My internet has been going in and out all day long, and I have about 5 things I want to write about, but every time I try to post, my connection dies. Quick links will have to do, since I am tired of trying and am going to just retire to the couch:
Two stories in the NY Times which I thought were interesting. One about plans to recycle nuclear waste, one about conservation programs in Texas.
Next, Wired magazine is having an end of the year lists thingee, and came up with a list of the ten sexiest geeks that included Chris Mooney and Nick Denton but left out Morgan Webb, the hot gamer chick from G4. No disrespect meant to Chris Mooney or Nick Denton, but come on.
In other news, John McCain, the man who has no problem making all sorts of moral and other decisions for you, including whether or not you can have an abortion, whether or not you can use any number of controlled substances, whether or not you can play dirty video games, and what you do with your money in regards to political activities, has finally found something that should be left to the individual- whether or not intelligent design is fact or fiction:
“Let the student decide.” With those well-chosen words John McCain summed up his view on the teaching of “intelligent design” along with evolution in public schools.
Even — or perhaps especially — with controversial topics, Arizona’s ubiquitous senior U.S. senator has an uncanny knack for saying things his audience wants to hear. In this case, Mr. Straight Talk was imparting words of wisdom in an interview with MTV News.
Much more here on McCain from Steve Benen. In other ID news, check out this piece by the Commissar about ID’s Political Problem.
Finally, I just heard on NOVA that the earthquake that caused the tsunami last year was so big that it caused the earth to change course by two centimeters and shortened the day by 3 millionths of a second. Wow.
That is it- I will be back tomorrow when my connection is more stable. I called Adelphia, and they are aware of the problem and working on it.
Justin Slotman
Is Morgan Webb an actual geek, or does she just play one on teevee?
Sojourner
Wonderful. McCain supports ID and Hillary supports anti-flag burning legislation.
Where have all the statesmen gone? Long time passing….
Zifnab
What a sad, sorry load of crap. “Let the student decide”??? Here’s a profound point of wisdom for you. Perhaps the student should be allowed to grade his own papers and write his own tests.
I thought I had respect for McCain for a moment there, but no, he’s just as ass-deep in the cave-dwelling knuckle-dragging religious right agenda as is necessary to screw over our young minds once again.
Fucking Republicans. Making our children dumber like it’s going out of style.
Gary Farber
“…and I have about 5 things I want to write about, but every time I try to post, my connection dies. Quick links will have to do, since I am tired of trying….”
Sympathies. If I might point out, it’s not that much harder to write one’s entries, temporarily, in your word-processing program of choice, such as Notepad, and then they’re available later to cut and paste into your blog software when posting is easier. It does cut back a bit on the feeling of spontaneity, I agree, but, still, it makes a lot more sense than writing in one’s blog software while it’s/the connection is acting up. (Isn’t writing something and watching it disappear just one of the most frustrating things there is?)
Just a suggestion.
Jorge
Man, McCain really, really wants to be President way too much. Reading that bit on ID reminds me of a story he wrote about the confederate flag in one of his books. Essentially, he apologized because he took a pro-flag stance during the 2000 cycle even though he was actually against the use of the flag by state governments. That admission gave me hopes that if he ran again that we would have a candidate with some principles.
But I guess I was wrong. It really is a shame because McCain supporters on the left and right admire him for his independence and moral compass – the very traits he seems to jettison whenever he gets a whiff of the Oval Office. Of course, watching him kiss up to Bush during the 2004 cycle should have been enough of a clue that the man puts ambition over personal pride.*
*PS – And though I am more than willing to slam Bush’s policies, this reference is more about the way Bush’s team and supporters completely destroyed and dismantled McCain with personal attacks in 2000.
Mark-NC
Watching McCain “kiss up to Bush” was a stomach turning moment for me. I couldn’t make myself vote for Bush, and I thought Kerry was a joke, so I wrote in McCain believing I was voting for a man of principal.
NOT!!!
