The W
Views: 100039297
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.07 1107
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - with Bill O'Reilly as Himself
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1869 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (37 total)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 1651/16309
EXP: 142828345
For next: 538562

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on 9.2.03 0527.18
Reposted on: 9.2.10 0527.34
Dragged over from Delphi (which means I'm about three days behind on this story...BUT! I haven't seen it here yet)

Transcript'll Report, You'll Decide:
http://www.nosheetsleft.com/misc/transcript.html

Video if you have bandwidth to burn:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Glick_56.wmv (1569K WMV)

NION reaction:
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id3119/pg1/

...and no end of blogs throwing in THEIR two cents. I'll let you find them on your own.

My conclusion: I must really dislike O'Reilly to go to all this trouble making these links available to you. ;-) I still have no problem with taking down Iraq, but how can a right thinking person (so to speak) casually dismiss such a powerful contrary opinion?

(edited by CRZ on 9.2.03 0327)
Promote this thread!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1445/3428
EXP: 13729096
For next: 230594

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 74 days
#2 Posted on 9.2.03 0835.56
Reposted on: 9.2.10 0840.40
What an ass. Typical Bill Oreilly. He ignores the countering opinion, and it sounds like he was really pissed off. Good to see someone go on there and stand up like this, but man does O'Reilly sound stupid here (as opposed to all those times he sounds rational...?).

After watching the video, man is he an ass. He is arrogant ignorant, oblivous to anything, and wants nothing to do with anything contradicting him.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 9.2.03 0940)
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 142/647
EXP: 1114195
For next: 42931

Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 136 days
Last activity: 30 days
#3 Posted on 9.2.03 0926.38
Reposted on: 9.2.10 0926.39
Just my opinion, of course, but having read the transcript and viewed the tape (thanks to the links provided by CRZ) I feel Fox News Bill OReilly has, in this instance, behaved reprehensibly, for which he should be held to task. His statements, in my opinion, far exceeded the normal bullshit one is expected to accept from the assorted talk show hosts and panelists (from both sides of the aisle) that are normally found on the various scream fests that masquerade as political talk shows. For example (cutting and pasting from the transcript):

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

Wow. First Mr. O'Reilly (who, I am presuming, did not know the deceased) tries to stifle the debate by advising Mr. Glick that he (Mr. Glick) is disrespecting the beliefs and going against the wishes of his dead father. While this is remarkable in and of itself, when Mr. Glick tries to educate Mr. O'Reilly as to his deceased father's political views, Mr. O'Reilly actually contradicts him!

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

Huh??? Mr. O'Reilly invited Mr. Glick to be on "The O'Reilly Factor" because Mr. Glick's father died in the attacks of 9/11 and Mr. Glick has expressed his opinion as being anti-war, but Mr. O'Reilly doesn't want to discuss world politics with him? What, then, did Mr. O'Reilly want to discuss with Mr. Glick? The weather?

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

WHAT?!? Mr. O'Reilly invited Mr. Glick to be a guest on his talk show, but Mr. O'Reilly doesn't care what Mr. Glick thinks? Then why in the world did Mr. O'Reilly invite him on the show? So that he could try to shit on Mr. Glick's memory of his father?

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

So Mr. O'Reilly does care what Mr. Glick thinks (after all, that's two "Why I care"'s to only one "I don't care").

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

I wonder just how full of himself someone has to be to tell the son of a man who died in the attacks of 9/11 that he cares more for the victims' families than an actual member of a victim's family does. Does Mr. O'Reilly have such an extreme case of megalomania that he truly believes that he is doing more for Mr. Glick and Mr. Glick's family than Mr. Glick is? And, if so, should we look upon Mr. O'Reilly's treatment of Mr. Glick as an example of what Mr. O'Reilly is doing for/to these families?

