speeches?

The modern leftist movement is self-absorbed, lazy, and intellectually vacant. Their ideas don't win on merit, so they resort to confrontations and appeals for censorship. 

Your example of David H's thuggishness somehow leaves me un-chilled. If your side was only making lists, the level of discourse would be immediately raised.

Trolling? I'm answering

Trolling? I'm answering every post that is given to me, in detail. How is that trolling? I guess someone who throws the term fascist around so liberally has no problem using a word like "troll".

The problem is that you want to make undergraduate yahoos into the face of liberalism. If there's one problem with channels like FoxNews and CNN and their various punditry-intensive programs, it's that they've made political discourse into a full-contact sport, and many people think that's all it is. That Liberal vs. Conservative is Ann Coulter against a bunch of college students, and so forth.

You're right, conservatives tend not to protest liberal speakers. they are more polite. Congratulations, your side of the ideological spectrum is far more genteel. It doesn't make the ideology itself any more "right". Conservatism is about embodying tradition and the status quo, about taking the very existence of social norms as a self-justification for their continuance. A Liberal Arts education is about challenging, critiquing, and messing with these things. That's why college campuses tend to have more liberal students; and, as 18-22 year olds are apt to do, they get worked up about what they've come to believe in. Most of them will grow up, find a real job, get married, and become responsible members of the very system they're decrying now. My point? Obnoxious college campus antics are not indicative of the overall social climate.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Based on what I've seen so far....

Gee, I didn't realize those were serious answers to challenges. Bringing Aunt Betty into the debate as some sort of evidence of there being no right to speak freely (still wrapping my head around that argument) seemed pretty... what's the word...silly. Intellectually silly arguments that seem intended to provoke are trollish. 

Do you really think the problem is exclusive to colleges? Did you forget what the thread is about? Olbermann? MSNBC? This ringing a bell? For too many young people, college education infects them permanently - they are simply incapable of forming a rationale, coherent argument to support their views and they have to resort to Berkeley/Code Pink tactics. The students of the sixties are running the colleges, media and democrat party today and they still can't articulate a policy that makes sense.

College antics are indicative of the problem. Things outside the college may not be as severe but it's the same tactics.

This is patently false "If

This is patently false "If you don't draw interest, you don't get university money. Not a difficult concept" because teh funds are not based on interest they are based on bias, from personal experience.  Your argument falls short about there not being enough interest because they have the interest if they as you say "must raise money for their own events".  It is a matter of being available to be able to join.  If the organization is there people will join.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Perhaps you have had

Perhaps you have had experiences that differ (people sure do love to hold up isolated personal anecdotes as "proof" around here). But the fact is that in order to become a registered student organization, you have to demonstrate that you will be active, and that entails a certain size of membership. If I was in college and decided to start a club today and I could only round up 3 people with sufficient interest and commitment, the student senate would not give me money. I could still have my group and book areas on campus for meetings, but we would be unaffiliated and thus not subsidized. This is not a difficult concept.

Where I went to grad school, the Republican Club was dissolved because they wanted to have Newt Gingrich speak and his speaking fee was larger than their annual budget (which was funded by the student senate).  They really wanted Newt, so they borrowed money from the senate and when they couldn't pay it back after two years they had to disband.  It didn't help that it was in a town that was maybe 2.5% Republican.  The interest simply wasn't there.  It's an early lesson in the free market. 

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

calling the kettle black"

calling the kettle black" people sure do love to hold up isolated personal anecdotes as "proof" around here"?  It seems like all of us are spouting off unsubrtaniated anectdotes.  From you post I see you have no real world experiences, well I have.  In the 70's I was part of a small club and we recieved funding and a place to meet.  We had 10 members.