I’ll say the same for Kerry. I would have voted for him up until the Swift Boat thing. Republican “Swift Boating” has become a standard of the morals and values crowd (all while they complain that the Dems play dirty politics), and should certainly have been expected by Kerry. The fact that he sat back while Fox News ran the Swift Boat “story” as often as they could manage to get it on any show for about ten consecutive weeks, and the Swift Boaters ran wild throughout the media – WITH ESSENTIALLY NO RESPONSE FROM KERRY while they called him a liar and a coward – convinced me that Kerry was unfit for ANY office.
Now, watching McCain grovel, along with Frist and others, I’m wondering if ANYBODY up there is worth voting for.
Veeshir
I agree that you belong on the list, but the final part is just too funny.
PS: John Cole at Balloon Juice probably belongs on your list — and he’s got a good crew of commenters there as well.
Just too funny.
Jorge
Mark brings up a good point – Kerry avoided Fox News and the Swift Boat thing like the plague. Would he have been better served going on Fox and doing an interview? O’Reilly might have worked. Kerry could kick O’Reilly’s butt in an interview. I think O’Reilly would have been overwhelmed. I’ve never seen him do well against someone who knows how to be forceful and is well informed.
Kerry needed to quickly and publicly denounce the Swift Boaters. I don’t believe it would have cost him any votes and he could have siphoned off some of the folks who were voting for Bush while holding their noses. Hindsight is 20/20, but one good verbal butt kicking of a bully like O’Reilly would have gone a long way towards transforming his image as a wimpy, liberal playboy.
jack
“Essentially, he apologized because he took a pro-flag stance during the 2000 cycle even though he was actually against the use of the flag by state governments. That admission gave me hopes that if he ran again that we would have a candidate with some principles.”
I read this and was stunned. The man flip-flop for politiral expediency, made an excuse for it–‘I was against the Confederate flag all along” and you think he was showing principle?
Dear gods, it’s no wonder that you think the Swift Boat vets were ‘smearing Kerry—and I bet it’s seared, SEARED into your mind that the man spent Christnas in Cambodia….
Principle is taking the unpopular but correct stance and sticking with it–no matter what your audience wants to hear.
Jorge
Hi Jack,
Actually, I thought what I read from him was fairly sincere and that it sounded like he had learned his lesson. You know – I compromised and it bothers me that I did it so I won’t do it again. I’m sure my statement sounded naive, because, well, it was. McCain, especially in his autobiographies, has a way of coming off as being very sincere. But then again, so did Hillary. I guess that’s what ghost writers do for you.
As far as the swift boating of Kerry – do you really have any desire to have that debate with someone again? I really don’t.
Sojourner
Oh please. I do hope you’re not expressing support for the Swift Boat liars. The shame they brought upon themselves and the way they dishonored this country…. Thankfully they’ve all crawled back under the rocks from which they came.
scs
You obviously are not very familiar with Fox. O’Reilly practically never brought up the SwiftBoat deal and was more than fair to Kerry, even implying he was undecided as to whom to vote for, which meant he might vote for Kerry. Now Hannity brought it up a lot, sure – but not O’Reilly. I’ve heard it mentioned that O’Reilly did a little draft dodging, so perhpas he didn’t feel comfortable to judge others in that way. What happened was, Kerry had already agreed to appear on O’Reilly, long after swiftboating, and O’Reilly was very excited about that, mentioning the upcoming interview a lot on air. But then Kerry quickly cancelled after O’Reilly got busted with his phone sex scandal. Probably Kerry thought O’Reilly was tainted at that point. Anyway, that pissed O’Reilly off to no end and he began to question Kerry’s “character” that he didn’t keep his word, so there went many O’Reilly fans who might have been swayed by a favorable interview with their man but now were swayed the other way. Not too smart by Kerry I think. And by the way, O’Reilly is no shrinking violet. He wouldn’t have been “scared” by Kerry.
