STUDY: Bill O’Reilly Uses Derogatory Names ‘More Than Once Every Seven Seconds’
STUDY: Bill O’Reilly Uses Derogatory Names ‘More Than Once Every Seven Seconds’
A new study by Indiana University media researchers finds that Fox News host Bill O’Reilly calls “a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.”
The study documented six months worth, or 115 episodes, of O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” editorials “using propaganda analysis techniques made popular after World War I.” Researchers found that O’Reilly “was prone to inject fear into his commentaries and quick to resort to name-calling. He also frequently assigned roles or attributes — such as ‘villians’ or downright ‘evil’ — to people and groups.
Some findings from the study:
– Fear was used in more than half (52.4 percent) of the commentaries, and O’Reilly almost never offered a resolution to the threat. For example, in a commentary on “left-wing” media unfairly criticizing Attorney Gen. Alberto Gonzales for his role in the Abu Ghraib scandal, O’Reilly considered this an example of America “slowly losing freedom and core values,” and added, “So what can be done? Unfortunately, not much.”
– The researchers identified 22 groups of people that O’Reilly referenced in his commentaries, and while all 22 were described by O’Reilly as bad at some point, the people and groups most frequently labeled bad were the political left — Americans as a group and the media (except those media considered by O’Reilly to be on the right).
– Left-leaning media (21.6 percent) made up the largest portion of bad people/groups, and media without a clear political leaning was the second largest (12.2 percent). When it came to evil people and groups, illegal aliens (26.8 percent) and terrorists (21.4 percent) were the largest groups.
The techniques used by Indiana University researchers to study O’Reilly were also “used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini.” The researchers note, “O’Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin.”
UPDATE: O’Reilly, 2/27/06: “I don’t do personal attacks here.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Ha ha ha.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmNo surprise here.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmfinger pointers never turn that finger around on themselves, thus the need to continually finger point
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pmRepublicans don*t believe in science, so why should they accept this analysis? Besides, Republicans know that only those 70% of Americans suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome can engage in name calling.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pmOh man, I can't wait to see what the T-Warrior makes of this.
One thing's for sure, he can't blame it on MediaMatters this time.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 pmCongratulations, Bill, you've excelled at something.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 pmo'reilly=nasty temper
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 pmBut--but--the BLOGS. Vituperation Toxicity!
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:45 pmBLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Bill O'Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the "No Spin Zone," but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.
Like this site or any site is any different to the opposite political group?
I bet in 2 pages on any political site we can see all of those propoganda tools being used.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:47 pmLess nuanced than the Hitler/Mussolini supporter? Nice work, he's really earning that big dough he gets frothing for Fox Noise.
When does overachieving move into fanatacism because I think he's way over the line.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:47 pmHow is Olbemann's worst person in the world segmant any different?
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 pmGreat research. I can't stand to watch him call judges "pinheads", etc. as if he isn't one himself.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 pmWOW
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 pmThose people really had an eye on him.
Impressed
It's the position of these people that those who oppose what the government does - must be "with the terrorists" "hate america" should be shut up, deported or even executed for treason...
But, in reality, those who oppose freedom, like O'Reilly and his goons on fox, etc...are the ones who hate what America is all about - the liberties in the Bill of Rights...
An interesting read on this:
The America-Haters Strike Again
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/the_america_haters_strike_again
Tundra,
I'll call your bluff. Link us a couple aites where this happens.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pmA couple of sites I mean
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pmHow is this different from Olbermann? Because Olbermann doesn't pretend to be unbiased. Jackass.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pmHow is Olbemann’s worst person in the world segmant any different?
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
If you can't see it, it's too hard to explain. Perhaps you should just not watch Olbermann like I don't watch O'Reilly. Or is this just your talking point?
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pmDifference is this is thinkprogress. The title already shows that this is a blog dedicated to progressives. It's not think news. News networks need not opine on situations and slant their stories, no matter how politically one-sided their base is.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm#10. KO has been pointing out the very substance of this thread for awhile now so asking the difference isn't a well thought out question. But your'e mad and the truth does hurt.
Thanks Indiana. I still hate the Colts but this is too good.
Go ahead all you haters, start your bashing. I'll just point to this research.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:57 pmHow is Olbemann’s worst person in the world segmant any different? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
1) It doesn't happen every seven seconds.
2) It focuses on the specific actions of a specific person.
3) It's generally very accurate (if perhaps exaggerated that they are the *worst* person) - as opposed O'Reilly not really being able to distinguish his opinion from *reality*.
I could go on...
John, are you really this uninformed about the non-factual nature of O'Reilly? Sad...
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:57 pmIndiana U. is now officially an evil whacky far-left institution. It's definitely going on Bill's list.
Right on up there with ...bears! Oh wait, that's Colbert.