It seems the club had bad management, but your story is just an "anectdote" as is mine.  Ill bet teh Democrat club did not have to pay anything back as it was probably deemed a worthwhile endeavor.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

I simply provided that as

I simply provided that as an example of how these things generally work on most campuses. If that Republican club had paid back their loan or worked to attract more members (and therefore to have better fundraising capabilities) they wouldn't have folded. You're right, it was anecdotal, but it was meant simply to show the basic procedures that were at play, as opposed to this fantasy that liberal administrators have nothing better to do than twirl their mustaches and plot how best to crush the college republicans.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Isolated Incidents?

If these were truly "isolated personal anecdotes", as you say they are, then groups like FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) would have ceased to exist years ago, since they would have nothing to do. Browse their website sometime.

Here's a link to get you started: http://www.thefire.o...

 

If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.

I am talking about them

I am talking about them being denied security when they ARE RSO's. The admin's excuse is that they can't provide enough security.

OH, and I suppose David Horowitz deserves what he gets???? Is that your argument, the best you can do?

Criticizing college professors is "thuggish" behavior? Oh please. That's the same kind of thinking that would brand McDonalds as "food terrorism" for crying out loud.

So I suppose you think Jim Gilchrist is a "special case" too? One student interviewed before that debacle said that she didn't think he should be allowed to speak.

Grasping, grasping, Jason.

And since we are talking about college campuses, who do you think institutes "speech codes" of things one can't say because someone might be offended? And Free Speech Zones? You ahve to go and stand in a certain place to be allowed to say what you want?

 

See I've been attending or

See I've been attending or working at various universities for 9 years (and before the jokes begin, yes, I finished my undergrad in 4) and I just haven't encountered this stuff. Do you have solid examples of such things happening, or is this all vague secondhand criticism of the "oh yeah, it happened somewhere, it totally happened to my cousin's friend's goddaughter's aunt" variety?

Horowitz' book suggests that certain college professors should be stripped of tenure for their political beliefs. He takes as ironclad truth the vague testimonies of students who claim they didn't do well in certain classes because of their beliefs. He wants to regulate how professors can or cannot conduct their classes. I think someone with a Ph.D. in their field is more qualified to design a syllabus than David Horowitz.

For the record, I would always prefer that a speaker be allowed to just speak, and then wait for the Q&A portion to get confrontational. I don't support disrupting these things. But I also vehemently disagree with the assertion that such disruptions are:

1. Representative of liberalism in general.

2. Representative of academics.

3. Anything even approaching a technical definition of "fascist"

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Horowitz' book suggests


Horowitz' book suggests that certain college professors should be stripped of tenure for their political beliefs.

That's patently untrue, and a typical distortion of what's going on. Horowitz doesn't care what a professor's political beliefs are; he just doesn't want them promoting them in classes that have nothing to do with politics.

I think someone with a Ph.D. in their field is more qualified to design a syllabus than David Horowitz.

Once again, it's not the syllabus that is at issue. It is the propagancizing the professor does in the classroom while teaching his subject. Then do you also think that a professor of mathematics should stick to teaching mathematics? Do you think it's right for a professor to offer extra credit to students who write nasty letters to the President or attend demonstrations? Or to give a zero to a student whose principles won't allow him to do that?

Horowitz is not in a

Horowitz is not in a position to decide what course material does or does not pertain to the topic. He bases much of this on the impartial claims of students who couldn't cut it in those professors' courses.

You don't have to agree with the course topics to do well. Say you're learning about Nietzsche in a philosophy class and you're a Christian. Naturally, you would take offense to much N's writings. But if the final paper involves an explication of, say, Nietzsche's concept of ressentiment, it would be inappropriate to write a paper condemning Nietzsche on scriptural beliefs or other moralistic doctrines. Even more inappropriate to claim that it was an anti-Christian bias on the part of the prof when you get a poor grade; no, actually it was a "you didn't do the assignment" bias.

Yes, I agree that extracurricular activism shouldn't be the basis for extra credit, but I have seldom heard of this happening.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Yes, I agree that


Yes, I agree that extracurricular activism shouldn't be the basis for extra credit, but I have seldom heard of this happening.