By the way, speaking of Bill, did you all see Keith Olberman last night on MSNBC? I thought the guy went insane. He called for John Gibson on Fox, aka Father of the War on Chistmas, and apparently former friend and colleague of his, to step down. Olberman was pissed about an interview Gibson did on the radio with some conservative lady and Olberman then accused Gibson of religious intolerance. But Olberman then played the audio clip and I now think he is delusional. Basically the lady was saying something like “why is tolerance touted so much today?”, as she thinks people should not be compromise in their true zeal and quest to hold their religion higher (implying her religion, Christianity). And then Gibson said something like, well God will decide what to do with those who followed the wrong religion in the afterlife and here on earth we should be tolerant to other’s religions.
I think what he obviously meant, and perhaps did not phrase it well, was that it is not OUR job, here on earth, to decide who has the “wrong” religion, it is instead our job to be tolerant to our fellow man. After all it was a live convo, so one could forgive some him if everything was not well phrased. But Olberman went balistic saying Gibson should step down from all media, because Gibson claims his own religion is the right ones and all others are wrong. I thought Olberman was okay before this, perhaps a little anti right, but still pretty funny, but after this I think the guy is a loon.
Sojourner
Obermann caught Gibson in an obvious lie. How odd that you side with the liar rather than the media guy who did his job. Although that does appear to be SOP for the Repubs these days.
Gibson is making money off of bigotry, and then refuses to take responsibility for what he said. Congrats to Obermann for having the guts to challenge him on it.
Jorge
SCS –
I’ll take your word for the O’Reilly/Kerry thing. I do know that O’Reilly had the doctor and a few of the Swift Vets on his show and seemed to be very nice to them. Either way, I’ve never been impressed by O’Reilly’s ability to debate people of substance who are also good debaters. I thought Donahue made him look bad and Wes Clark gets the better of him every time they talk. O’Reilly never seems to have a back-up strategy if his opponents don’t cower or if they manage to deflect his holier-than-thou yelling. As far as O’Reilly saying he was undecided… Well, I really didn’t believe him then the same way I don’t believe him when he claims he is an independent. But that is really just a personal opinion and one that I’m sure is colored by my dislike for him and his style and my interpretation of his politics. Though I must admit that I don’t know of many if any Democrats who like him and many, many Republicans who do.
The Gibson/Obelrman thing has been fun to watch. I listened to Gibson’s statement and the intent of his statement seemed to me to be that God would judge those who don’t practice Christianity. I did not get the sense at all that he was leaving it open as to which religion was the right one or which religion was the wrong one. Heck, the very concept of “right religion” and an afterlife judgment by a God is pretty much a Christian/Muslim viewpoint. It would be like someone on Al Jazeera fighting against a “War on Ramadan” saying, “God will give 70 virgins only to those who died for the right religion.” The content and context give away the meaning of the statement.
Either way, that statement might seem kind of hard to swallow by many but is very much in keeping with a Catholic or Evangelical belief. I do think that Olberman is making a mountain out of a molehill. Gibson was expressing his personal religious view and was not calling for it to be used to judge people on earth. Olberman might not like the implication made by Gibson that those that aren’t Christians ill be sent to hell by God but it is hard to read the teachings of the bible and not come to that conclusion.
Sojourner
Gibson was challenged because he denied having made the statement. Which he did.
scs
Maybe it because the left cries “lies” to practically everything they can to smear people.
I heard the clip myself and did not think that Gibson was trying to make some big deal about what the “right” religion was. If anything, he seemed to be just responding to the woman who was making that case, and like I said perhaps did not phrase himself well. Either way, as Jorge says, thinking your religion is the “right” one is just part of religion, especially to some hard-core Evangelicals who, as I understand it, do think non-believers will go to hell. I don’t get what the heck Olberman is going on about- if that what Gibson thinks, it is still a free country and he is allowed to say it, and shouldn’t have to “step down from all media” for it. Where is the ACLU defending Gibson?
scs
I just happened by accident to hear this on TV last night so I didn’t hear what happened before or how Gibson denied it. But from what I heard, he did not specifically say that his religion was the right one, only that god will judge those who believed in the wrong religion. I suppose that could technically include himself, if he picked the wrong god, and Allah didn’t look too favorably on him.