Right on up there with 5,000 other far-left papers/people/institutions/magazines/media/blogs that are "out to get" O'Reilly.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:58 pmWell, most of the cable news channels violate journalism 101 when they editorialize the news. It's that truthiness thing.
Take a news item and add a half-truth then offer an opinion. Repeat as often as necessary. Where fairness & balance is required, find the most off-balance and unfair advocate for the opposing viewpoint. Or slander and insult a genuine opponent until they walk out and then call them cowards and defenders of the indefensible.
If only every guest on O'Reilly were armed with a handgun, this wouldn't happen. The liberal progs could rush the guy and take him down.. But their wusses who actually believe in reasoned discourse and logical argumentation. Fut! Get out of here, you liberal losers. Come back when you're packing heat! Am I right, Mark Steyn?
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pmI bet in 2 pages on any political site we can see all of those propoganda tools being used.
Comment by Tundra — May 2, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
I see that you are an equivalencer. This is common strategy employed by intellectual cowards to avoid facing the truth.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pmLike this site or any site is any different to the opposite political group? Comment by Tundra — May 2, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
So you admit *fox* - a supposed *news* channel is a propaganda group?
I bet in 2 pages on any political site we can see all of those propoganda tools being used. Comment by Tundra — May 2, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Would you see derogatory names every 7 seconds (or equivalent in words)? Remember, you can't count we responders - so your words don't count! We'd be the *guests*...
Think carefully! Take a dump if you need to son!
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pmDo people really have to wonder how come repukians think that they do?
B.O. is a shining example of their thought processes, they all have very sick minds and personalities.
Take for example - Patti 1" - Valiant Douchebag - Jake - very, very sick people, they of course worship that scum bag B.O.
Hating the Repukian Mafia daily
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pmoh this is funny, the pot calling the kettle black.
how many times has thinkprogress.org used fear of the right wing news, of the right wing blogers, of the right wing politicians, etc, etc, etc.
ridiculous.....and Indiana University used a 77 year old method to study current media? wow....
yes thinkprogress.org, next thing you are going to hear from O'Reilly is anti-Jew messages. Talk about using fear to get people to agree with them,, right thinkprogress.org?
that is like Olberman last night going through the worst person of the world, he attacked Beck for using nazi analogies, I was cracking up since the left is the master of calling everyone on the right nazis.
The left is master of using fear tactics to get people to agree with them.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pmSo what? As a liberal I value the 1st amendment.
Will we see a study about how many derogatory terms Mike Malloy uses on any given night?
If you don't want to hear what Shill O'Lielly is saying, stop listening.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:04 pmcDifference is this is thinkprogress. The title already shows that this is a blog dedicated to progressives. It’s not think news. News networks need not opine on situations and slant their stories, no matter how politically one-sided their base is.
Comment by x2x — May 2, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Hello!!!! O'Reilly says it constantly, that he is not a news anchor man, but rather someone that gives opinions on the news. He opines! on the days news!
thus, he is no different than thinkprogress.org. and O'Reilly, which most far leftist deny, is a libeterian more than a Republican.
regardless, he opines, as he says about the news, he doesn't report the news.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 pm"Difficult ti㎚es call for drastic ㎚easures," said Alphabet spokesman Henry Higginsweet at yesterday's press conference. "We prefer to view this cha㎚ge to The Alphabet's product li㎚e as a㎚ opportu㎚ity rather tha㎚ a crisis. This ㎚ew letter will allow users of Lati㎚-based character sets arou㎚d the world to ㎚ore efficie㎚tly co㎚㎚u㎚icate."
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 pmCaption:
Make sure you get my good side!
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:09 pmSo you admit *fox* - a supposed *news* channel is a propaganda group?
I bet in 2 pages on any political site we can see all of those propoganda tools being used. Comment by Tundra — May 2, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Would you see derogatory names every 7 seconds (or equivalent in words)? Remember, you can’t count we responders - so your words don’t count! We’d be the *guests*…
Think carefully! Take a dump if you need to son!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 2, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Using derogatory terms doesn't make anyone be a propaganda machine, as you are implying. Would you then concid, using your logic, that Olberman and sites like thinkprogress.org are such propaganda tools for the left since they constantly use derogatory terms when speaking about Republicans, conservatives and the right?
careful son, think hard, go take a dump if you must and then come back and answer little one.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pmThink carefully! Take a dump if you need to son!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 2, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
I think he is the "dump".
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pmI remember the good ol' days when some people actually took Bill O. seriously. What a bunch of frickin' morons!!
He makes for good comedy, SNL skits, and Colbert fodder. Thank you Bill for your continued support of comedians and their never ending thirst for new material. Comedians everywhere owe you a massive debt of gratitude.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pmHow is Olbemann’s worst person in the world segmant any different?