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

HOLY SHIT! Isn't "The O'Reilly Factor" Mr. O'Reilly's program? So how is Mr. Glick being a guest on the program a case of Mr. Glick exploting the families of the victims of the attacks of 9/11? Did Mr. Glick just invite himself onto Mr. O'Reilly's program, mic himself up and begin talking? Is it overstating the obvious to say that the only way Mr. Glick could be on Mr. O'Reilly's program is because Mr. O'Reilly invited him there? And, since Mr. O'Reilly says he doesn't care what Mr. Glick thinks and then tells Mr. Glick to keep his mouth shut, is it not fair to ask why Mr. O'Reilly would have Mr. Glick on his program, unless it was so that Mr. O'Reilly could exploit the tragedy of 9/11 for ratings/notoriety? As if that's not enough, I'm at a loss to express the illogic of how Mr. O'Reilly could accuse Mr. Glick of exploiting the families of the victims of 9/11, knowing that Mr. Glick's father died in the 9/11 attacks. Is Mr. O'Reilly claiming that Mr. Glick is exploiting himself? This is possibly even more incredible than Mr. O'Reilly's prior claim that he (Mr. O'Reilly) is doing more for Mr. Glick and Mr. Glick's family than Mr. Glick is.

I'm going to end my cutting and pasting from the transcript here. I just can't find words adequate enough to express my disgust at Mr. O'Reilly's further actions as he first informs Mr. Glick that he (Mr. O'Reilly) is more upset about the passing of Mr. Glick's father than Mr. Glick is, and then tastlessly brings Mr. Glick's mother into the debate, offering to speak for her in the same way he had previously attempted to speak for Mr. Glick's deceased father.

As I stated above, I view most political talk shows as nothing more than scream fests where so-called pundits throw out opinions that support whichever view point they are supposed to be backing, regardless of whether there is any truth behind it, or even if the "pundit" himself actually believes what is being said (that is to say, I view them in the same light that I view wrestling promos). Therefore, I expect a certain amount of bullshit to be thrown around on these programs. However, Mr. O'Reilly's treatment of Mr. Glick, in my mind, goes well beyond the pale, and rightly deserves to be met with a vehement expression of disapproval. Not being a regular viewer of Mr. O'Reilly's program I don't know if his actions here are an aberration or if this is how he normally conducts his program. In either case, his actions in my opinion merit total condemnation.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 471/1528
EXP: 4085526
For next: 105622

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2832 days
Last activity: 2674 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 9.2.03 1348.59
Reposted on: 9.2.10 1351.02
Not In Our Name is a "powerful, contrary opinion"? Because Ed Asner is signed on?

Now, I agree that O'Reilly is a blowhard, but you can't simply dismiss what he is saying simply because he is one. The ad in question DID equate the US with terrorist nations, and if the man finds that offensive, well, I do too. You can oppose this war without accusing the US of terrorism. There is a fundamental difference, in my eyes, between killing people because you have to, in order to get your enemy, and killing people because they are not Muslim.

The crux of NION's argument is, it seems to me, "war kills innocent people, so we shouldn't engage in it." I can sympathize with the desire not to kill innocent people, but prove to me that it isn't necessary. I am sure innocent people died in WWII as well, but I don't think anyone will oppose that war. War is a horrible, dirty business, and I hope we only engage in it when necessary. However, NION does not speak to necessity. They simply issue a blanket opposition to war which, in the light of historical fact, is just plain stupid. Evil people exist. Sometimes they need to be stopped by force. This is a fact, proven by centuries of human experience. NION isn't opposing this war because they don't think it's a good use of force; they oppose the use of force on principle.

A quick look at events page reveals this upcoming shindig:

February 09, 2003
From: 1:00 PM
Los Angeles, CA: Not in Our Name Art Party
At the Rock City News office, 7030 De Longpre Ave. Help make drums, paint banners and signs, cut bamboo tribal sound sticks, and make sure you eat lots of that great BBQ that's sizzling on the grill all afternoon. Refreshments and plenty of great fun all
day. Remember, the big parade/rally Feb. 15th is only one week away!


They are cutting "tribal sound sticks." So, banging sticks is supposed to convince me war is bad? Some women getting naked is supposed to convince me war is bad? Banging drums and acting like tribesmen is supposed to convince me war is bad? This is the proverbial "razzle dazzle," if I may insert a pop culture reference. It is style over substance, and appealing to emotion over reason. And this is why I find NION to be at least as ridiculous as Bill O'Reilly... no matter what Ed Asner thinks.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1041/3029
EXP: 11260978
For next: 210467

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 14 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 9.2.03 1436.48
Reposted on: 9.2.10 1439.14
It doesn't matter what O'Reilly thinks on the matter, or who's opinion is "right". He invited the man on the show and then screamed at him and kicked him off when he stated his case, presumably for no other reason than to make O'Reilly look like a hard-ass to his viewers.