Jorge
SCS –
Well, if the government went after Gibson chances are the ACLU would step in. They’ve defended some pretty vile people from both sides of the political spectrum. Heck, they filed a friend of the court motion in defense of Rush Limbaugh for the whole RX drug thing.
Sojourner
HELLO!!!! He said it. I heard it. It’s on the tape. Then he denied having said it. Are you that brain washed that you can’t even hear anymore?
Sojourner
Defend him from what? He made a comment, then denied having made it. Why would the ACLU defend a liar?
Now if somebody tried to prevent Gibson from exerting his first amendment right to speak, that would be another matter. But that’s not what Obermann is doing. He’s got Gibson by the short hairs because Gibson denied making the statement. Too bad for Gibson it’s on tape.
scs
That is true. They do lay it on the line sometimes. And by the way Soj, from what I heard Olberman say last night, he didn’t say that Gibson should step down because he thinks Gibson lied, he said he thought Gibson should step down because Gibson thinks other religions are wrong. Now that is just silly.
scs
Well if Olberman thinks Gibson should “step down from all media” which I think is pretty much exactly what he said, that is, in effect, silencing the guy for his own opinion.
Sojourner
I agree with him. Anyone in the media who has been caught in such a visible lie should step down. Unlike you, I do believe those in the media should follow a code of conduct. Lying should not be tolerated.
scs
I wish we had some transcipts here. I didn’t hear how or what Gibson said about the controversy. However, Gibson never said his religion was the right one. Come to think about it, what exactly was Olberman upset about? We need transcipts to judge. Too lazy to look for them now though. Come on Soj, post them for us.
Sojourner
Do your own homework.
Gibson denied having used the phrase “wrong religion,” which of course he did. That’s a lie. End of story.
scs
See Sojourner, this is why the non-left has lost all faith in the left. The Left loves to cry “liar” without even getting the facts, to smear. This “holier than thou” act in the pursuit of character assasination is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
Here is what Gibson actually said/wrote on a radio show (transcipt from MSNBC).
This is what Olberman said Gibson said:
With this “have to answer for following the wrong religion, they’re not going to have to me” Gibson obviously meant only that god can judge the “right” religion, not John Gibson. Now how did Olberman get out of that Gibson said “his” religion was the right one.
This is Gibson’s denial:
Which brings me to this by Sojourner
Where did Gibson deny using the words “wrong religion”? He said Olberman repeated a misquote, that Gibson said “all religions but his are mistaken”, which Gibson didn’t say, so it was a misquote.
Sojourner, I really think you should apologize for your lies, but I know you will try to wriggle out of it somehow and cya, like the far left always does.
Sojourner
You are so full of shit. Notice the words “wrong religion” and “we know who they’re going to have to answer to.” What, exactly, do you think that means?
Your second quote is not at all informative because it is a generic denial and does not include specific mention of what he’s denying or what he’s responding to. Notice that there is absolutely no explanation of what he meant to say – assuming he was misinterpreted in the first place.
Insufficient data, dear. Better try harder.
What lies might those be? This coming from someone who believes in intelligent design. Thanks for the laugh!!!
scs
Sojourner, once again, you are LYING YOUR ASS OFF! But I shouldn’t be surprised, because you are brainwashed by the far left, and that’s just what they do. Try to find any post I EVER wrote where I say I “believe in intelligent design”- I dare you. You won’t because I have said from DAY 1, that I don’t believe in intelligent design. However, I did think the theory was miusunderstood and that Behe has a good point about the difficulties of irreducible complexity, which if you look up anything on evolution, you will scientists admit they have difficulty with themselves.
Tsk Tsk Soj. You know I really don’t think you are so much a liar, but you may have trouble with reading comphrehension and meaning and just jump to conclusions. Slow down and read girl – it will help you in the end.
scs
There’s a little thing in a sentence called “meaning” or context, Soj. The question is not did Sojourner think John Gibson use the words “wrong” and “religion” in a sentence, the question is, as Olberman said, did Gibson say he thinks “all religions but his are mistaken”, AND GIBSON DID NOT SAY THAT! Can’t you read? Admit your mistake for God’s sake, and have at least some dignity left!