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
To add to the multitude of reasons already expressed:
1. Because O'Reilly loudly and publicly proclaims his show a "No Spin Zoneâ„¢" and then spins like a weed whacker.
2. Because O'Reilly loudly and publicly and repeatedly claims that he "doesn't do personal attacks" then does personal attacks as a matter of course.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm"he is no different than thinkprogress.org."
does that mean this web site has sexually harrassed its coworkers?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 pmI bet if they did the same to TP it would be every second.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 pmregardless, he opines, as he says about the news, he doesn’t report the news.
Comment by valianttheflatulence — May 2, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
He's also a registered independent (like many a troll here), a Peabody receipient, and has single handedly destroyed the French economy.
That, and he's get serious sexual issues with falafels and vibrators
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pmI get ALL my news from FOX and the O'Reilly Factor. What you don't? Lefties, all of you! You deserve to die. Hannity is God, O'Reilly is Jesus.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pmSo what? As a liberal I value the 1st amendment.
Comment by Beelzebud — May 2, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Funny, you don't sound like a liberal. By the way, this isn't a 1st amendment issue.
Why do so few Americans understand the 1st amendment and the nature of free speech?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:14 pmSo what? As a liberal I value the 1st amendment.
Will we see a study about how many derogatory terms Mike Malloy uses on any given night?
If you don’t want to hear what Shill O’Lielly is saying, stop listening.
Comment by Beelzebud — May 2, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Hmmm.... you don't sound like a liberal. I mean, your adopted stance of tolerance and "live and let live" is a liberal trait, but your odd choice of equivalencies (O'Reilly = Mike Malloy?) sounds weird and almost trollish. And your willingness to dismiss the damage that misinformation does to those that actually DO choose to listen, and who believe the crap that they're fed, is alarming.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:15 pmregardless, he opines, as he says about the news, he doesn’t report the news.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Difference is advertising dollars pay his salary. One day O'Reilly and Beck are going to "opine" themselves out of a job, just like Imus did.
And since I am a proponent of free speech, I'm free to speak my mind to the advertisers supporting him, don't you agree?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:15 pmValiant the Hater... what do you mean by left?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:16 pmvaliantthehater,
"Using derogatory terms doesn’t make anyone be a propaganda machine, as you are implying. Would you then concid, using your logic, that Olberman and sites like thinkprogress.org are such propaganda tools for the left since they constantly use derogatory terms when speaking about Republicans, conservatives and the right?"
Maybe you could post some examples of this happening in the way which is outlined this blog post. And I'm not talking about the comments left on the blog. The blog post itself. Because, respectfully, I think you're wrong.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:16 pmJust remember children of the left,
Bill O'Reilly kills any and all programs on CNN and MSNBC, reason why the left hates him so much. Because he destroys everyone in ratings.
and he opines, as for the no spin zone, please only a liberal would think that O'Reilly doesn't spin. that is a marketing line, you fool. Everyone spins to what they believe. I guess he had you fooled for a while, eh?
and if you are going to speak about personal attacks, I wonder what a study of AirHead America would turn up, where idiots like Randi Rhodes used the sound of a shut gun after asking people to go kill the President. Or were Al Franken couldn't speak two words without insulting Rush Limbaugh or O'Reilly.
Right wingers, left wingers, Libeterians, they all the same tactics to get their audience all rilled up and their enemies all hot under the collar.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:18 pmCrump's Brother,
why don't you check out how thinkprogress.or uses "Radical Right" as a category?
start there, but I will be glad to cut and past more examples.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pmthinkprogress.org are such propaganda tools for the left since they constantly use derogatory terms when speaking about Republicans, conservatives and the right?
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Oh and the trolls around her only have nice things to say about progressives, is that what you're saying. Would you like us to pull out just troll posts for a week and see what they look like.
It's funny that when there are no trolls around the conversation is a lot more civil.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pmHey John M,
The difference is this:
Spin
Truth
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:22 pmI get ALL my news from FOX and the O’Reilly Factor. .
Comment by Patrick1 — May 2, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
Like he needs to tell us?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pmI personally don't like OReilly, but will watch him if I am surfing channels just like I will watch Olbermann the same way. The thing that I have noticed with Olbermann is that he never brings in anybody that actually disagrees with him, so only one side is seen. The thing I have noticed with OReilly is that he does bring in people that disagree with him, but he bullies them. Olbernamm certainly tries to come across as an objective news guy, even though he does not say the equivilent to "no spin", but he is far from objective. I guess my point here is that I don't see how people can hate OReilly because of his antics and attacks when Olbermann is basically doing the same thing. If he has an entire segment everyday is about the worst person in the world(that typically are about people from the right), it is really no different than OReilly's editorials against the left.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm"Olbermann does it, Think Progress does it..." blah, blah, yadda, yadda.
Get one of your rightwing universities to do a study like this one then. Oh wait, that's right, they can't, THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE!
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 pmThe no Spin Zone has spun out.
