OlbermannWrongAgain

[vidlivs]

I can't wait to see the holiday tree on the 4th of July....oh yah, you won't because it's not a holiday tree you LIBERAL LOONS, IT'S A CHRISTMAS TREE!!!!!

[chaoszieg]

oh, and I love how you always claim Olbermann doesnt aknowledge his own mistakes, when in even my limited experience with him, I've seen him do it several times.

He can admit his errors,why cant you?

[marklross2]

i never said he does not acknowledge his own mistakes. i said he REVELS in and points out the mistakes of others when self admittedly he is just as flawed, get your facts straight before you take up bandwidth...

[chaoszieg]

you did too say that. I could waste my time proving it, but you'd deny it anyway, and I dont care that much

[marklross2]

if i did, i don't remember..i will admit that i have also seen Keith own up to a mistake on his show. so, i do not dispute that he does apologize for his own mistakes. it's just that coming from him, his apologies seem meaningless...

[mtklima]

I dont know what happened. I sent the first post and failed to appear. Then I sent this second one and then the two appear back to back. Please disregard either of them.

[marklross2]

I will grant that early on, Christianity practiced an intolerance for other religions. It did so in order to get going, and it was not the only religion that did this. Modern Christianity has evolved and teaches tolerance.

[mtklima]

LOL. You should have your own sitcom, man. Remember the Crusades? Remember the massacre of the Cathars? Remember the Inquisition? Christianity became 'tolerant' after it lost political power and had to adapt not to have absolute control. They had no option. If they could persecute, torture and massacre dissenters as they used to do in their heyday they would, but they just can't. It was not their choice. Secularism forced them to stop performing atrocities.

[marklross2]

The crusades? Oh yeah the first was a response to the Islamic invasion. I am not going to deny bad practices by people who professed to be Christian. To judge modern Christianity on its past is a tired an trite argument. All of human history is filled with the horrors of past human behaviors that we have all evolved beyond. To say that Christians would still engage in such barbarous behavior is your own WRONG opinion...

[mtklima]

Sorry, man, for a little while I confused you with somebody worth talking to. You can be sure it won't happen again. My apologies.

[marklross2]

Yes, sorry I disagree with you, so that disqualifies me in your mind as a valid human - sheesh what a sad world view...

[mtklima]

Not at all.

You disqualified yourself by not arguing with honesty.

But then again, what xtian does?

[marklross2]

What was dishonest?

[chaoszieg]

get someone riled up. Though that'd be a "war on religion" not a "war on Christmas" Athiest celebrate Christmas, so no reason to get rid of it. Good will towards man, the real meaning, is just fine.

[chaoszieg]

and two points, 1 as Olbermann himself has said, in this day and age by the time it gets to 8 O'clock pretty much everyone already knows the news of the day, and everyone already knows what that sign says by the time this episode aired, because it had already been quoted over and over and over again on the days before this episode of countdown aired.

Secondly, while I agree with what the sign says, they should have left at least the ending off. Does kinda sound like they're trying to..

[chaoszieg]

what does a display by athiests about religion have to do with Christmas? Oh right, nothing. Two different subjects

[marklross2]

Your statement just reveals how stupid you are,...

[chaoszieg]

wow, good one. Your abilities with words certainly prove how smart you are.

You don't have to be religious to celebrate Christmas, Athiests celebrate it too, see how stupid you are?

[Char99]

Anyways, Merry Christmas and God bless Jesus, Santa, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[marklross2]

Don't forget unicorns...

[Char99]

I'm from Washington state myself. And I have to ask you this question: Would you rather have both displayed removed from government property?

IMO, You should be happy they even allowed a nativity scene.

[mtklima]

A couple of points:

1. Paul Johnson is an ultra conservative catholic pseudo-historian who would not be out of place in the company of O'Reilly et al.

2. Christianity contains many elements of earlier pagan religions. Virgin birth, resurrections, etc etc.

3. The points made by Johnson are interesting and they may be true but they are utterly irrelevant to the fact that Christmas was derived from and imposed on the celebrations of previous cults -Mithraism, etc etc.

[marklross2]

1. Because Paul Johnson is conservative does not invalidate the historical facts he reports. Are you going to refute all of his thoroughly footnoted evidence?

2. Earlier religions contain many elements of even earlier religions Are they invalid for this reason?

3. Points Johnson makes are true and thoroughly documented. The fact that there was actually give and take in both directions between Christianity and Paganism is not irrelevant...