That was John Gibson’s denial. Now unless Gibson picked up the phone and provately called Olberman, that is the denial he issued, whether you think it is generic or not.
Sojourner
Hello! scs is on record as being a supporter of Behe. Are you or are you not the same scs? Behe is one of the key proponents of ID. It’s not a huge stretch to assume that anyone who is a Behe supporter is an IDer. If not, then exactly what are you supporting? Or is this yet another of your attempts to split hairs while claiming that you’re so brilliant.
Tsk, tsk, yourself, little girl.
scs
Once again, Soj, meaning comprehension, subtleness. That’s not “spiltting hairs” as you call it. Just because I support one or two elements of what Behe says, does not mean I “support the theory of intelligent design” or the whole theory. I don’t even believe in God, how can I support intelligent design? I do believe in some of what Behe says though, that evolution theory has far to go in nailing down all the mechanisms. And I don’t believe that it’s okay to misrepresent a theory, as I believe many did for ID, which is why I spoke up for it.
Sojourner
Whatever. You appear to want to argue for irreducible complexity based on design but now you’re claiming you don’t believe in a designer. If it doesn’t happen through natural means, the only alternative is to assume you believe in a supernatural influence. If not, I have no clue what you’re arguing for and I suspect that you don’t either.
You can’t have it both ways. But then Gibson can’t either but you seem to believe he can so… you’re free to believe whatever you want. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously.
scs
I never accepted that there were no possible natural means to accomplish what some call “design”, which in fact was a point of our previous debates, if I remember. If you continue to paint with a broad brush, you yourself will risk not being taken seriously. But we digress. The main point of all this is, Olberman has lost it.
scs
To sum up,
Gibson:
Olberman:
. Fair and balanced? You decide.
Sojourner
To sum up:
Gibson denied having said it. That’s a lie.
Lying may be okay with you. It’s not with me.
Fair and balanced? That’s not really what you care about, is it?
jack
Sohourner, if you’re right, if Gibson did issue a statement in which he said that he never said ‘wrong religion’, just post it. Prove scs wrong.
You act like you can do this. But I don’t think you can. I think your attitude that Gibson lied is based on nothing more than your own desire that he lied.
And as for those Swift Boat vets, they sure haven’t crawled under any rock that I can see. They still show up on talkradio, I think I even saw one of them on the news recently–but it was probably Fox, so that doesn’t count.
So come on. Prove scs wrong.
scs
Soj, I think you are as insane as Olberman!
Once again, this is what and how Gibson denied “Friday one of my former colleagues repeated a misquote to justify saying some truly disgusting things about me.”
This is Olberman said “He is one of those people who think all religions but his are mistaken. You know, the way a lot of these religious nut bag terrorists think”
Gibson spoke the TRUTH because Olberman MISQUOTED HIM! What don’t you get here?
Sojourner
If they were uttered? Where’s the if? There’s no if. He said them. They’re on tape.
Where’s the admission that he said them? Where’s the explanation as to what he meant, which would have included an acknowledgement that he said them Or does the fact that he doesn’t flat out say it is enough to keep it from being a lie. Maybe in your world and scs’s. But not mine. If you have children, I hope you raise them to a different standard than this one.
As to the swifties, I don’t see them anymore. And their attempts to continue further mischief have failed. That’s good enough for me.
Sojourner
What was the misquote? He said that people in the wrong religion would be held accountable by God. Which part is misquoted? And why didn’t Gibson clarify instead of making some chicken shit, half-assed denial? Why doesn’t he stand behind what he said? If he’s misquoted, why doesn’t he explain what he meant?
scs
That sentence Gibson said WAS taken out of context by Obie. Again, Obie “He (Gibson) is one of those people who think all religions but his are mistaken. You know, the way a lot of these religious nut bag terrorists think”. That a pretty wild ‘taking out of context’.