Kevin, stop hurting yourself. This is an opinion site. How can you time typed words when you're reading them? And if you want to make that bet, I'll take you up on it. Odds are it took you longer than one second to read this and there is no spin here.
So just admit you are wrong, brush off your ego and get back in the game bucky.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 pmFurther proof that the Right are degenerate bigots.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pmvaliantthehater,
Do you not like the phrase radical right? You throw the term liberal out there as if it is an insult, do you not? I use the term radical left to describe radical elements of the left wing view on things. It doesn't describe all right leaning people if you say "radical right" does it?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pmSpudge_Boy,
Actually, if you took a minute to watch O'Reilly shows, you would know that he was for the war, but has turned against it and constanly attacks the President and his administration for allowing the war to go on for so long. For allowing secterian violence to break, etc, etc.
stop getting your O'Reilly news from smear websites and watch it for yourself.
what O'Reilly has always said is that there is a responsible way to disagree and speak against the war and a very irresponsible, anti-American, anti-military way to disagree with the war.
Honestly, Spudge_Boy, without insults, watch the show. You might be shocked to find out that it is not the boogeyman that some left wing sites have said it is.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:27 pmThere is a bill that some democrats are trying to pass that is the equivilent to the Fairness Doctrine that went away in the mid 80s. The bill would essentially put an end to right wing radio, making every host give equal airtime for each side of political discussion. What do people here think about this? Do people see it as censorship? Do people see it as the first amendment right of free speech being taken away. Or do people think that since it is public airways, the FCC and the government can filter what we hear?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:27 pmDamn. Why couldn't Indiana U. have held off this story for a day or two.
I'm currently finishing an art project that makes the same point about O'Reilly and his use of slurs to advance his egomaniacal presence.
If any of you care to bookmark News Corpse, I promise it will be posted by Saturday.
You won't be disappointed. It is an interactive artwork that paints a picture of O'Reilly as an uncouth bully, and it documents instances of this behavior.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm.
O'Tooly is such a weak "journalist." He lies constantly on his show and here we have another documented, demonstrably lie from that ratbag. Now, go back to your "Peabody winning show" . . . oh wait, the Peabody was awarded before you began working on the show? Nice for you.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 pmJohn M,
well said. Olberman doesn't ever have anyone that disagrees with him. He pretends to be a news person, when he is not. He was actually fired from Foxsports channel and that is why he hates Fox. Olberman is obssesed with insulting and attacking O'Reilly which makes him sound like an idiot.
O'Reilly does bully many of the people he brings on the show, but at least he brings people with opposing views than the ones he has. Something that Olberman has never done.
as much as thinkprogress.org is an opinion site, O'Reilly is an opinion program. O'Reilly has never claimed, whiole on the "O'Reilly Show" that he is a news man. he always ends his segment with, "Thanks for showing up, we will let the viewers make up their own minds."
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pmValianthehater,
You said – “and if you are going to speak about personal attacks, I wonder what a study of AirHead America would turn up, where idiots like Randi Rhodes used the sound of a shut gun after asking people to go kill the President. Or were Al Franken couldn’t speak two words without insulting Rush Limbaugh or O’Reilly.â€
See it’s things like “Airhead America†that we are talking about here. Why do you say things like that if you are so for an elevated debate?
As far as the Randi Rhodes comment you made. I know what incident on her show you are talking about. It was a comic piece put together by her production staff. Immediately after it ran, she said it wasn’t funny, and told her staff never to put anything like that on again. She didn’t even wait for the criticism. She told them on the air during the show after it ran.
Al Franken only “insults†Rush or Hannity by calling them liars. And every time Franken has made the accusation that they lied about something, he has been correct. Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Coulter, and the rest who are mentioned in his book, could not refute one assertion he made about their inability to get the truth right.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 pmThe bill would essentially put an end to right wing radio, making every host give equal airtime for each side of political discussion. What do people here think about this? Do people see it as censorship? Do people see it as the first amendment right of free speech being taken away. Or do people think that since it is public airways, the FCC and the government can filter what we hear? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Censorship? Are you completely r*t*rded? That bill didn't stop people from saying partisan things - it required that they give equal time to the other side to respond to partisan things. As in it *protected* the free speech of *both* sides! Not just the side that owned the media company - like it is now!
You people are dum.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pmCrump's Brother,
sorry, I never throw the term Liberal as an insult. I use it because you are a Liberal. c'mon now. Do you not like being called what you are? I am a proude Centrists who leans to the right. Call me a conservative. It is not an insult. I have never understood why the left sees the term Liberal as such an insult.
and now you seem to be excusing thinkprogress.or's using of the term "radical right". I thought thinkprogress.org didn't use derogatory terems? now that I show you one, you excuse it? hmmm.....
funny since this is one of the things that thinkprogress.org points to, O'Reilly's use of the term radical left. I guess thinkprogress.org can use the term radical right, but they hate it someone else uses the term radical left. Very interesting.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:34 pmI don't do personal attacks here either.
