savage Keith Olbermann

[GM John]

Wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tCOULQuWos

[FoxMcCloud]

Olbermann Kickin  some A!!! 

[Mack Ravensline]

Hmmmmmmm, it is good to see Kieth Olbermann showing his objectivity. Perhaps he should go back to sportscasting. Oh yeah, he was fired by ESPN. It is no wonder Bill O'Rielly regularly kicks his ASS in the ratings. Many are piling on the Republicans at this time. It is part of the cycle of politics. No big deal. I look forward to seeing what these vague plans the Dems have been eluding to are. This is irresponsible journalism to, with great venom, compare Bush to someone who criminally beat another congressman. I have lost even more respect for MSNBC for letting him ramble on. If I watched this two bit station, I would not anymore, but i have precious little respect for them anyway. Just my view. I know it will not be popular with many of the people who read this since many are Dems, being from North Jersey and NewYork, but an opposing view needed to be posted.

[GM John]

Thanks Mark, for the perfect example of what Olbermann was complaining about. You've said you wanted to have more discussions with me of this type, but if this is your form of debate I don't need it.

Ratings have nothing to do with the truth, Mark, or should I assume that now with Bush's approval ratings in the dumpster you no longer think he's right?  And I resent the implication that we'd disagree with you just because we're Dems, and the assumption that we're Dems just because we're in NY and NJ.  What about independents and other self-thinkers?  And shall I google Bill O'Reilly to see where he's been fired from so I can dismiss everything he says, even when he's right?  Hmm, seems he was replaced by Deborah Norville once.  Oh, and hey, didn't Mr Limbaugh have some misfortunes that would call his judgment into question?

This was not meant to be Journalism anyway, it was Olbermann's Commentary segment, and the conclusions he was presenting DESERVED the delivery they got.  One of the biggest faults I find today in the media (other than on Fox of course) is that even when some really awful facts are being presented, they're told is such a calm manner that it's as if it is all not really an issue.  And just what does Bill O'Reilly present, pure facts? No venom? One of the biggest lies on Television is his "No spin zone"  But hey, that's just my view, and since you're sure to disagree I don't have to give valid reasons, do I?

Comparing Bush to the constituents that in 1856 sent Preston Brooks new canes (and NOT as you said, to the criminal assaulter himself) was a metaphor in any event, and sure as hell no worse than anything Bush himself or other hatchet men have done, especially Rush Limbaugh.  And in my opinion it was a damn sight more valid.  In fact, most of the video was precisely about how egregiously this administration and those who support them have mischaracterised any and all dissenters, so it's ironic at best that you took offense at the metaphor and then went right ahead and dismissed the speaker and those of us who agree with him.

And if you're complaining about venom, remember it's your boys that have polarized the country to the extent it has become.  But I have to assume you don't accept that as fact or you surely wouldn't be throwing stones.

This commentary was not just cyclic dissatisfaction, this was a direct response to Bush and Co's behavior, dismissing people by (mis)labelling them and throwing in unrelated (and/or untrue) issues, exactly as you did. 

Olbermann gave example after example of his points in 10 minutes.  You, however, just said he was fired by a sports network, gets his ass whooped in the ratings, and that WE'd dismiss YOUR opinion because we're democrats.  Oh no, there's no valid points in his diatribe anywhere, everyone's just "piling on", he's "rambling", it's a "two-bit station" that you lave "precious little respect for" for them allowing this "irresponsible journalism".  But hey, that's just your view.  Yeah, so how about, oh I don't know, a relevant fact here and there to balance out the ones you're dismissing?

I'm sorry I didn't label it "Olbermann savages Bush" so you would know not to bother watching.  If you can't see the facts and the logic in THAT particular video, NONE whatsoever, if you can't admit to ONE damn bit of truth in  it, then it is my best guess that we have no common ground to even begin a discussion. Please please please DON'T feel compelled to check out anything I ever post again.  I give you full permission to assume you won't like it and ignore me.