[mtklima]

1. No, but his 'history' is rather influenced by his conservative views.

2. Religions are human constructions and the existence of cross-pollination between them is -of course- to be expected. My point is that to talk about christianity and paganism as different and opposite things is incorrect, since xtianity is essentially a pagan religion too.

3. The point that the atheist makes is that Christmas took the place of earlier celebrations. This is true. The rest is fluff.

[marklross2]

1. How do you "influence" fact? He does not CHANGE history. Whether you agree with his interpretation of the facts does not determine the validity...

2. I do not recall describing the religions as "opposite." Thank you for acknowledging Paul Johnson's revelation of the historic fact that there was "cross pollination" between the two religions unlike the talking head in my vid who says that Christianity "stole" from Paganism. You are already making progress toward the truth...

[marklross2]

3. Right - rather than try to change or destroy already well established tradition, Christianity incorporated the celebrations into it's emerging traditions. Acceptance is a Christian philosophy; no wonder the early Christians were more likely to accept the established rituals of others rather than attack other people's deeply held beliefs like modern day atheists...

[marklross2]

Also be careful not to underestimate how many people voluntarily converted to Christianity, but kept many of the celebrations they already observed. In that way Christianity had nothing to do with "stealing" practices, the people simply brought the practices with them...

[chaoszieg]

Christians tried to destroy Christmas at first, they wanted to make it outlawed, it was only when they found they couldn't that they decided to "accept it" and they accepted it, by changing what it was all about. yeah, real accepting

[marklross2]

prove it...

[chaoszieg]

Ok, I'll prove it the exact same way you prove everything.

"I know I'm right..."

see, I dun proved it.

[marklross2]

I backed up my claims with citations from a historian,,,youare an idiot,,,

[chaoszieg]

oh really? need I go back through you past video's a cit the numerous times when proven wrong you simply reply with "I know I'm right." Or how about when I asked you about how you know Bush is smarter then 99.9% of the planet believes and you respond with... nothing. You have been asked for proof, and proven wrong in every video you've ever made, and you always respond with insults, or "I know I'm right" Sorry, insults only prove you're wrong

[mtklima]

You must be kidding. The reason Xtians were persecuted in ancient Rome was not because they introduced a new religion; it was because they denigrated the Roman gods. They were intolerant to other religions. Jesus (and particularly Paul) taught intolerance and dogmatism. The gospels and Paul's epistles are full of intolerance. Jesus himself invented the novel idea that people who don't follow him will suffer eternal torment. Judaism didnt have this concept.

[RoachRadio]

Good work on compiling your montage, however, cut Keith some slack about mxiing Jesus with MLK. He had to cut into the speech to light the Christmas tree! It happens, we're human.

[marklross2]

No -you miss the point. Keith never cuts anyone else slack about silly little mistakes.He's the kind of person who makes himself feel better about himself by accentuating everyone else's foibles, because deep inside, he knows what a dick he is...

[itazuketower]

I made a vid about this and libbs are fighting me like crap....

libb pinheads

[RedPandaBoy]

superstition

noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

2. a system or collection of such beliefs.

3. a custom or act based on such a belief.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.

5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

the opposite of a superstition is a fact, not faith.

[marklross2]

you can break out your elementary school dictionary all you want...what you fail to understand is that a person's faith IS based upon an intimate KNOWLEDGE of a real spiritual experience that imbues that person with a REASON to believe. It is not the believer's responsibility to convince the nonbeliever of the existence of God.

[marklross2]

Because the nonbelievers have HARDENED THEIR HEARTS to the possibility of the existence of something beyond their narrow HUMAN experience, they have ENSLAVED their minds to an existence within a limited realm of human experience that must be proved. For this reason they fear those who they perceive as existing on a higher plane of realization. Because they do not understand spirituality - they fear it - much like the homophobe harbors an irrational fear.

[marklross2]

Finally - their fear and misunderstanding foments the hate they express outwardly in displays like the one in the capitol building. As long as the atheists ENSLAVES THEIR MINDS to only the scientifically provable, they will continue to HARDEN THEIR HEARTS against the possibility of God...

[RedPandaBoy]

before you go any further with having a religion with knowledge.. facts are tangible, you can prove them A spiritual experience is not, it's base on perception.

But considering your respect to non believers, i say it's equal. How non believer perceive religious people is how religious people perceive none believers.

Unless your belief in what non believer believe.. is suppose to be some insult and not respecting their non belief in god.

[marklross2]

Perfect - you prove my point for me again, thank you. The real and tangible spiritual experience is provable to the one who experiences it. YOU define the spiritual experience as intangible and nonfactual only because, apparently, you have not experienced it. You cannot reduce the whole of human existenz to your limited sensations. My reality is not yours. We may share concurrence on certain basic facts. My belief is not an insult to the nonbeliever.