Valiant is a jacka$$.
Jake is an idiot.
Exley can't defend his inane arguments and has the logic of a three-year-old.
Trolls: don't try to call me a hypocrite. By yours and O'Tooly's standards, I'm not.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:35 pmThe difference between O'Reilly and Olbermann is very simple: O'REILLY LIES, CONSTANTLY.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:36 pmO’Reilly does bully many of the people he brings on the show, but at least he brings people with opposing views than the ones he has. Something that Olberman has never done. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
O'Reilly brings a *few* of them on, shuts them down, and then pretends to be fair, because a small minority come from the left. Yeah, that's not *biased*, it's fair - right? Olbermann is honest about his show, and his show isn't a *talk* show. Don't you Jake*sses understand the context of program FORMAT?
as much as thinkprogress.org is an opinion site, O’Reilly is an opinion program. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Actually he claims to be a "fair and balanced", and an Independent. All lies.
O’Reilly has never claimed, whiole on the “O’Reilly Show†that he is a news man. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
What channel is he on again - fox NEWS?
he always ends his segment with, “Thanks for showing up, we will let the viewers make up their own minds.†Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
While spoonfeeding them one side... It's called *propaganda* - child.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pmHonestly, Spudge_Boy, without insults, watch the show. You might be shocked to find out that it is not the boogeyman that some left wing sites have said it is.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Yeah Spudge_Boy, listen to vth, because she know's that you've never watched O'Reilly before. How she knows is a mystery. Maybe she has your house bugged.
Believe me, vth, we all watched the show before we stopped watching the show, idiot.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pmThe difference between O’Reilly and Olbermann is very simple: O’REILLY LIES, CONSTANTLY.
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid — May 2, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Of course, because you disagree with his view. nice to know.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pmThe Bush cultists are clear on this -- the fact that a political blog like TP has users who anonomously engage in criticism and name-calling of conservatives is equivalent to the host of the highest rated political opinion show on television name-calling liberals. OK. Thanks to the Bush cultists for further demonstrating their utter lack of critical thinking skills.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:38 pmBill O'Rielly: "Look, if it turns out that there are no WMD's, I won't support the Bush administration anymore."
My question is this -- do fans of Bill O'Reilly have any self-respect?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 pmand now you seem to be excusing thinkprogress.or’s using of the term “radical rightâ€. I thought thinkprogress.org didn’t use derogatory terems? now that I show you one, you excuse it? hmmm….. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
You don't think the radical right exists? Or is a derogatory term? So how would you refer to the Islamic Fascists - you know the *radical-right* of Islam? Or do suggest we find a kinder, friendlier name to describe the rights hating abortion clinic bombing "radical right"?
Sorry - child - but term is just descriptive of some people.
funny since this is one of the things that thinkprogress.org points to, O’Reilly’s use of the term radical left. I guess thinkprogress.org can use the term radical right, but they hate it someone else uses the term radical left. Very interesting. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Yes, but O'Reilly is using that term to describe the 60% of Americans that disagree with his point - it's called misuse of term...
Poor little lunatic...
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 pmAnother comparison if you will:
O'reilly - believes what he says is the truth.
Olbermann - knows what he says is 90% snark.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm#54 There is a bill that some democrats are trying to pass that is the equivilent to the Fairness Doctrine that went away in the mid 80s. The bill would essentially put an end to right wing radio, making every host give equal airtime for each side of political discussion. What do people here think about this? Do people see it as censorship? Do people see it as the first amendment right of free speech being taken away. Or do people think that since it is public airways, the FCC and the government can filter what we hear?
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Of course it's censorship. Liberals are free to air their programs, too. Unfortunately, they can't get anyone to listen to theirs.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:41 pm"sorry, I never throw the term Liberal as an insult."
spoken like a true "independent"
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:41 pmOf course, because you disagree with his view. nice to know.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
See, you keep thinking *facts* are *opinions*. Facts can be *checked*, opinions you can simply ignore. Like your *opinion* that O'Reilly is *factual* - when in *fact* he's caught *lying* (you know proven by facts) daily...
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:41 pmWhat is really scary about O'Reilly...and all the Reich Wingnuts who do the exact same thing...is they are whipping their inbred redneck bigot base into a frenzy.
I can see this getting out of hand. Eventually the knuckle-dragging Repuke gun nuts will go out and start shooting anybody they think is a "Librrrrrul traitor".
And most likely, the cops will look the other way. They won't stop it or investigate it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pmOf course it’s censorship. Liberals are free to air their programs, too. Unfortunately, they can’t get anyone to listen to theirs. Comment by upright left — May 2, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Tell that to Olbermann and his soaring ratings... You're an idiot.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm#65. No. Because he LIES. Not because of his "view." Nice try.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pmCensorship? Are you completely r*t*rded? That bill didn’t stop people from saying partisan things - it required that they give equal time to the other side to respond to partisan things. As in it *protected* the free speech of *both* sides! Not just the side that owned the media company - like it is now!
