What is Ratigans problem?

[walldude]

I know what it is. He's right. I keep reading about how "he was rude" 'we shouldn't stoop to their level" "unprofessional" "now we have our own O'Reilly". Gimme a fucking break. The difference between O'Reilly and Ratigan is Ratigan is right and O'Reilly is a narcissistic asshole who lies to win "debates" and if that doesn't work he cuts his opponents mic. Ratigan cut this guys mic because he was a racist prick who came on only to promote his racist agenda, he refused to answer questions because he knew he would look bad so Ratigan did the right thing. Tossed him out on his ass.

When are people going to get it? When are we going to stop bringing pillows to a gunfight? I could understand playing nice, if there was a chance we were wrong. But not only are the Republicans wrong about just about everything... they are DEAD FUCKING WRONG and they know it. That's why they have to lie through their fucking teeth and twist everything around. We have the truth on our side, facts, the truth, and righteousness. Ratigan seems to get this and he did what any free thinking progressive should, cut them off. They are wasting oxygen.

[Cirque du So-What]

1. I'm gonna have to break down and watch this guy

I usually avoid watching political punditry, preferring instead to get the Cliff's Notes version on DU and elsewhere. He comes so highly recommended, however, that I'm gonna have to end my self-imposed exile from Talking-Head TeeVeeLand and see for myself what everyone is raving about.

[upi402]

3. He's a force. here's a link:

I am inspired by him, and I'm never inspired. lol
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/

The segment about racists in the teabagger party.

[inna]

2. KR for Dylan

[RB TexLa]

4. What or who is "ratigans"

[upi402]

5. you little ol' possesive s nazi you...

:spray:

link to segment;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/

[Marr]

6. People who say things like, "don't stoop to their level" are suckers.

And pointing out hypocrisy is for losers.

Frankly, I would be completely supportive of Ratigan even if he *did* use the tactics of Bill O'Reilly. If he wanted to come on the air for an hour every day and advance pure lies and slanderous accusations about right-wing operatives, I would be fine with it. In the real world, you do what works. If your sense of decorum is more important to you than things like universal healthcare; if your ability to smile at yourself in the mirror is more important to you than a living wage, or unemployment... then you're just a comfortable dilettante, playing with political questions like they're coffee house philosophical discussions. They aren't. They matter.

To me, the only meaningful difference is what team the guy is on; whether he's shilling for wealthy interests, or attacking them. The right-wing understands that, and that's why they've been successful. People so often go around harping on about how hypocritical the right-wing is. It's not they can't see it-- it's that they do not care. They *always* fight, and they have the right idea.

[BlueIdaho]

7. So Ghandi and Martin Luther King were suckers?

interesting.

[Marr]

10. Oh, yes-- Ghandi was so polite and retiring.

:eyes:

Ghandi was all about confrontation. What's more, I believe he even said that meeting violence with violence was superior to just accepting it.

[BlueIdaho]

15. Actually he said...

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."

[Marr]

21. He also said that responding to violence with violence

was preferable to simply accepting it, and non-violent resistance was preferable to violence.

You seem to be suggesting that Ghandi was some kind of cartoonish saint, spouting fortune cookie wisdom and beaming with love and acceptance. I don't think that's true, and I seriously doubt he would've accomplished anything if he had been.

[BlueIdaho]

22. Not really

I don't see Ghandi as cartoonish at all - but you seem to be ignoring the fact that he changed the world by choosing his own path and rejected the notion that the best way to defeat his foes was by adopting their tactics.

Martin Luther King understood the power of Ghandi's movement, met violence with non-violence, and again changed the world.

Neither of these great men were saps, neither of them were door mats, and neither of them believed they could accomplish their goals by becoming what they opposed.

[Marr]

23. Neither of them were *violent*.

Both of them were extremely confrontational. You certainly do have to become like your enemy, in the sense that you must be willing to confront them. Applied to a rhetorical exchange, "not becoming the thing you oppose" might mean behaving like Paul Krugman in an exchange I once saw him have with Bill O'Reilly. He didn't resort to shouting or physically intimidating gestures, and he was shouted down and dominated because of it.