I mean geez Mark, even I would admit Bush had moments of sense in today's press conference, despite most of it being so nervous and whiny that he seemed to be trying to outdo Will Forte's imitation of him on Saturday Night Live.  And I also admit he was in a no-win situation as far as when to announce Rumsfeld's resignation.  If he said it before yesterday he would have been accused of trying to influence the election, and in order to not reveal it he had to lie.  And guess what, there would have been no way to disprove the former, and the latter is now true.

Blind faith is for God, not for people.  To question and criticize the President, and indeed the entire govt on both sides IS COMPLETELY AMERICAN,  It's is also PATRIOTIC.  Only Bush and Co have ever said otherwise.  He's actually used the phrase "It's unacceptable to think..." when labelling an opposing view by none other than Colin Powell.

And could the Dems' plans be any more vague than your low expectations of them?  Hey guy, Repubs have had the President, both Houses, and the Supreme Court for that matter, for years, and HOW ARE THINGS RIGHT NOW? 

You know what, the Dems don't even need a plan, they just need to take what Bush is doing and DO ANYTHING ELSE.  Stay the course is the only plan proved to be failing.  Maybe they'll even listen to the military instead of blaming the failure on them.  I absolutely can't believe how people continue to parrot "Support our troops" while letting Bush and Rumsfeld get away with sending in just enough troops to lose, and saying we listen to the generals.  They're the goddamn Commander in Chief and Secy of Defense!  Who's in charge here?

And then to cut veterans benefits!  How is that supporting the troops?

Oh, and BTW, being fired by ESPN?  I can't find that, but I do note that he works for them now, so they must have reconsidered.  I do keep finding stories that O'Reilly is trying to get him fired though.

-----
"When even one American, who has done nothing wrong, is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril." - Harry S. Truman

[Sinkuu]

John, I love you.  that was BEAUTIFUL.  I'm linking this in a thread where my other friends post political.  don't be surprised if you see new comments.

[GM John]

Well, okay, I won't be surprised.  But honestly I wasn't really looking for comments as an end in itself.  There's no contest on who can generate the most or anything.  :-)  And as is obvious by now, I really don't like useless ad hominem invective, so the idea of more comments doesn't exactly fill me with glee.  But thoughtful analysis or commentary backed up by relevant points, even by an opposing view, are welcome.

I just wanted people here to consider what Olbermann was saying.  I hate double standards AND manipulation, and this idea that Kerry had to apologize to the TROOPS for a joke that everyone who heard it in context KNEW was a reference to Bush, not the troops--

-- when, OTOH, Bush had the nerve to make FUN out of not finding the weapons that were the excuse for war, well... it just pushed me over the top, so that I actually posted something here, (which frankly I hate to do.)  That kind of petty manipulative bullshit is not the mark of a Uniter.  Just claiming you are one doesn't make it so.

[Frigemall]

Thanks Mark, for the perfect example of what Olbermann was complaining about. You've said you wanted to have more discussions with me of this type, but if this is your form of debate I don't need it.

First of all, I have watched over and over during this political season, a major bias on the part of the networks of CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS. Most watchdog programs have shown overwhelming favoritism in the coverage of this election. Many journalists, instead of being objective have simply bashed everything that the president or the conservatives in this congress have done. When I see Kieth Olbermann piling on in this way it seriously struck a cord. He is attacking pure and simple, not just presenting facts or offering a commentary. I am very happy to debate issues and topics, but when someone is attacking with the amount of venom and distortion he used on this issue it makes me feel anger. It is ironic that it was on the topic it was on. While attacking himself, he talked about those who attack people with opposing views. It causes anger and gets responses like mine when we watch over ten minutes of someone being hypocritical.