Then every once in a while, you should check out the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

 

 

 

I gave it a look. All of

I gave it a look. All of the issues here seem to pertain not to the classroom but to student life in general; "Free speech zones" and dormitory policy and such. That is the purview of administrators, housing officials, and student groups, and while troublesome, I consider that a separate issue entirely from what goes on in the classroom. That is the only place where professors hold sway.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

That may be the most current

That may be the most current issues, but if you check back now and then, they frequently deal with classroom issues and other student/administration conflicts.

You're not paying

You're not paying attention. Otherwise you would not be arguing the inarguable with me. Of course if you paid attention, you wouldn't be a liberal anyway. 

My attention is required elsewhere this morning (this thing called a job that really interferes with my free time).  Do your own research.  The incidents of facism from the university administration all the way down to the students are cataloged by plenty of sources that are readily available. 

On one point you're spot on with the poli-sci majors - I would guess that you don't see too many engineering or mathematics majors marching in the quad holding signs.

OK there pesky, you get

OK there pesky, you get going on that commute. I'd also be more interested in your apparent expertise on liberal fascism if you hadn't misspelled the term in both posts.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Already working... but

Already working... but spelling? That's the best you've got?  You're pathetic.   But then, you are a liberal (I think I've got that spelled right).  

 

Misspelling the key word to

Misspelling the key word to our discussion twice, in two different posts, indicates you haven't actually read much on fa[s]cism. If it was the difference between 'your' and 'you're' I'd let it slide.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Wow

Great personal shot, there Jason.

Impressive.

Oh, and blackbook and FoxNews should each be two words; and it's professors (no capital) and not ProFessors.

Glass houses.

Why should I take seriously

Why should I take seriously the arguments of someone whose usage of a term indicates he hasn't read enough about it to know how it's spelled?

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Then why should anyone take

Then why should anyone take YOU seriously? You have made some spelling errors too; I just pointed out a couple to you.

Oh, and I will give you the capital P on professors, since it is a book title; but there's still no capital F in the middle of it.

 

Well yeah, book titles are

Well yeah, book titles are usually capitalized...Do you mean the capital F? That was Horowitz' ingenious way of emphasizing the 'F' in the word professors was also an F like the failing grade. He's a clever one.

Typos and misspellings are one thing. Twice in a row misspelling the key concept being discussed (fascism) indicates that you don't know as much about it as you so purport.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

We all realize that in the

We all realize that in the rush of typing, mistakes get made. but insulting someone's intelligence is not an argument.

I see what you mean by Horowitz's "F" in the middle of Professors. Perhaps you should have explained that, or just spelled it the normal way.

Maybe you should find yourself a website with posters
whose intellectual standards are up to your own if you feel there is no
challenge here.

 

 

Motherbelt, I appreciate you

Motherbelt, I appreciate you coming to my defense.  I have to admit, though, I see myself in JasonC right now.  I've done my share of jumping on people because of grammar and syntax. 

I see what you mean by

I see what you mean by Horowitz's "F" in the middle of Professors.
Perhaps you should have explained that, or just spelled it the normal
way.

I thought you read it....

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Jason, jason, jason... it

Jason, jason, jason... it was a good shot, no question, but what everyone is trying to tell you in my absence is that you reveal more about yourself than about me when you try to parse your own errors in a sort of ‘they don’t count as much’ mode. 

Yes, one should be careful with spelling, particularly with the object or subject in the sentence.  But what everyone has been trying to tell you in my absence is that you reveal more about yourself than anyone else when you take something of questionable relevance and gnaw that bone to splinters. 

There is another teachable moment here, - you have seen the hazards of trying to be the syntax/spelling/grammar nazi - a temptation to which I have succumbed to in the past here as Newsbusters.  You do yourself no favors when you open up that can of worms.   

Fingers fly across the keyboard, people have brain-farts, but your attempt to discredit anyone on such a flimsy basis is often a distraction technique employed by... hmm... fascists. 

You have an opportunity here.  Many people who participate on this site, myself included, have often mused that liberals have no sense of irony.  This is your chance prove that this is not always the case.  Care to take the olive branch?