You people are dum.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
This is what Wikipedia has for a definition of the fairness doctrine.
"The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner. It has since been repealed by the FCC and aspects of it have been questioned by courts"
You have no problem with this?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:43 pmCrump's Brother,
Al Franken has never been correct about anything. They guys is a liar and he constantly calls Limbaugh fat. C'mon guy. Read his book that he wrote against Limbaugh. He is constantly using personal insults against those he disagrees.
i take it you have never seen the now famous exchange between O'Reilly and Al franken in which Franken went after O'Reilly with personal attacks and insults. Sadly enough, O'Reilly lost his cool, but Franken used personal attacks.
C'mon crump's brother, Franken doesn't only call Hannity and Limbaugh liars, he uses all types of insults.
as for the Randi Rhode incident, if it was such a joke, why did the Secret Service end up at the doors of Ranid Rhodes after the gun incidient?
please, Randi Rhodes calls anyone that calls into her show that she disagrees with, idiots, stupid.
c'mon guy, don't lie now.
and as for Al franken being honest here go read some of his "truths".
http://www.frankenlies.com
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 pmvaliantthehater,
You said - "Of course, because you disagree with his view."
you can't disagree about facts valiantthehater. There are only one set of facts. Or there should be. these days, with the majority of Fox viewers actually believing there were WMD in Iraq, it's hard to know anymore.
What you said is without question one of the big issues in our discourse these days. It's ok to have an opinion about the facts. It's not ok to LIE or make shit up as you go.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm"The difference between O’Reilly and Olbermann is very simple: O’REILLY LIES, CONSTANTLY."
where'd you read that? the 'paris business review'?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 pmAlthough it is fun to watch O'Leilly when he is getting spanked by a liberal. He gets so flustered and angry during the 10 seconds it takes him to yell at them and hang up. Of course, if his position had any substance he'd actually be able to listen to opposing views and argue against them. A true sign of his weak position and weak mind is the fact he gives up so quickly and hangs up. L-O-S-E-R.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 pmTell that to Olbermann and his soaring ratings… You’re an idiot.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 2, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Now this is a joke if I have ever heard one. Olberman's soaring ratings? hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
you are one funny guy. thanks for the joke kid.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 pmThe University's findings don't surprise me after all you loons on the left supply O'Reilly with all the ammo he needs everytime you open your mouths! Oh, and don't forget to watch Glenn Beck's show tonight on the hysterics of global warming. Don't criticize the show unless you watch it and can refute what he says.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 pmWell, we've always known he was a douche, but now it's scientifically proven.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 pm"I can see this getting out of hand. Eventually the knuckle-dragging Repuke gun nuts will go out and start shooting anybody they think is a “Librrrrrul traitorâ€.
And most likely, the cops will look the other way. They won’t stop it or investigate it.
Comment by Tom3 — May 2, 2007"
You're an incredible idiot!
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 pmWhat you said is without question one of the big issues in our discourse these days. It’s ok to have an opinion about the facts. It’s not ok to LIE or make shit up as you go.
Comment by Crump's Brother — May 2, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
you mean like the left, Olberman, thinkprogress.org, dailykos, Democratunderground, huffingtonpost, etc do on daily basis?
The left constantly makes shit up as they go for one reason and one reason alone....to get back into power, to smear the right and to make Conservatives look like idiots.
here is another example of a left winger that uses insults and edits to attack the right, Michael Moore, who has been completly discredited. Yet, many on the far right take his words as the words of a god.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:49 pmTell that to Olbermann and his soaring ratings… You’re an idiot.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
He is third in his timeslot behind the oh so annoying Nancy Grace.
"By the end of March, Olbermann's ratings had fallen 21% since November 2006 and the show had fallen to third place in the 8pm time slot behind Nancy Grace.[35]By mid-April, Countdown had regained much of its rating loss and was jockeying for second with Nancy Grace and Paula Zahn."
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:49 pmBush cultist: "There is a bill that some democrats are trying to pass that is the equivilent to the Fairness Doctrine that went away in the mid 80s. The bill would essentially put an end to right wing radio..."
I see. So you agree that if people really were presented with a range of opinion as opposed to simply right wing opinion, right-wing talk on the radio wouldn't have a chance. Interesting opinion. I agree. Thanks for your contribution.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:50 pm#86: why would the far right take Michael Moore's words as that of a god? Oh right, you're stupid.
Peace. Have a lovely day. Bwwahahahahahahaha!