Actually I don’t get what you are driving at here. Again, the question is not “Did Gibson ever put the words “wrong” and “religion” in a sentence together”. The question is “Did Gibson ever say or even imply what Obie said he did?”, namely that Gibson thinks “all religions but his are mistaken”? Or even, “Did Gibson falsely deny that he said that he believed all religions but his were wrong?”. And the answers are – no and no.
I give up. I can’t explain it any more than that. Believe waht you want to believe.
scs
The misquote is this, Obie said Gibson said that Gibson thinks all religions but his are wrong. Gibson actually said, “but I would think if somebody is going to have to answer for following the wrong religion, they’re not going to have to to me.”
Those are two very different statements there. I think I would call it a misquote.
Sojourner
The context is critical to understanding what he said. Back up to what he was responding to:
So he comes back and talks about those from the wrong religion having to answer to God. If he doesn’t agree with Parshall’s clear position that there is only one right religion, why doesn’t he say so? Instead, he takes the discussion one step further – they will have to answer to God.
But once again, you duck the question. If Gibson did not mean to suggest that there is only one right religion, why doesn’t he come out and say it? Why doesn’t he admit that he said the words but the words didn’t convey what he meant to say?
Instead, we get some obscure denial that admits nothing and clarifies nothing. The reality is, he can’t back away from his statement because the only people who buy his book and his bullshit are the very people who, like Parshall, believe there is only one right religion.
He’s between a rock and a hard place, and Olberman called him on it. Nothing wrong with that.
Sojourner
And let’s also look at what he said next:
Tolerate the presence of other religions? Sorry but people who believe there are multiple paths to God would NEVER speak of tolerating the presence of other religions.
Sorry deary, but facts is facts.
scs
I think you are confusing two issues. You are right that Gibson may very well, in fact, probably DOES, think there is only one right religion – his. Probably 99.9% of all religious people do too, otherwide they would convert.
The question is, did Gibson say or even imply that, in THAT particular conversation that Obie alluded to? And I think by the context of the convo- no. So Gibson was misquoted in that convo. I personally think Gibson meant that it was up to God to judge who has the right religion, not to John Gibson. Now whether Gibson privately thinks his religion is the right one is his own personal business, and he shouldn’t have to come out and defend his general religious beliefs to point out he was misquoted (and basically misrepresented as intolerant), in a particular conversation.
Sojourner
It’s quite clear that Gibson was indicating his agreement with Parshall that there is a right religion and the others are wrong. Otherwise he would have disagreed then. It’s not as if Parshall wasn’t absolutely clear about her position. Or he could have done it subsequently. Lord knows he’s had every opportunity.
Of course he has the right to believe that. He has the right to publicly state that belief. But he doesn’t have the right to deny that he said it if he did. And that’s where Olbermann has him by the short hairs.
Nonsense. I know a number of people who believe there are multiple paths to God and they have picked the one that’s right for them. I will never understand why this is such a difficult concept for people.
scs
Just to add to that, I think it’s anybody’s business to think their religion is the right one. What may be other people’s business, however, is the exhibition or urging of religious intolerance. As Gibbie said directly after his statement:
So he obviously expressed public tolerance. For Obie to call for Gibbie to step down from all media just for possibly thinking that his own religion is the right one, and not because Gibbie urged any intolerance of religion, is insane. The fact that Obie did this on a primetime, somewhat news-based TV show, and not in some partisan blog or radio show, is even more insane! And in fact, I think Obie is the one who seriously should consider stepping down. I don’t think he’s all there recently. The stress of low ratings must be getting to him.
Sojourner
If he doesn’t want to discuss it, then he should shut the fuck up about it. He could have dodged in the conversation with Parshall – but he didn’t want to dodge because he wants to sell his book and his TV program. No way was he misquoted. Read the whole interview, not just the parts you think support your position.
Sojourner
Olbermann didn’t call him to step down for his beliefs. It’s because Gibson LIED. There still remains a portion of the American public, myself included, who expect journalists (including the pseudo ones at Fox) to tell the truth. If Gibson had been honest, Olbermann could have dogged him about religious intolerance if he felt like it. But that’s not why he suggested Gibson needed to go. Get your facts straight.