Ratings have nothing to do with the truth, Mark, or should I assume that now with Bush's approval ratings in the dumpster you no longer think he's right?  And I resent the implication that we'd disagree with you just because we're Dems, and the assumption that we're Dems just because we're in NY and NJ.  What about independents and other self-thinkers?  And shall I google Bill O'Reilly to see where he's been fired from so I can dismiss everything he says, even when he's right?  Hmm, seems he was replaced by Deborah Norville once.  Oh, and hey, didn't Mr Limbaugh have some misfortunes that would call his judgment into question?

This was not meant to be Journalism anyway, it was Olbermann's Commentary segment, and the conclusions he was presenting DESERVED the delivery they got.  One of the biggest faults I find today in the media (other than on Fox of course) is that even when some really awful facts are being presented, they're told is such a calm manner that it's as if it is all not really an issue.  And just what does Bill O'Reilly present, pure facts? No venom? One of the biggest lies on Television is his "No spin zone"  But hey, that's just my view, and since you're sure to disagree I don't have to give valid reasons, do I?

I never attacked those who are Democrats in my post. I simply acknowledged that many would disagree with my angry statement responding to over 10 minutes of what to me seemed like hatred towards people I respect. I also was noting that I am sure that many of those reading this are probably Democrats since The Nothern part of the state and much of New York City are overwhelmingly Democratic, as many elections in our recent past have demonstrated. I have also noted while at conventions and such that most comments I hear regarding the president and Republicans in general have been, for the most part ranging from unfavorable to downright nasty. I let many go as I wish to roleplay and do not think it to be the time for a long political give and take, however I did notice the way the vocal majority sided. I certainly was not dismissing people simply because of their political views. I wrote it simply because I knew that by reacting angrily to something many obviously agree to I was opening myself up to major assault and was not disappointed.

Comparing Bush to the constituents that in 1856 sent Preston Brooks new canes (and NOT as you said, to the criminal assaulter himself) was a metaphor in any event, and sure as hell no worse than anything Bush himself or other hatchet men have done, especially Rush Limbaugh.  And in my opinion it was a damn sight more valid.  In fact, most of the video was precisely about how egregiously this administration and those who support them have mischaracterised any and all dissenters, so it's ironic at best that you took offense at the metaphor and then went right ahead and dismissed the speaker and those of us who agree with him.

And if you're complaining about venom, remember it's your boys that have polarized the country to the extent it has become.  But I have to assume you don't accept that as fact or you surely wouldn't be throwing stones.

Actually I think that it is both sides that have done the polarizing. When the retoric is examined objectively, there is plenty of blame on both sides. Many of what Keith Olbermann was detailing were all on one side, however if you were to show many of the clips of Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Gore, and many other Dems you would see far stronger attacks. At no time during my post did I attack you John. I attacked Keith Olbermann because I felt he was being highly hypocritical attacking those who attack, while he himself was distorting facts and conveniently leaving the party he obviously pulls for unaccountable. Had he attacked ALL in Washington who take small clips and twist people's language for political gain i would have wholeheartedly supported his view. He however turned it into a Bush bash. My response was to bash him back.

This commentary was not just cyclic dissatisfaction, this was a direct response to Bush and Co's behavior, dismissing people by (mis)labelling them and throwing in unrelated (and/or untrue) issues, exactly as you did. 

Olbermann gave example after example of his points in 10 minutes.  You, however, just said he was fired by a sports network, gets his ass whooped in the ratings, and that WE'd dismiss YOUR opinion because we're democrats.  Oh no, there's no valid points in his diatribe anywhere, everyone's just "piling on", he's "rambling", it's a "two-bit station" that you lave "precious little respect for" for them allowing this "irresponsible journalism".  But hey, that's just your view.  Yeah, so how about, oh I don't know, a relevant fact here and there to balance out the ones you're dismissing.

I'm sorry I didn't label it "Olbermann savages Bush" so you would know not to bother watching.  If you can't see the facts and the logic in THAT particular video, NONE whatsoever, if you can't admit to ONE damn bit of truth in  it, then it is my best guess that we have no common ground to even begin a discussion. Please please please DON'T feel compelled to check out anything I ever post again.  I give you full permission to assume you won't like it and ignore me.