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:51 pmYeah, Al Franken lies. Hahaha. And O'Reilly won two Peabody Awards. *snort*
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:52 pmAl Franken has never been correct about anything. They guys is a liar and he constantly calls Limbaugh fat.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
So you must be claiming that Limbaugh is not fat. Because based on the pictures I have seen of him, he looks fat to me. And if he is in fact FAT, then your accusation that "Al Franken has never been correct about anything" is proven wrong right off the bat. Oops.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 pmAs far as the Randi Rhodes comment you made. I know what incident on her show you are talking about. It was a comic piece put together by her production staff. Immediately after it ran, she said it wasn’t funny, and told her staff never to put anything like that on again. She didn’t even wait for the criticism. She told them on the air during the show after it ran.
Comment by Crump's Brother — May 2, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Yeah, that makes it all better! That's all ya gotta do, admit what ya did was wrong and all is forgotten. ;) I'm sure she had no idea what her staff was doing. Wait! Where have I heard that before? But it didn't fly here, did it? Sorry Randi!
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 pmBush cultist: "Now this is a joke if I have ever heard one. Olberman’s soaring ratings? hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!"
In the last two quarters, Olberman's ratings have increased by about 76%. That's why he got a huge new contract. During the same period, O'Reilly's ratings have dropped by about 35%..... But laugh it up, don't give it a second thought.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:54 pmNow, if IU would only do something "fair and balanced," such as a more comprehensive study which includes both conservative and liberal voices, they might actually have some credibility outside of the far left echo chamber in the blogosphere.
Chip
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:54 pm"to make Conservatives look like idiots."
the left shouldn't get any credit for that.
"edits to attack the right"
edits?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:55 pmO'really is just another Limbaugh pundit, aka irrelevant, according to (R) Arnold (R) Schwarzenegger (R)
And by God no Limbaugh, O'Really pundit better ever talk bad about my boy Arnie. =)
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:55 pmvaliantthehater,
you mean like the left, Olberman, thinkprogress.org, dailykos, Democratunderground, huffingtonpost, etc do on daily basis?
I'm gonna have to start calling you out on this stuff. If you are going to make accusations like this, you need to back it up with some facts. Give us a link that proves your point. Otherwise, it looks like nothing more than mindless drivel.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:56 pmHey, O'Reilly, where's my loofah? On second thought, you can keep it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:56 pmHe is third in his timeslot behind the oh so annoying Nancy Grace.
“By the end of March, Olbermann’s ratings had fallen 21% since November 2006 and the show had fallen to third place in the 8pm time slot behind Nancy Grace.[35]By mid-April, Countdown had regained much of its rating loss and was jockeying for second with Nancy Grace and Paula Zahn.â€
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Anyone else find it ironic that JohnM would be dishonest in a post about O'Reilly? Sorry SON, but you should have included the sentence that followed where you truncated...
Then there's the sentence that came *before* the one you cherry picked in order to *misrepresent* (propagandize) the post.
You're cut from the same dishonest piece of sh*t cloth as O'Reilly - just like I said to you yesterday when you use that liberalism insult alias. You're human filth.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:57 pmI haven't been stopping by too regularly the past week, so tell me -- is this thread plagued by a particularly pathetic collection of trolls, or has the troll intelligence level dropped to basement?
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pmNow, if IU would only do something “fair and balanced,†such as a more comprehensive study which includes both conservative and liberal voices, they might actually have some credibility outside of the far left echo chamber in the blogosphere.
Chip
Comment by Chip — May 2, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Exactly, do a study on both sides. Neither side can claim that they are innocent of insulting people from across the eisle.
Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, etc, all use the same tactics to get their message heard. They all use insults too.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pmSo you must be claiming that Limbaugh is not fat. Because based on the pictures I have seen of him, he looks fat to me. And if he is in fact FAT, then your accusation that “Al Franken has never been correct about anything†is proven wrong right off the bat. Oops. Comment by KRank — May 2, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Maybe compared to valiant, he's thin? That would explain a lot. Another st*pid fat *ssed republican, addicted to hate.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:58 pmBush cultist: “There is a bill that some democrats are trying to pass that is the equivilent to the Fairness Doctrine that went away in the mid 80s. The bill would essentially put an end to right wing radio…â€
I see. So you agree that if people really were presented with a range of opinion as opposed to simply right wing opinion, right-wing talk on the radio wouldn’t have a chance. Interesting opinion. I agree. Thanks for your contribution.
Comment by Bluedog49
There is a range of opinion, unfortunately nobody wanted to listen to liberal radio. It would probably be an end to AM radio. People would only listen for sprots. Ratings don't lie. Air America failed miserably. While shows like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage get millions of listeners.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:59 pmThe University’s findings don’t surprise me after all you loons on the left supply O’Reilly with all the ammo he needs everytime you open your mouths! Comment by michael — May 2, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Who needs anyone to say anything, when *loons* like you fabricate the words of others - right SON?