Sojourner
This is what Olbermann said:
scs
Yes but he didn’t actually SAY that, is the rub. Now you or others may infer that from the convo, personally I don’t, but if he didn’t SAY it, Obie can’t act like he definitely did.
scs
What I block quoted is a transcript of the radio show and I quoted the denial too. He never said it, it’s right there for you to read.
scs
Please. Quote me the statement where Gibson lied. I’d love to see it.
Sojourner
You quoted a few discrete pieces. A conversation cannot be understood by citing bits and pieces.
Here’s another you left out:
What do you suppose “in the meantime” refers to? It’s pretty obvious he means that until those belonging to the wrong religion die and are judged by God, we’ll tolerate their presence.
It really can’t get much clearer than that.
That’s it for me. You can believe what you want but the meaning is obvious if the whole transcript is read. Gibson said it, then tried to deny it with some unsuccessful handwaving. It’s really very simple: if he really didn’t mean it, why didn’t he come right out and say he didn’t mean it?
And, of course, the answer is very simple: It’s because he said it, he meant it, but he didn’t have the guts to stand behind what he said so he lied. And Olbermann rightfully nailed him for it.
Sojourner
Here you go, sweety.
Yes, he really did say it. And no it wasn’t taken out of context. If it were, why didn’t he simply explain the context? The answer: he can’t because it wasn’t taken out of context.
Bye bye
scs
Soj, another lie. You have to start reading. See above in this post to find your quote, quoted by me right away.
scs
HOW IS THAT A LIE WHEN IT IS TRUE? AGAIN…Olberman said that Gibson said “He is one of those people who think all religions but his are mistaken.” and then called Gibson a liar for denying it. Gibson did NOT ever actually say he ” think all religions but his are mistaken“. IF you want to infer that somehow, or Obie wants to infer that, or you want to infer Gibson thinks the moon is made out of green cheese from that, go ahead. But Gibson did not SAY that for God’s sake!
He said “somebody is going ..to answer for following the wrong religion, they’re not going to have to answer to me.” And for Obie to say Gibson actually said something he didn’t, or to even imply the two statements are equivalent. is a freaking LIE! Can’t you get that?
Geez. Soj, you do not argue ethically. I rebutted all of what you just said above. I tried to keep this going as an experiment to see if you would ever admit the facts, but you won’t. This is why blogging is really a waste of time for me.
Sojourner
LOL!!! You rebutted nothing. Read the damn transcript – the WHOLE THING. Jeesh. For somebody who claims to be so smart, you really seem to have a difficult time with that rather simple concept.
Yes, blogging is a waste of time for you. Just because you believe something is true doesn’t make it so.
I’m sorry you’re having such a difficult time with the facts. They can be so inconvenient for you.
The man holds up his end of a conversation where the topic is tolerance for those who believe the wrong religion. It’s there in black and white. The fact that you refuse to see it is a real problem for you.
Wtf do you think this means? Obviously they’re not going to answer to him. At least he doesn’t think he’s God. But he obviously thinks they need to answer for something. What is it that that he thinks they need to answer for? That they believe the wrong religion. Duh! I mean really, are you that blind?
Sojourner
True. You did quote it. You just didn’t understand what it meant. Parshall makes it very clear she believes there is only one right religion. Do you see anything in her response that suggests anything other than agreement with what Gibson said? At any point in the conversation did she express any disagreement with him? Isn’t that like a CLUE that Gibson is like AGREEING WITH HER?
Hello? Anyone home? Guess not.
scs
So Soj, Gibson really did “say it”. He did huh. He really said “it”. Gibson really said he “think(s) all religions but his are mistaken”. Yup, that’s what Gibson said alright. This quote “somebody is going ..to answer for following the wrong religion, they’re not going to have to answer to me.” is exactly the same, word for word! Wow!
You are either insane or a liar. Maybe both.
scs
Soj, this is what I posted about half way up the blog.