 

Pesky

Pesky

Indeed, at 8 or 9:00ish this morning, I was definitely more grumpy/sleepy and willing to jump on superficial things. You'll notice that where I get called out on writing American instead of America somewhere on here, I conceded my own painted-into-a-corner status.

Put it this way: I now realize that implying someone knows nothing about fascism for having misspelled it is as bad (or disingenuous and lazy anyway) as using it as a blanket adjective for a political party one disagrees with, which has been my particular warhorse today.

My apologies.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Jason - Fair enough,

Jason -

Fair enough, we'll call it pax.

It's one thing...

It's one thing to protest against a speaker with whom you disagree, it's quite another to be so disruptive as to prevent that person from speaking.  If the positions of those with who the left would disagee are so falacious and or nefarious, why not let them be heard and exposed for what they are?  Example: does anyone take the likes of David Duke seriously?  Of course not because every time he opens his mouth he exposes himself as the sociopath that he is.

It is the left that would legislate away our freedoms, piece by piece.  It's the left with their great socialist "morality" that would destroy our great nation.  They have bought into the lie that fascism is a product of the right and not the left. 

If they would take the time to read Hitler and Mousilinni they just might discover that that fascism is a product of the left, it is a form of socialism.  Fascism is "national socialism" where communism is "international socialism".  A distinction lost on the so called "progressive" movment of today.

But then why should they let any silly facts get in the way of their desire for social regimentation and wealth redistribution "for the common good". 

They need to go back and read the Federalist Papers and then they might understand  that the Constitution's primary purpose was to place strict limitations on and impediments to what could be done to restrict personal liberties through the democratic process.

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one."

Alexander Hamilton

so attacking the poster and

so attacking the poster and not the issue.....SOP for libs.

who wants to restrict speech, (fairness doc) who just shut down a TV station that spoke ill of his party (Hugo Chavez) who wants to control what kind of car you drive, what kind of light bulb to use,  tell you what doctor to see, is going to "take profits for the common good" ,

 

"Get off the phone you big dope!!!!!!!!!!" Mark Levin

Who wanted to invade a

Who wanted to invade a sovereign nation on the pretext that they maybe, sorta had some vague involvement with an attack on us? Who wanted an expansive set of laws that would make it legal to imprison anybody without due process or habeas corpus? Who has tried to arrogate unprecedented executive power?

Do these things make conservatives fascists? NO!!! Two can play at the vague-associations-with Hitler game, my friend. All of your examples are ridiculous. Chavez? You couldn't even come up with an example of a liberal American? What kind of car you can drive? Are you telling me that any American with the means can't waltz down to their dealership and buy the biggest, ugliest, most unnecessary SUV on the lot? What light bulb to use? Who the hell cares? What doctor to see? That's not part of any politicians healthcare plan. "Take profits for the common good?" Oh, you mean the same syste of taxation that's been around in American for decades.

Stop reading Orwell if this is what it does to you.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

Patriot Act- Gotta remember

Patriot Act- Gotta remember who first passed that through the senate as Majority Leader in the Fall of 2001.  One Tom Daschle...a Democrat.

Liberals usually forget that.

Grammar Cop

"Oh, you mean the same syste of taxation that's been around in American for decades."

That's "been around in America", not "been around in American" Mr Grammar Cop. I guess you don't have any credibility either, since proper grammar and proper spelling are your means of evaluating people's arguments.

"What light bulb to use? Who the hell cares?"

The City of Seattle does: http://michellemalki...

Oh wait, that's another "isolated personal anecdote". Never mind.

If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.

That's "been around in


That's "been around in America", not "been around in American" Mr Grammar Cop.

Shit. I lose.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors."
-Emily Bronte

LOL  "Republicans always

LOL 

"Republicans always get a huge pass on the racist issue. Huck is just another example. Provided they don't start up with the N word, they seem able to pander directly to the racist vote."

-- Chuck Davis, intellectual heavyweight, bigot