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 9.2.03 1537)
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 6/449
EXP: 647346
For next: 12823

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 547 days
Last activity: 414 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 9.2.03 1445.06
Reposted on: 9.2.10 1446.11
Tied in with my last response in the protestors thread. Another case of someone taking one example out of many (the most marginalized and the one that best supports their argument) and making a case out of it. I believe it's called the straw man argument.

NION are organizing many events that don't involve tribal sticks. It'd be like me saying I found some pro-war group somewhere organizing a tractor pull and thus all pro-war groups are rednecks and southerners. Stereotypical and patently untrue

Below is a list of all the people signed on to NION (from their web page). I would say there are some decently big names there.:

James Abourezk
Michael Albert
Mike Alewitz, LaBOR aRT & MuRAL
Project
Aris Anagnos
Laurie Anderson
Edward Asner, actor
Russell Banks, writer
Rosalyn Baxandall, historian
Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange
Jessica Blank, actor/playwright
William Blum, author
Theresa & Blase Bonpane, Office of the Americas
Fr. Bob Bossie, SCJ
Leslie Cagan
Kisha Imani Cameron, producer
Henry Chalfant, author/filmmaker
Bell Chevigny, writer
Paul Chevigny, professor of law, NYU
Noam Chomsky
Ramsey Clark
David Cole, professor of law,
Georgetown University
Robbie Conal
Stephanie Coontz, historian, Evergreen State College
Kia Corthron, playwright
Kimberly Crenshaw, professor of law,
Columbia and UCLA
Culture Clash
Kevin Danaher, Global Exchange
Barbara Dane
Ossie Davis
Mos Def
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, professor,
California State University, Hayward
Bill Dyson, state representative, Connecticut
Steve Earle, singer/songwriter
Eve Ensler
Leo Estrada, UCLA professor, Urban Planning
Laura Flanders, radio host and journalist
Elizabeth Frank
Richard Foreman
Terry Gilliam, film director
Charles Glass, journalist
Jeremy Matthew Glick, editor of Another World Is Possible
Danny Glover
Leon Golub, artist
Juan Gmez Quiones, historian, UCLA
Jessica Hagedorn
Sondra Hale, professor, anthropology
and women's studies, UCLA
Suheir Hammad,
writer Nathalie Handal, poet and playwright
Christine B. Harrington, Director of the
Institute for Law & Society, New York University
David Harvey, distinguished professor
of anthropology, CUNY Graduate Center
Tom Hayden
Edward S. Herman, Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania
Susannah Heschel, professor,
Dartmouth College
Fred Hirsch, vice president, Plumbers
and Fitters Local 393 bell hooks
Rakaa Iriscience, hip hop artist
Abdeen Jabara, attorney, past
president, American Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee
Fredric Jameson, chair, literature
program, Duke University
Harold B. Jamison, major (ret.), USAF
Erik Jensen, actor/playwright
Chalmers Johnson, author of
Blowback
Casey Kasem
Robin D.G. Kelly
Martin Luther King III, president,
Southern Christian Leadership
Conference
Barbara Kingsolver
Arthur Kinoy, board co-chair, Center for
Constitutional Rights
Sally Kirkland
C. Clark Kissinger, Refuse & Resist!
Yuri Kochiyama, activist
Annisette & Thomas Koppel,
singers/composers
David Korten, author
Barbara Kruger
Tony Kushner
James Lafferty, executive director,
National Lawyers Guild/L.A.
Ray Laforest, Haiti Support Network
Jesse Lemisch, professor of history
emeritus, John Jay College of Justice, CUNY
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, TIKKUN magazine
Barbara Lubin, Middle East Childrens
Alliance
Staughton Lynd
Dave Marsh
Anuradha Mittal, co-director, Institute for
Food and Development Policy/Food First
Malaquias Montoya, visual artist
Tom Morello
Robert Nichols, writer
Kate Noonan
Rev. E. Randall Osburn, exec. v.p.,
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Ozomatli
Grace Paley
Michael Parenti
Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter
Jerry Quickley, poet
Margaret Randall
Michael Ratner, president, Center for
Constitutional Rights
Adrienne Rich
David Riker, filmmaker
Boots Riley, hip hop artist, The Coup
Matthew Rothschild
Edward Said
Susan Sarandon
Saskia Sassen, professor, University of Chicago
Jonathan Schell, author and fellow of the Nation Institute
Carolee Schneeman, artist
Ralph Schoenman & Mya Shone, Council on Human Needs
Mark Selden, historian Alex Shoumatoff
John J. Simon, writer, editor
Michael Steven Smith, National Lawyers
Guild/NY
Norman Solomon, syndicated columnist and author
Scott Spenser
Nancy Spero, artist
Starhawk
Bob Stein, publisher
Gloria Steinem
Oliver Stone
Peter Syben, major, US Army, retired
Marcia Tucker, founding director emerita,
New Museum of Contemporary Art, NY
Gore Vidal
Anton Vodvarka, Lt., FDNY (ret.)
Kurt Vonnegut
Alice Walker
Rebecca Walker
Naomi Wallace, playwright
Immanuel Wallerstein, sociologist, Yale University
Rev. George Webber, president emeritus,
NY Theological Seminary
Leonard Weinglass,
attorney Haskell Wexler
John Edgar Wideman
Saul Williams, spoken word artist
S. Brian Willson , activist/writer
Jeffrey Wright, actor
Howard Zinn, historian
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1447/3428
EXP: 13729096
For next: 230594