[marklross2]

If the FACT that I have perceived and experienced something that the nonbeliever has not is taken as an insult by the nonbeliever, I can't be held responsible for that misconception.

[RedPandaBoy]

tangible means being felt by anyone/everyone.. like a rock. If someone has a perosnal spiritual feeling, it's not tangible.

a fact is something that can be proven no matter what. what's tangible is what is shared in both of our reality.. I have my experiences, but i know they're not facts until i can prove them.

[marklross2]

If you can't acknowledge you very own experiences as valid and factual to yourself, until proven - I truly pity you...

"If someone has a perosnal spiritual feeling, it's not tangible."

Tell that to the person who TANGIBLY experienced it...

[RedPandaBoy]

because i experience something, doesn't mean it's valid to other people. It would be valid to 'myself' and 'only to myself'. If it's a fact to myself that i can't prove to other people, it's not really a fact. It's a perception because only i perceive it.

If i told you that I had an experience where Satan proved to me he's the true god and Christianity is a hijack religion, you would have every reason to doubt it.

[marklross2]

you're right - but if I could tell that it was sincerely a deeply held belief of yours, I would not ATTACK you for it...I might try to persuade you to reconsider your thought process, but attacking you does no good...

[RedPandaBoy]

I can't say that's true. Take Keith Olbermann for example (yeah, i didn't forget about him).

It seems he honestly believe a hand full of republicans are evil and have ruin this country to the point this isn't america anymore. But you dedicated a lot of videos attacking his belief of what he see as the facts.

[marklross2]

Although your comparison of religious beliefs to temporal ones is ridiculous on its face, I will pretend that the comparison is valid and address it. Keith's belief that repubs ruined this country does not shape his morality the way deeply held religious beliefs do. In addition,one would expect to be attacked when one's belief directly villanizes people. Essentially, you are trying to compare these two concepts:

[marklross2]

Christianity - respect one another

Keithyology - Republicans are evil

[PimpingWolfwood]

This sounds like, "The religious are superior," to me.

Not believing doesn't entail any of the weakness you describe. Nice try.

[marklross2]

If the religious can believe everything that is proven to them, like the nonbeliever, but also be able to experience something beyond the capability of the nonbeliever -well - that kind of speaks for itself - does it not? If you choose not to believe, and are confident you have made the right choice - why then the necessity to ATTACK those who do believe?

[RedPandaBoy]

because you can't chose to not have that belief pushed on to you from our society. For a complete understanding, imagine that many people chant there's no god and it's just a superstition.

And that's just Atheist... Jews, Muslims, and other smaller religions probably feel just as oppressed.

[PimpingWolfwood]

It's not okay to believe that, and be honest about your beliefs? What a repressed society you live in.

If the sign had said, "Christians are scum and their god is a monster for taking people's first born," then I'd understand an outcry. But live and let live.

[marklross2]

Again - you presume everyone should have the same perception as you. To many, equating their deeply held religious belief system to a superstition is insult enough. Why can't you exercise that progressive thought process of yours and UNDERSTAND the way they FEEL, and TOLERATE their feelings? You say live and let live, but is "attacking religion" letting live?

[PimpingWolfwood]

What does allowing Christian symbols like a Nativity scene in a government building say to Atheists? And why can't Atheists have like messages?

[marklross2]

They can. But the message they chose was not "like." Unlike the Christian message of Christmas: Peace - Goodwill toward all - the atheists message SELF ADMITTEDLY was an ATTACK ON RELIGI0N. What is so effing hard for you to understand about that? God - you are dense!

[RedPandaBoy]

having them both displayed respect both views. One acknowledging god and another denying him. So, what's the problem?

Are you trying to say it's okay to show people you believe in god, but it's not okay to show you don't believe in god?

[marklross2]

It's not ok to call someone's deeply held beliefs a superstition. If you pretend not to see the ridicule in that statement, you are deceiving only yourself...

[RedPandaBoy]

superstition

noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

2. a system or collection of such beliefs.

3. a custom or act based on such a belief.

4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.

5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

[PimpingWolfwood]

Point conceded, but with reservations -- we all know what Hannity was trying to say, and we all know it's bullshit.

[PimpingWolfwood]

And on your rant about Keith Olbermann's mistake... Do you mean that Olbermann dwells on tedious little mistakes like when Bill O'Reilly flat out lied about Malmedy? I mean, that's obviously less important than him misspeaking, right?