[bigmonkey]

29. It's Gandhi.

At least spell his name right.

[BlueIdaho]

30. Looks like my dyslexia got me again - my apologies. nt.

[BlueIdaho]

17. And then he said...

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always."

[BlueIdaho]

18. And then he said...

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

[la la]

8. i just recently began

watching Dylan Ratigan---and i like him---in the beginning---i wasn't so sure, but i like the calm, reasoned enunciation ( like an old time radio host) of his speaking, and he pretty much speaks the truth without varnishing.

[Atman]

9. Bullshit.

Ratigan never even gave the guy a chance to answer. I actually wanted to hear his response; you seem to think Ratigan's question demanded a simple "YES" or "NO" answer, and even if the guy was full of shit and trying to frame his answer, at least he should have been given the opportunity to do so...and then a good journalist or anchor or reporter or debater or whatever Ratigan is, could have/would have put him in his place and called him out on his prevarications and outright racism. Dylan should have given him the chance to demonstrate his overt racism to viewers who have never seen nor heard of the guy, but he didn't. When the guest didn't offer a simple "yes" or "no" Ratigan shut him down. You may think that was cool and a just response after years of O'Leilly, but it no way to moderate a reasonable, informed debate on a very real and serious issue.

.

[walldude]

16. A reasonable and informed debate with a racist teabagger?

Good luck with that one...

[Atman]

19. Ignore the obvious

ANY debate. ANY discussion. Ratigan invited the guy on his show, then refused to let him speak. Again, YOU might have known what he was all about, Dylan might have, but I and I'm sure many others didn't have a clue who he was. I would rather have had the opportunity to hear his bullshit straight from his own mouth instead of being told I shouldn't even be allowed to listen to him.

.

[anigbrowl]

24. Why invite him on to begin with?

Ratigan has generated sympathy for the guy among his own supporters, and the interview came off looking like a setup. Williams was on Anderson Cooper 6 months ago and Cooper showed him up as the racist asshole he is without raising his voice or cutting his mic. Yelling at a guest you invited onto your show isn't effective journalism.

[PatSeg]

27. Actually I wanted to hear the guy's response too

It is the best way to expose someone like him, though I can't understand why Ratigan had him on his show in the first place. I think he wanted a chance to do something dramatic and it just didn't work for me.

For the most part I like Dylan Ratigan, but the segment he did on his show last week with puppets and baby dolls was absolutely awful and he just kept going back to the silly props. Fortunately I think he realized it was really dumb and he seemed to be uncomfortable with it. Of course Jon Stewart made fun of it and his short clip didn't begin to do it justice.

[choie]

11. Amen, walldude

That's also why I love Mike Malloy - we already have enough people like Thom Hartmann. A good wallop of righteous anger and indignation has its place.

[tnlefty]

14. Love Malloy and Hartmann and while Thom is so patient with

the right wingers on his show and the right wing callers, that I actually wrote it down on the calendar when he went off on a wingnut, Jason, Dec. 3, 2009. Yes, a good wallop of righteous anger is a good thing and has it's place.

I cheered Thom that day. :hi:

[tkmorris]

12. Rachel Maddow would've destroyed that guy. Ratigan did not.

Was he right? Sure he was but that really isn't the point. He failed to DEMONSTRATE that he was right to anyone watching who hadn't already made up their mind. All he succeeded in doing was looking like an asshole, which is damned hard to do when you are doing a split screen with one of the biggest assholes on the planet.

[The Straight Story]

13. He was a jack ass who can't debate and like beck/etc want to control answers

He didn't want real answers, he wanted sound bytes. If I want to hear such tactics I would tune into the rw shows.

I don't care if he was right or not, it is his method that is annoying and distracting and melodramatic.

[Subdivisions]

20. Well, I'll be damned...

This is the first time ever I remember disagreeing with you on something.

Hope you're doing well, TSS! :hi:

[anigbrowl]

26. Agreed. Ratigan ended up doing the guy a favor.

Williams came off looking like the reasonable guy, even though he's anything but.

[democracy1st]

25. K & R

[DainBramaged]

28. When are we going to stop bringing pillows to a gunfight?

I've been asking that question (here) for years.