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 74 days
#7 Posted on 9.2.03 1711.20
Reposted on: 9.2.10 1712.01

    The ad in question DID equate the US with terrorist nations, and if the man finds that offensive, well, I do too.


Stop the press!! People are offended by an opinion! Someone needs to shut those opinion having fools up because they are obviously wrong! It is my belief that people only take offense to something they can't refute. People know this is an opinion with solid backing, and because they can't explain why it is wrong they throw tantrums on nation television.

There are three reactions to opinions: counter it because you know you're wrong, ignore it because it does not merit a response, and get angry because it's right and there is nothing you can do about it.


    There is a fundamental difference, in my eyes, between killing people because you have to, in order to get your enemy, and killing people because they are not Muslim.


And you think this country's religion is what started all this? You think it had nothing to do with the attitude of your government? Let me tell you something. You may want to jump at the chance to give your government the benefit of the doubt, but they are not innocent. I promise you they do things all across the world to provoke the things that have happened to our country. Someone (Bin Ladin, Hussein, etc.) doesn't just wake up every single day and say "Hey, let's go pick on America." You will never hear from your government exactly what they do to bring it on, because they rely on suckers to believe their "we are innocent, people are using us because of our international prominance to send a message" propoganda.

And also in response to this statement: America is their enemy just as they are Americs's. Just because some can't see objectively through their red, white and blue tinted windows doesn't mean they are wrong or, more importantly, that we are justified in killing them.


    The crux of NION's argument is, it seems to me, "war kills innocent people, so we shouldn't engage in it." I can sympathize with the desire not to kill innocent people, but prove to me that it isn't necessary. I am sure innocent people died in WWII as well, but I don't think anyone will oppose that war. War is a horrible, dirty business, and I hope we only engage in it when necessary. However, NION does not speak to necessity. They simply issue a blanket opposition to war which, in the light of historical fact, is just plain stupid. Evil people exist. Sometimes they need to be stopped by force. This is a fact, proven by centuries of human experience. NION isn't opposing this war because they don't think it's a good use of force; they oppose the use of force on principle.


In the 1930's and 1940's, America tried in every way to be left out of the issue that became WWII. They didn't take a side (at least not on the battle front; poltically you could tell who they were with), and only fought when Japan drew them in. They were never the aggressor.

Obviously that approach will not work here, because unlike the Europe conflicts, this one directly deals with America. However, that doesn't mean we should WANT to go to war. Honestly, does anyone NOT think that Bush is salivating at the opportunity to slaughter Iraq, regardless of what is found there?