God, you're foolish.

[marklross2]

Oh - bring up ancient history...no - Im talking about the innumerable times Keith points out even the most mundane of slip ups or mis-speakings his political adversaries might make. Imagine - an IDIOT calling me foolish...

[PimpingWolfwood]

Citation, please. Surely you can find a link to this awful nitpicking in the monstrosity that is the internet, right?

Let's prove that you're not as foolish as you look, shall we?

[marklross2]

In Worst Persons Keith point out how Sean Hannity mis-spoke:

msnbcDOTmsnDOTcom/id/3036677/#­28041597

also see my other vid called Keith's Cunt

[PimpingWolfwood]

You're retarded. It's stupid to piss and moan over that sign, just like it's stupid to protest the ten commandments in a court. Neither has anything to do with the establishment of a religion until you remove one based on its dogma. That is when you establish (emphasis on that word) one faith as legally superior to the other mode of belief... And that's in violation of the constitution. The governor did the correct thing by allowing both displays.

[marklross2]

Except that the atheist display is a direct attack on religion...the guy said so...the message is inappropriate for the sentiment of the season. The message could have simply said "pagans and atheists wish you a happy winter solstice." But no - they had to make it a direct attack against religion because they, like Keith - ARE PETTY...

[PimpingWolfwood]

Atheism is itself contrary to religion. To express that, to say it plainly the way the sign did, is not itself an assault on faith, however it was intended. End message, though -- removing this basic, atheist belief would be in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Part of the glory of America is free thought. If someone expresses that they disagree with Christianity, that is their right, and as an American, learn to turn the other cheek rather than getting indignant.

[marklross2]

Self admittedly, it was an attack on religion. I did not say it should be removed, but emended.

[PimpingWolfwood]

Look at its content alone. It's a statement that is easily shrugged off if you disagree with it, without being offensive. Of course, people like yourself get defensive when others question the reality of God -- does it hurt your own personal faith? No? Then let it go.

[marklross2]

It is easily shrugged off if you hold no religious beliefs as deeply rooted ones. You obviously do not, and in a typical "progressive" manner assume everyone else should feel the same as you, but to some religious faith is meaningful and to call it superstition is insulting. It is not a matter of questioning the reality of God. It is a matter of expecting the COOMON courtesy of not having your deeply held beliefs mocked.

[marklross2]

Think of something you feel to be very important. Now pretend I tell you it is stupid. Get it?

[PimpingWolfwood]

Or rather, be told I'm wrong, you mean? Here's a play-by-play of my reaction;

-shrug-

(end scene)

Get it?

[PimpingWolfwood]

Uh, wrong. I'm a deeply religious individual -- I believe in a benevolent God... And yet this sign didn't offend me, because I know that someone else's opinions don't effect my own, and I don't expect to have the exclusive rights on preaching.

[marklross2]

fine - I believe that one should treat others as one would have others treat oneself...since the display is admittedly an "attack on religion," it seems as though the atheists are inviting the kind of reaction they are getting. Why couldn't their display have RESPECTED others beliefs and simply read:

Atheists wish you a happy winter solstice.

Instead of going the extra step to include an opinionated statement that any IDIOT could anticipate being perceived as condescending.

[marklross2]

If atheists are that STUPID - fine - you may continue to defend their rationale...

[PimpingWolfwood]

I'm not defending their rational, you dimwit. I'm defending the right of Atheists for that sign to read what it reads, uncensored by the government who allowed it to be placed there.

[marklross2]

Don't call me a dimwit. You're the idiot who just won't admit that it was STUPID for the atheists to place a message that was SELF ADMITTEDLY an ATTACK. What kind of response to an ATTACK so you think is correct?

[PimpingWolfwood]

Are you seriously incapable of reading what I just posted, moron? Look up and shut up. Jesus.

[marklross2]

I read it - it just smacks of such juvenile self denial that I can't begin to respond...

[PimpingWolfwood]

You're kind of a sad, hateful little guy, aren't you?

[marklross2]

no - I'm not...that atheist attack on religion was...

[PimpingWolfwood]

How is this any different than a sign with a christian proverb, fool? It's not. Every time a Christian quotes John, 3:16, they're doing the same thing this sign is. The only difference is that one is an atheist statement, which is out of the norm, and one is Christian, which is exceedingly common in America.

[marklross2]

You are the fool who apparently can't tell the difference between a message that offers peace and hope to all - and a message of HATE that SELF ADMITTEDLY ATTACKS the deeply held beliefs of others. Either you just don't want to admit you are wrong - or you have no real sense of reality...