I mean geez Mark, even I would admit Bush had moments of sense in today's press conference, despite most of it being so nervous and whiny that he seemed to be trying to outdo Will Forte's imitation of him on Saturday Night Live.  And I also admit he was in a no-win situation as far as when to announce Rumsfeld's resignation.  If he said it before yesterday he would have been accused of trying to influence the election, and in order to not reveal it he had to lie.  And guess what, there would have been no way to disprove the former, and the latter is now true.

Blind faith is for God, not for people.  To question and criticize the President, and indeed the entire govt on both sides IS COMPLETELY AMERICAN,  It's is also PATRIOTIC.  Only Bush and Co have ever said otherwise.  He's actually used the phrase "It's unacceptable to think..." when labelling an opposing view by none other than Colin Powell.

I have acknowledged on many occasions that there have been mistakes made by this administration. I am by no means a Bush appoligist. I have watched many debates on the issues and agree that mistakes have been made, and will never fall in lockstep with ANY administration. The problem is that if you listen to people like Kieth O. you not only get the impression that at the least he considers George Bush and his administration to be at the least, a bunch of bumbling fools, at best, a bunch of Evil Bastards. Neither of these is true. Have they made mistakes, YES, are the stupid or evil, NO. The problem with reporters like Keith Olbermann is that they pick apart the clips like what Rush Limbaugh said about Michael J. Fox, which if you hear the whole clip of what he said, like I have,and I am sure he has, and chose to ignore most of it,including the point of it, then make a point that it is an attack, is distortion. Rush was saying that he knew that Mr Fox has Parkinsons, but having seen him in other venues recently felt he was over exagerating his symptoms to gain sympathy for a cause, and therefore the candidate that supported it. It was a valid point, though maybe a bit harsh. As far as it being only Bush that has critisized or attacked those who disagree with him is rediculous. This was the very thing that made me so angry with Mr Olbermann. The Far Left and the Far Right have been bashing each other and shouting each other down for many years. The main difference is that as President George Bush has a bigger Bully pulpit. I seem to remember some very harsh attacks during the Clinton administration aimed at Republicans. I also remember some of the nasty remarks made by Gore supporters and Kerry supporters during their failed campaigns. The whole point that Bush is alone in these attacks is what caused me to lose respect for Keith Olbermann and MSNBC and rattle off a fairly nasty response to it, not that he was attacking George Bush.

And could the Dems' plans be any more vague than your low expectations of them?  Hey guy, Repubs have had the President, both Houses, and the Supreme Court for that matter, for years, and HOW ARE THINGS RIGHT NOW?  .

My expectations are low only because the leadership of both the House and Senate are made up primarily of Far Left leaning Congresspersons. I fear it will simply cause them to snipe back and forth getting little done. I do believe that some of the Democrats that were just elected are more centrist than those who are the leaders. Down the road if they gain any say, things may improve some, however I fear they will not, since they will not get reelected, since the biggest money in the Democratic base will not go to them and they will be abandoned the same way Joe Lieberman was.

You know what, the Dems don't even need a plan, they just need to take what Bush is doing and DO ANYTHING ELSE.  Stay the course is the only plan proved to be failing.  Maybe they'll even listen to the military instead of blaming the failure on them.  I absolutely can't believe how people continue to parrot "Support our troops" while letting Bush and Rumsfeld get away with sending in just enough troops to lose, and saying we listen to the generals.  They're the goddamn Commander in Chief and Secy of Defense!  Who's in charge here?

And then to cut veterans benefits!  How is that supporting the troops?

Oh, and BTW, being fired by ESPN?  I can't find that, but I do note that he works for them now, so they must have reconsidered.  I do keep finding stories that O'Reilly is trying to get him fired though.