And it's really easy to say innocent people are expendable when it's not someone you know. "Eh, shit happens" may seem like an acceptable attitude when it's the Iraqi's being killed, but how would you feel if it were turned and they were dropping bombs in YOUR neighborhood trying to find the man they hate so much, you president? Would it be OK then?


    It is style over substance, and appealing to emotion over reason.


How ironic...

(edited by TheBucsFan on 9.2.03 1812)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 475/1528
EXP: 4085526
For next: 105622

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2832 days
Last activity: 2674 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 9.2.03 2045.06
Reposted on: 9.2.10 2045.22
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Stop the press!! People are offended by an opinion! Someone needs to shut those opinion having fools up because they are obviously wrong! It is my belief that people only take offense to something they can't refute. People know this is an opinion with solid backing, and because they can't explain why it is wrong they throw tantrums on nation television.


I agree with you that O'Reilly was acting the fool, but he was not "silencing" this "opinion-having fool." He had the man on his show. If anything, it has bolstered the anti-war cause among sympathetic individuals like yourself. Glick has every right to his opinion; doesn't O'Reilly have every right to his, especially on his own TV show?


    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    There are three reactions to opinions: counter it because you know you're wrong, ignore it because it does not merit a response, and get angry because it's right and there is nothing you can do about it.



Which category does your response fall into?


    Originally Posted by TheBucsFan
    And you think this country's religion is what started all this? You think it had nothing to do with the attitude of your government? Let me tell you something. You may want to jump at the chance to give your government the benefit of the doubt, but they are not innocent. I promise you they do things all across the world to provoke the things that have happened to our country. Someone (Bin Ladin, Hussein, etc.) doesn't just wake up every single day and say "Hey, let's go pick on America." You will never hear from your government exactly what they do to bring it on, because they rely on suckers to believe their "we are innocent, people are using us because of our international prominance to send a message" propoganda.


Aren't you believing in a sort of reverse propaganda, then, by default? If we'll never hear how the US provoked some men to fly into the WTC, then how do you know we did? Also, we've heard from bin Laden's own lips that he wants us to convert to Islam

Do I think Islam is entirely evil? No. But this particular breed sure is, just as sure as Fred Phelps' form of Christianity is evil.

Furhtermore, blaming Islamic extremism on generic American evil is an unconvincing argument. As eminent liberal scholar MoeGates has pointed out, plenty of people have reason to hate us, but we've been pretty darn good to the Saudis and Egyptians, and even the Iraqis at times.


    Originally Posted by TheBucsFan
    Obviously that approach will not work here, because unlike the Europe conflicts, this one directly deals with America. However, that doesn't mean we should WANT to go to war. Honestly, does anyone NOT think that Bush is salivating at the opportunity to slaughter Iraq, regardless of what is found there?


I don't think so. I happen to like Bush. If you want to call him stupid, I'll listen. If you want to say his policy is shortsighted, I'll listen. But to actually accuse of him of thirsting for Iraqi blood requires a leap of faith I can't make. You seem to have an image of GWB and Dick Cheney sitting in the White House washing their hands in oil while drinking blood out of an Iraqi skull, and I just don't see it. As a counter-example, I detest Bill Clinton, but I don't honestly think that he relishes urinating on the Constitution. I just think he and I have some serious disagreements.


    Originally Posted by TheBucsFan
    And it's really easy to say innocent people are expendable when it's not someone you know. "Eh, shit happens" may seem like an acceptable attitude when it's the Iraqi's being killed, but how would you feel if it were turned and they were dropping bombs in YOUR neighborhood trying to find the man they hate so much, you president? Would it be OK then?


That isn't my attitude at all. My attitude is that I want to live, and I want the rest of us to live also. If we absolutely have to take innocent life to preserve our own, well, then we must. It is not we who forced this choice. And when you claim America is just as guilty as Iraq, I ask you to take a good look at both societies and tell me which you think is better, even if both are imperfect.


    Originally Posted by TheBucsFan
    How ironic...


You've demonstrated quite the grasp of irony here, Bucs.