This is what you just said I left out a few posts above here (bold mine):
Yeah they sure are really different! I sure left a lot out!
Sorry to say it but – LIES! Will I get a correction or an apology for this lie? I doubt it. I can’t continue this if you won’t be honest.
scs
Okay just saw this. Soj, how can YOU understand it when you were wrong that I left it out and you probably didn’t even read it the first time? If you didn’t even read the first and most important post that started all this in this segment, you are not taking this seriously, you just want to slur. Obviously, you are not all home.
Sojourner
Nope. I do understand the English language and I do understand how conversations take place. One person says something and the other person responds. If the second person disagrees with the first person, they either say so or say nothing. They don’t elaborate on or respond positively to what the first person said.
If you could remove your blinders long enough to look at the flow of the conversation, you would see two things:
1. At no time does Gibson provide any indication that he disagrees with Parshall’s position that there is only one right religion. In fact, he acknowledges it by saying that it’s up to God to decide what to do with that person. Why would he say that God would have to make that decision if he didn’t think wrong religions exist? It would be a nonsensical statement.
2. At no time does Parshall disagree with anything that Gibson says. In fact, she uses words like “Right” which to most people indicates concurrence.
What do you think this quote means:
“somebody is going ..to answer for following the wrong religion, they’re not going to have to answer to me.”
I would never say that somebody is going to answer for following the wrong religion because I don’t believe there is a single right religion. So there’s nothing to answer for. The statement “somebody is going to answer for following the wrong religion” makes no sense if the person who says it doesn’t believe there is a wrong religion.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? What do YOU think he meant by that statement? Exactly what would that person be answering for?
Words have meaning, sweety. You can’t just make shit up because you choose to believe something.
Sojourner
I apologize for getting into an argument with you that you apparently are incapable of understanding.
Sojourner
Simple question: We’ve established that they have to answer to God, not to Gibson. But what do they have to answer for?
scs
And I apologize for posting this again:
——————————————————
Soj, this is what I posted about half way up the blog.
This is what you just said I left out a few posts above here (bold mine):
Yeah they sure are really different! I sure left a lot out!
Sorry to say it but – LIES! Will I get a correction or an apology for this lie? I doubt it. I can’t continue this if you won’t be honest.
—————————————————–
My prediction was right, as usual.
Sojourner
Answer the question:
What do they have to answer for?
Sojourner
When Parshall says “Right,” what is she agreeing with?
What do they have to answer for?
scs
For picking the wrong religion, whatever that may be. That is not him saying he KNOWS he picked the right religion or as Obie said, HE “think(s) all religions but his are mistaken.” He obviously meant by that that people will have to be judged by God, and not by him or other people on earth and then followed it up with a statement of tolerance. It is mostly a statement in response to Pardy to stress religious tolerance, not judgement.
Like I said, and like Gibson said, he may not have phrased it the right way, but I think his meaning is obvious, and for you all to twist words, like Obie did and turn that into “You know, the way a lot of these religious nut bag terrorists think” and compare Gibson to a terrorist for that, is really despicable. I repeat, Olberman should resign.
scs
You know, with the way Olberman has been acting lately, with these outrageous statements, I kind of wonder if he thinks he is going to get canned soon, and he’s just letting lose to get some revenge against the people who beat his ratings while he still can. I’ve heard he has very low ratings for a long time now. That is the only explanation I can think of.
Anyway, I’m tired of this subject. I have to go do other things now. Not much else to say anyway. Later.
Sojourner
Who falls into the group referred to as “them”? It obviously not include Gibson or Parshall. So who are “them”?
Sojourner
It certainly couldn’t be something as simple as he’s outraged that a fellow journalist would be caught in such a blatant lie. You know, there are people who are not willing to be spoon fed lie after lie like the stalwart Bush supporters are.
Modemi
I think Sojourner should type “Faster”….and scc should type “Harder” and the whole thing will be over before you know it…..and when Keith said step down…he meant fall down and he just tried to trip Gibson while Gibson was trying to get out of his own way.