Kieth Olbermann and ESPN had a huge "contract dispute" with ESPN and was "let go" about 8 years ago, the story was he was considered too opinionated against ESPN executives, often making on-air snipes at them, to be given the contract he had been demanding. He is back in a very limited aspect because Dan Patrick, who was one of his best friends while he was an anchorman on Sportscenter, has his own radio show, which he insisted have Kieth Olbermann as a regular paid guest. Dan Patrick is one of the bigger stars on ESPN and they agreed to Kieth Olbermann's limited role.
Bill O'Rielly has had a very public dispute with Kieth Olbermann because Mr Olbermann made some very disparaging remarks on his show against his rival Mr O'Rielly. After many such remarks, O'Rielly began to attack back.

Overall I did not at any time attack you John, or your opinion, when you post something from someone who himself is being hypocritical, I am going to make note of it. This time however after listening to over 10 minutes of an angry rant, was perhaps a bit harsh. The piece you posted was a commentary full of distortions, outright lies, and a very few valid points. I felt it was a poor piece of journalism, or even a commentary, because it tried to paint only Republicans and the Bush administration as being guilty of attacks, and illegal or immoral activities. It struck me because of it's Gall. In the future I will simply limit my comments to pulling apart the content instead of acting in haste and a full head of steam. I am glad however you brought this to my attention because it does confirm my reasons for having stopped watching MSNBC and CNN. Both claim to give the news objectively, however they do anything but, this commentary is simply one of the most apparent. My response was made after a great deal of frustration at some very biased coverage during this election season, and opinions like "You know what, the Dems don't even need a plan, they just need to take what Bush is doing and DO ANYTHING ELSE." I am sorry if you are appalled by what I wrote, however, I was quite appalled by what Mr Olbermann said as well.

[GM John]

First of all, I have watched over and over during this political season, a major bias on the part of the networks of CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and CBS. Most watchdog programs have shown overwhelming favoritism in the coverage of this election. Many journalists, instead of being objective have simply bashed everything that the president or the conservatives in this congress have done.

You don't seem to get that the "bias" label is very subjective.  And simply saying they're biased is not a fact.  Tell me, do you really believe Fox News is fair and balanced?

When I see Kieth Olbermann piling on in this way it seriously struck a cord. He is attacking pure and simple, not just presenting facts or offering a commentary. I am very happy to debate issues and topics, but when someone is attacking with the amount of venom and distortion he used on this issue it makes me feel anger.

And in what way should he have said all of that if it were all true?  You still haven't offered any counterpoints.  You even admit some of it is true, and frankly I don't think there's one thing he said that, if true, is forgiveable.

It is ironic that it was on the topic it was on. While attacking himself, he talked about those who attack people with opposing views. It causes anger and gets responses like mine when we watch over ten minutes of someone being hypocritical.

He was talking about people who try to SHUT DOWN opposing views by calling them, in many different ways, unpatriotic, (the new term for unamerican), and engaging in the politics of divisiveness and fear for their own gain.  So he couldn't be hypocritical if he wasn't doing exactly that.  And it needs to be said when that's being done.  You can call it an attack if you like, but if it's true, it's a well deserved one.  And please don't bother to write one more time that it isn't true if you're not going to give specifics and why.  That is not discussion.

I never attacked those who are Democrats in my post. I simply acknowledged that many would disagree with my angry statement responding to over 10 minutes of what to me seemed like hatred towards people I respect. I also was noting that I am sure that many of those reading this are probably Democrats (snip) I wrote it simply because I knew that by reacting angrily to something many obviously agree to I was opening myself up to major assault and was not disappointed.

And now you say I'm assaulting you, but deny in the same breath that you subtly dismissed my (or Dems in general) ability to judge what you say fairly. You're defining what attacks are for your side so I'll do so for my side, and I say I felt attacked.  I gave reasons for judging what you said as not germane to the issues brought up, but instead personal attacks on the speaker.  That is known as ad hominem, and it's a logical fallacy.