    Originally Posted by messenoir
    (Vast list of liberal groups and individuals)


It's nice that a lot of left-wingers signed this paper, but for me, that's not an argument. I imagine we could get 500 conservatives to sign a petition in favor of the flat tax, but I don't expect that to persuade you. And, please, that's not a straw man. The anti-war protest in DC was arranged by ANSWER, a group with strong socialist ties. To call this a straw man argument is to fly in the face of the facts. And you think these people get the most media attention? Check out this search I ran on the Boston Globe webpage, using the phrase "anti-war." Note the glowing pieces describing civic and religious leaders. Note the absence of news on the connection to less-reputable fringe left groups.

Edit: My link to the results page did not work, so go here and search yourself if you'd like to.

(edited by PalpatineW on 9.2.03 2203)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 920/4700
EXP: 21588696
For next: 247966

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#9 Posted on 9.2.03 2047.46
Reposted on: 9.2.10 2048.15
You know, I knew there was a reason that I stopped watching O'Reilly a while ago. He got too self-righteous and this further proves the point.

Incidentally, NION just sounds like a bunch of left-wing Hollywood blowhards and college professors getting together and doing nothing constructive. Made me glad to see that Robert Duvall and other stars from "Gods and Generals" were at BWI Airport in Baltimore signing autographs for and thanking troops for serving their country as they were on their way to fight.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1448/3428
EXP: 13729096
For next: 230594

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 74 days
Last activity: 74 days
#10 Posted on 9.2.03 2136.09
Reposted on: 9.2.10 2136.30

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are three reactions to opinions: counter it because you know you're wrong, ignore it because it does not merit a response, and get angry because it's right and there is nothing you can do about it.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Which category does your response fall into?


I meant to say counter it because you know IT'S wrong, which is what I am trying to do. Sorry about that, as I type really fast when I get really into what I'm saying and often overlook stupid mistakes like that.


    If we'll never hear how the US provoked some men to fly into the WTC, then how do you know we did?


Common sense? I find it much harder to believe we are being attacked for our religion than because we did something(s) to make people angry.


    I don't think so. I happen to like Bush. If you want to call him stupid, I'll listen. If you want to say his policy is shortsighted, I'll listen. But to actually accuse of him of thirsting for Iraqi blood requires a leap of faith I can't make. You seem to have an image of GWB and Dick Cheney sitting in the White House washing their hands in oil while drinking blood out of an Iraqi skull, and I just don't see it. As a counter-example, I detest Bill Clinton, but I don't honestly think that he relishes urinating on the Constitution. I just think he and I have some serious disagreements.


I think Bush's desire to cement a legacy and/or promote his personal views push him more than his dislike for Iraq. And please don't get the misconception that I am arguing this simply because it's Bush. I think Bush is anxious to go to war here when some other people may not be, but there are things, mostly economical, that I do agree strongly with GWB on.


    That isn't my attitude at all. My attitude is that I want to live, and I want the rest of us to live also. If we absolutely have to take innocent life to preserve our own, well, then we must. It is not we who forced this choice. And when you claim America is just as guilty as Iraq, I ask you to take a good look at both societies and tell me which you think is better, even if both are imperfect.


"Better" to you is not "better" to them. Obviously you are going to think the lifestyle you live is "better" than that of others. Because they are different, their lives are less valuable?

Also, just like there are people who disagree with the current American administration on this issue, there are certain to be Iraqis who disagree with Sadaam Hussein. But they might be innocently killed under the blanket "inferior society" excuse.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 9.2.03 2238)
Llakor
Landjager
Level: 62

Posts: 92/930
EXP: 1940025
For next: 44672

Since: 2.1.02
From: Montreal, Quebec, CANADA

Since last post: 563 days
Last activity: 555 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 9.2.03 2138.12
Reposted on: 9.2.10 2141.31

    Originally posted by Grimis
    Incidentally, NION just sounds like a bunch of left-wing Hollywood blowhards and college professors getting together and doing nothing constructive. Made me glad to see that Robert Duvall and other stars from "Gods and Generals" were at BWI Airport in Baltimore signing autographs for and thanking troops for serving their country as they were on their way to fight.


So Hollywood celebrities who take political positions that you disagree with are "left-wing blowhards"
But those that agree with you are patriots acting constructively?