Actually I think that it is both sides that have done the polarizing. When the retoric is examined objectively, there is plenty of blame on both sides.

Just because it takes two to fight, it doesn't mean that one didn't start it, and in fact get all the benefit out of it.  And what on earth are people supposed to do when they're accused of aiding terrorists if not fight back?

Many of what Keith Olbermann was detailing were all on one side, however if you were to show many of the clips of Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Gore, and many other Dems you would see far stronger attacks.

And just what does that have to do with his points? This is a distraction.  I posted one person's comments, you responded to it, now you bring in other people's comments as worse than his as if it validates anything.   And frankly I maintain that when an attack is true it's a totally different issue than when it isn't, so unless you're going to address specifics, as he did, you're not playing on the same grounds.

Had he attacked ALL in Washington who take small clips and twist people's language for political gain i would have wholeheartedly supported his view. He however turned it into a Bush bash. My response was to bash him back.  The whole point that Bush is alone in these attacks is what caused me to lose respect for Keith Olbermann and MSNBC and rattle off a fairly nasty response to it, not that he was attacking George Bush. 

He was talking about painting opponents as unpatriotic, and he was RIGHT in that only Bush's side uses it.  Show me even one count of a Democrat asking someone "Why are you for the terrorists?" in any form.  The fact that other people in the world do bad things does not invalidate the point that the PRESIDENT's side is doing these specific ones, and if in his opinon, as is mine, they're doing the worst of it, it needs to be said.  Yes he did throw in a few examples of hypocrisy such as twisting Kerry's joke when Bush's own was worse and no accident, but they were all ALSO examples of the main point, and not to be confused with saying that nobody else is ever hypocritical in DC.

Kieth Olbermann and ESPN had a huge "contract dispute" with ESPN and was "let go" about 8 years ago, the story was he was considered too opinionated against ESPN executives, often making on-air snipes at them, to be given the contract he had been demanding. He is back in a very limited aspect because Dan Patrick, who was one of his best friends while he was an anchorman on Sportscenter, has his own radio show, which he insisted have Kieth Olbermann as a regular paid guest. Dan Patrick is one of the bigger stars on ESPN and they agreed to Kieth Olbermann's limited role.

Fine, WTF did that any of that have to do with his points?

Bill O'Rielly has had a very public dispute with Kieth Olbermann because Mr Olbermann made some very disparaging remarks on his show against his rival Mr O'Rielly. After many such remarks, O'Rielly began to attack back..

Fine, WTF did Bill's ratings have to do with Olbermann's points?

Overall I did not at any time attack you John, or your opinion, when you post something from someone who himself is being hypocritical, I am going to make note of it.

As I shall make note of your logical errors and unfair tactics when doing so.  If you have such valid points about the content, why not say them instead?  Simple labelling is not valid.

This time however after listening to over 10 minutes of an angry rant, was perhaps a bit harsh. The piece you posted was a commentary full of distortions, outright lies, and a very few valid points. I felt it was a poor piece of journalism, or even a commentary, because it tried to paint only Republicans and the Bush administration as being guilty of attacks, and illegal or immoral activities.

I've heard it many times, you're simply wrong.  At no point did he accuse anyone in Washington of being innocent.  I say again, he was being very specific about the kinds of attacks that were being made, and WHAT THEY WERE USED FOR.  And as a whole, only one side used that strategy.  And it's heinous and needed to be said, regardless of what anyone else does.  Do you hold Bill O and Rush or anyone on Fox (whom you never mention) to the same Fairness Doctine?  Do you make sure that anytime they accuse the Dems of something that NO Repub has EVER done anything of the kind?

In the future I will simply limit my comments to pulling apart the content instead of acting in haste and a full head of steam.

Yes.  That's the thing to do.

I am glad however you brought this to my attention because it does confirm my reasons for having stopped watching MSNBC and CNN. Both claim to give the news objectively, however they do anything but, this commentary is simply one of the most apparent.

See this is what I don't understand.  You complain Olbermann doesn't indict everyone who does anything remotely like what he's complaining about, yet you keep saying MSNBC and CNN and others are all biased, and never once mention Fox.  This is what makes me bristle, Mark.  You cry hypocrisy on others, and then you lay down an ethic and immediately break it yourself.

And on top of that, your opinion of those channels is another distraction from the topic.

My response was made after a great deal of frustration at some very biased coverage during this election season, and opinions like "You know what, the Dems don't even need a plan, they just need to take what Bush is doing and DO ANYTHING ELSE." I am sorry if you are appalled by what I wrote, however, I was quite appalled by what Mr Olbermann said as well.

I was appalled by the way you responded, and I've already covered why.  I can understand if you were upset at the time, but your response did nothing to get at the truth. You still haven't.  If you have anything specific to say about the content, that's the way to go.  True, it may not get either of us anywhere, but the method you chose was far worse than useless.

What Olbermann said should have EVERYONE FURIOUS.   EVERYONE! Either you should be outraged at the truth of it, or outraged at the lie, but the speaker is of little consequence, THE ISSUE is too important.  To talk about Olbermann's job history is ridiculous given the issue, and only obscures it. 

[SigmaCaine]

>>At no point did he accuse anyone in Washington of being innocent.

This is a very odd sentence.

[GM John]

Only that one? 

Is it unclear or just odd?  The point was Mark said that Olbermann's piece

> tried to paint only Republicans and the Bush administration as being guilty of attacks, and illegal or immoral activities.

and my sentence was trying to say in its own tortured way that the piece never said Democrats were angels, he simply didn't address them.  As they do not use the strategy he was talking about, there was in fact no reason to.

[SigmaCaine]

Generally "accuse" has a negative tone. "Innocence" has a positive one. So it was like saying being innocent is a bad thing... 

Don't mind me. Just reading, interested.

[Horace]

While I tend to try to avoid deep political discussions, Some things just make me answer.

And then to cut veterans benefits!  How is that supporting the troops?

Would someone please explain to me, if there have been any cuts (there havent) How come every time I go to the VA, they want to give me more? I get that from every vet I speak to that gets any kind of benefits.
As in most cases of dems claiming "cuts" (no, John, I'm not assuming you personally are a dem, its just where the "cuts" claim originates) this is a case of the rate of growth being reduced from the "baseline budget increase" to what inflation and the change in need for the programs requires the budget to be. Same half truth/deception was used in the "school lunch cuts" claims some might remember from '94. The programs all got more money in each subsequent year. (I got "honors" = an "A" on a paper I wrote for a college class on that    )

I consider myself one of the Independants you mentioned, John.
I'm trying to enjoy the growing economy and at the same time I'm wishing the gov't would actually do something about things such as illegal immigration.

While I will gladly read anyones answer to my question, but since I dont associate with DE for politics, I will not be drawn in to any political debates. We will just have to agree on the things we agree on, and agree to disagree on the things we dont.

Brian

[GM John]

Generally "accuse" has a negative tone. "Innocence" has a positive one. So it was like saying being innocent is a bad thing... 

Just my ironic way of speaking.  Since what Olbermann was doing was accusing, I was just keeping it consistent. 

[GM John]

While I will gladly read anyones answer to my question, but since I dont associate with DE for politics, I will not be drawn in to any political debates. We will just have to agree on the things we agree on, and agree to disagree on the things we dont.

With all due respect Brian, just what do you think you're doing, if not jumping into a political debate with both feet?