(pinkie to mouth)
RIGGHHHTT!!
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 7/449
EXP: 647346
For next: 12823

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 547 days
Last activity: 414 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on 9.2.03 2225.08
Reposted on: 9.2.10 2229.01
The main point of NION is to say Not In Our Name. It's to show the world America is not unified in the call for war, not by a long shot. And it's to provide strength to people who think they are alone in their views.

And you are using a strawman argument. That or just not bothering to do research. It doesn't matter (or it shouldn't except for people discrediting an entire movement because of one group) who organizes something, but who takes part.

I have major problems with ANSWER, as do more then a few people in the peace movement. Point of coalitions, people disagree and it'd be a sad world if people didn't. But people took the opportunity ANSWER provided and ran with it on their own.

In their article about the march you can read how the AFL/CIO, NION (who do include many non-socialist people) and quite a few other non-socialist groups participated.

In addition, Win Without War also includes a broad group of non-socialist organizations (including the National Council of Churches).

Again, I'm sure there are more then a few pro-war groups who simply hate Muslims or love killing people. Should I characterize the entire pro-war movement as this? No, because with a modicum of research I can find people and groups who support the war for intelligent, thought out reasons. So instead of an entire war discussion degrading into "Bush is a murderer" and "Liberals love Hussein and hate America" over and over and over as it tends to do, do some research and stop using trite phrases.

Anti-war supporters are more than communists and bored professors; pro-supporters are more than racist groups. Let's try to take the discussion to the more than plane.






(edited by messenoir on 9.2.03 2031)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 922/4700
EXP: 21588696
For next: 247966

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#13 Posted on 10.2.03 0616.25
Reposted on: 10.2.10 0618.38

    Originally posted by Llakor
    So Hollywood celebrities who take political positions that you disagree with are "left-wing blowhards"
    But those that agree with you are patriots acting constructively?

    (pinkie to mouth)
    RIGGHHHTT!!



Since I'm not on board with the war, no it doesn't quite work like that. I disagree with the "left-wing blowhards" because these folks tend to take positions on which they have no education about the issues and what they do "know" is some skewed view of reality(you know, the whole "America is a terrorist nation" shit).
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1036/2108
EXP: 6617263
For next: 33427

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#14 Posted on 10.2.03 0941.07
Reposted on: 10.2.10 0943.24
Common sense? I find it much harder to believe we are being attacked for our religion than because we did something(s) to make people angry.

Well, I think a combination of the two isn't out of sight. Is it about religion? Of course it is. Do I really have to go over the millions of people who have died solely because of their religion in the history of the world? And as I've pointed out many times before, the list of people that we've "made angry" has a hell of a lot of names on it before "Bin-Laden." And somehow they all managed not to kill thousands of innocent people. Amazing, I know.

Now, why did they choose to attack us instead of an equally non-Muslim country such as, say, Bolivia, or Nepal, or Botswana? Well, that's another question.

Back to O'Reilly, I don't understand how this guy is on a news channel. If he were on the WB, I wouldn't have a problem with the guy, but passing him off as anything related to "news," is just ridiculous. But I suppose the guy gets ratings.


(edited by MoeGates on 10.2.03 1046)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1043/3029
EXP: 11260978
For next: 210467

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 14 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 10.2.03 1002.25
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1003.49

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Back to O'Reilly, I don't understand how this guy is on a news channel. If he were on the WB, I wouldn't have a problem with the guy, but passing him off as anything related to "news," is just ridiculous.


He's on Fox News. That's a hell of a lot closer to the WB than a news channel.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 928/4700
EXP: 21588696
For next: 247966

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#16 Posted on 10.2.03 1030.18
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1033.53

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    He's on Fox News. That's a hell of a lot closer to the WB than a news channel.


I think the same thing about CNN most days...
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 1821/7534
EXP: 43750719
For next: 551043

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 481 days
Last activity: 481 days
#17 Posted on 10.2.03 1134.14
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1134.41

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Common sense? I find it much harder to believe we are being attacked for our religion than because we did something(s) to make people angry.

    Well, I think a combination of the two isn't out of sight. Is it about religion? Of course it is. Do I really have to go over the millions of people who have died solely because of their religion in the history of the world? And as I've pointed out many times before, the list of people that we've "made angry" has a hell of a lot of names on it before "Bin-Laden." And somehow they all managed not to kill thousands of innocent people. Amazing, I know.