As to your question, I've never heard anyone oppose this point before.  Even John Tinney, a veteran very much for the war at the time (have no idea how he feels now), confirmed that Bush was trying to cut benefits last time I brought this up years ago, so I've never had reason to look it up till now.  And here's just a few links that a simple search brought up, I'll include an excerpt only from the first, but feel free to google "cut veterans benefits" and check out all you like:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=613

Summer 2003 Issue:  Finding Courage
 
Veterans Benefits Cut
by David Smith
 
The U.S. House of Representatives approved billions of dollars in cuts to veterans’ programs over the next 10 years—on the same day it unani-mously passed a resolution of “unequivocal support” for the nation’s troops overseas. Proposed by President Bush as part of his 2004 budget plan, the reductions—estimated at $28 billion—would erode health-care benefits already stretched by other budget shortfalls, raise costs, and decrease veterans’ access to medical care.

Voicing the dismay of representatives opposed to the measure, who narrowly lost the 215-212 vote in the Republican-controlled House, Rep. Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA) said, “These cuts to veterans’ programs are indefensible. We are at war and our current troops will be our future veterans and this funding is inadequate, it’s wrong, and it’s an insult.”

http://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topstories/story/4629906p-4297561c.html

http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/congressional_budgets/fy2004/vetscuts_may2103.pdf
(Yes, this one is by the Democrats, but if the Republicans are doing it, who's going to tell you about it?)

The only source I found that opposed the idea was
http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html
which states that the budget went up for veterans benefits.  It doesn't however address whether Bush TRIED to reduce it, which is repeatedly claimed in all the other articles, if I read them right.  It just records what went through Congress, regardless of Bush's intent.  But this is talking about the FUNDING, not the actual benefits.

The second half of the page points out why, nevertheless, it IS in essence a cut.  If costs AND demand are rising, and you don't pay what's necessary to keep the benefits at their current level per veteran, then they go down.  Even if more people are getting them, each is getting less on average. Is this how the vets are being rewarded? Check out the link for details.

He may not be at fault for the cost of medicine rising, but whose wars are creating all the new veterans with missing limbs, PTSS, and other combat related health issues?  And of course there's also the death benefits.

I'm glad that your personal experience is that more benefits are being thrown at you.  Having truly no idea what your classification or situation is, I cant explain it.  Maybe New Jersey's Senators are particularly good at steering things your way? Maybe your hospital has "use it or lose it" provisions?  But I have certainly heard nothing like it from anyone else.

I'll also point out that this particular issue was just an afterthought to the point of the thread, and for someone who doesn't want to get drawn in, why jump on a minor point?

[Horace]

Without trying to cut and paste a bunch of quotes, (its 2am) I think everyone is smart enough to attatch the following responses where they belong.

1, I'm ignoring the rest of the debate and asking a simple question.
2a, The "cuts" are in the proposed rate of growth for the programs. They take the amount that the VA would get according to the baseline, and subtract what has been proposed that they get, and calling the difference a cut. According to the OMB and the VA (I no longer have the links, but will look for them again if you wish) the VA is getting more money in each subsequent year. Just not as much as the built in "baseline" would have increased it.
Consider it like this, You make $7/hour. You are supposed to get +$2/hour each year (thats the baseline increase). But because business was bad this year, he cant afford $2/hr and gives you $1/hr. You are still getting more money, just not as much as the baseline indicated. Applying the same logic as is being applied to the VA budget, your wages were cut by $1/hr, even though you're making more.
2b, whether or not the proposed increases will keep up with need is a different story. But remember, the budget is done every year. And the proposals change with every one.
3, Again, why do my benefits keep going up? (I repeat this because I think it shows at least a small bit of support for my position.)
4, "Jump in" because I keep hearing people talk about these cuts that leave more money after than before.
5, The democrats have the majority beginning next Jan. Lets see what they do about the VA budget, (I'm expecting the same stagnation as experienced in the first two years of the last admin.) as well as all the other issues they ran on.

Humorous (IMHO) note.
I remember shortly after Bush was sworn in to his first term, people were very surprised that he actually started pushing for the things he ran on (such as the tax cut). People were so used to politicians (from both sides) forgetting their promises upon hearing the final vote tallies, that there were many people who seemed (again IMHO) very surprised to see Bush actually attempting to keep his campaign promises.

Brian