    Now, why did they choose to attack us instead of an equally non-Muslim country such as, say, Bolivia, or Nepal, or Botswana? Well, that's another question.

    Back to O'Reilly, I don't understand how this guy is on a news channel. If he were on the WB, I wouldn't have a problem with the guy, but passing him off as anything related to "news," is just ridiculous. But I suppose the guy gets ratings.


    (edited by MoeGates on 10.2.03 1046)







Much as Phil Donahue is about news on MSNBC. Or, in the good old days of CNN, that Jesse Jackson was about the news when he had a show. O'Reilly is to sanctimonious for my tastes, but then again so are Donahue and Aaron Brown, which is why I avoid watching the three of them.
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 305/561
EXP: 891748
For next: 55576

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 84 days
Last activity: 84 days
#18 Posted on 10.2.03 1229.36
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1233.55

But don't forget, Bill agrees with you left wingers on some things. I saw him go on a rant about SUV's, the soccer moms who drive them, and how he's scared driving in his "little" Honda with all the SUV's on the road.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1039/2108
EXP: 6617263
For next: 33427

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#19 Posted on 10.2.03 1237.45
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1242.40
God knows I hate Phil Donahue also. I didn't mind him as a talk show host though. And remember, he's MSNBC, and you guys usually complain about CNN, which (at least in my opinion) is far and away the best news channel for actual news.

My problem is with this whole "celebrity newsman" concept, no matter of what political affiliation. Once you get in the business of selling personalities (Bill O'Reilly, and all the other wannabees on Fox News, Phil Donahue, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, whoever), or cute chicks (Maria Bartaromo, etc...), or whatever, you're no longer in the business of being good reporters. CNN is the only one of these news channels that still focuses on reporting, not selling personalities or ideologies. People tune in to Fox to see O'Reilly be an asshole. People tune in to CNN to see the news.
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me
Level: 63

Posts: 43/960
EXP: 2023620
For next: 73543

Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 44 days
Last activity: 44 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 10.2.03 1308.15
Reposted on: 10.2.10 1314.36
GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro-Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

OReilly should have never cut him off! This is how a majority of, as they say, Anti-American Leftist crowd hang themselves. No matter what they are arguing, it all goes back to Bush robbed Gore. In essence, they end up stepping on their dicks with a hindsight 20/20 argument that is LAME, at best. Bush (or the Republican party for that matter) NEVER attempted to neglect the Black vote, or any other vote for that matter. IT WAS SEVERAL DEMOCRATIC RUN COUNTIES WITH ANTIQUATED MACHINERY that caused the vote to go awry. Republicans, much less George W. / Jeb, had no control over it. Granted, when it got to the state legislature things got a little heavy handed, but by that time there had been 3 on the record counts and numerous unofficial tallysand to this day, NOT ONE can get Gore within a few hundred votesand thats not even counting the overseas Military ballots that Gore and his crowd did not want included(the Military, of course * always * votes Republican ; -) ). Maybe Gore should have worried about his own state, where his political legacy voted REPUBLICAN. (Clintons state too.!)so exactly where is this political coup these groups keep talkin bout?

GLICK: Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others.

Hey Hey LBJ! How many kids did you kill today? The Bush family (and the Republican party in general) hardly have the monopoly on war mongering.

I guess this is a sore spot for me. My father toured Vietnam three times and tells stories of the anti-war protesters spitting and cussing him for defending his country. He laughs about it now, because he likes to tell the story of the Buddhist Monks lighting themselves on fire to protest THATS dedication and commitment to an Anti-War cause! - not running around naked, smoking pot and crying the blues about how evil and terroristic America is. And if I have to make the choice between right and wrong, I usually look to the crowd that is willing to die for their cause. Lip Service can only get you so far, you know.

MoeGates : People tune in to Fox to see O'Reilly be an asshole.

And he rarely disappoints!

FLEA
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Is It Time to Bring the Troops Home
Next thread: Anti-War Protestors
Previous thread: Eenie meenie.... (you've gotta be kidding me)
(1869 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - with Bill O'Reilly as HimselfRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.254 seconds.