Oh, and don’t forget to watch Glenn Beck’s show tonight on the hysterics of global warming. Don’t criticize the show unless you watch it and can refute what he says. Comment by michael — May 2, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
BAHAHA, you mean where that r*t*rd said global warming scientists are NAZIS? BAHAHA, really funny coming from a REAL NAZI like him and YOU!!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:00 pmYeah, Al Franken lies. Hahaha. And O’Reilly won two Peabody Awards. *snort*
Comment by david
Yeh, *cough* O'really? O'really attended Kennedy school of politics at that liberal ivey league school. *hack*
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pmIn the last two quarters, Olberman’s ratings have increased by about 76%. That’s why he got a huge new contract. During the same period, O’Reilly’s ratings have dropped by about 35%….. But laugh it up, don’t give it a second thought.
Comment by Bluedog49
Do you have a link for that, because I just pulled from Wikipedia that Olbermann's ratings have dropped 21% since Nov 2006 and he is in third place behind Nancy Grace and OReilly.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pmFrom Vapid :
here is another example of a left winger that uses insults and edits to attack the right, Michael Moore, who has been completly discredited. Yet, many on the far right take his words as the words of a god.
Whaaa? The far right bow to Michael Moore? hmmm.
The study is rock solid showing facts. Using BO's own words. That hurts the trolls here. So what. They only show up for our entertainment anyways.
Time marches on and we are a little closer to the day when we say goodbye to GW and the holes in the head gang.
All of your WAWAWAWAWAWining about the left leaves you no time to look at the crooks on the right. Don't you worry though, the rest of the country is watching.
BO and Coughlin, makes sense now.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pmCrump's Brother,
I already gave you a link that shows how Al Franken is but a poor and silly liar, desperat for attention.
Here is one for Olberman,
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/08/countdown_with_90.php
enjoy the reading and his lies.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pmThere is a range of opinion, unfortunately nobody wanted to listen to liberal radio. It would probably be an end to AM radio. People would only listen for sprots. Ratings don’t lie. Air America failed miserably. While shows like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage get millions of listeners.
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Actually ratings were doing OK in several markets - you're wrong about that. What failed was the financing. Like most startups - they were undercapitalized. See unlike Limbaugh that wasn't trying to create a network, just one show - they were trying to create an entire liberal *network*. Do you understand the difference? I know you're terribly *slow* - so I assume you don't.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pmI already gave you a link that shows how Al Franken is but a poor and silly liar, desperat for attention.
Here is one for Olberman,
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/ archives/ 2006/ 08/ countdown_with_90.php
enjoy the reading and his lies.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
You post olbermannwatch as a *resource*? BAHAHAAHA, you're r*t*rded!!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:03 pmYou’re cut from the same dishonest piece of sh*t cloth as O’Reilly - just like I said to you yesterday when you use that liberalism insult alias. You’re human filth.
I posted the fact that he has dropped 21% since Nov 2006, are you disputing that? He is still waaaaayyy behind OReilly by they way.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:03 pmThe University’s findings don’t surprise me after all you loons on the left supply O’Reilly with all the ammo he needs everytime you open your mouths!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 pmComment by michael — May 2, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Really? How so?
You’re an incredible idiot!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 pmComment by michael — May 2, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Care to elaborate?
Do you have a link for that, because I just pulled from Wikipedia that Olbermann’s ratings have dropped 21% since Nov 2006 and he is in third place behind Nancy Grace and OReilly. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
You mean the wikipedia reference, where you carefully and *intentionally* ignored the line afterwards that said he had regained that readership in April?
LIAR!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:04 pmDo you have a link for that, because I just pulled from Wikipedia that Olbermann’s ratings have dropped 21% since Nov 2006 and he is in third place behind Nancy Grace and OReilly.
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
well, since I always tell this to Liberals, wikidpedia isn't too reliable, but I have seen the same stats somewhere else.
Olberman's ratings are dropping like a rock.
O'reilly's ratings have dropped since the elections, just like all other network shows.
the fact remains that whether or not Olberman's ratings have gone up or down, or O'Reilly's gone up or down, O'Reilly still destroys Olberman's ratings. I mean O'Reilly constantly has over 1 million viewers, most of the time, 2 million viewers. Olberman has anywhere between 200,000 to 500,000 viewers a night.
hmmm....and the winner is? O'Reilly! This kills Olberman, the reason why he is so pathetitc and constantly takes jabs at O'Reilly. They both started at the same time and O'Reilly has killed him.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pmWhen Franken wrote the book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, and other thoughts," Limbaugh was indeed big and fat. But, of course, the title of the book was a satirical play on the state of political discourse in America. I wouldn't expect these clueless, knuckle-dragging, conservative tools to understand that, but as Franken says, satire is still satire, even if the object of the satire doesn't get that it's satire.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 pmI posted the fact that he has dropped 21% since Nov 2006, are you disputing that? He is still waaaaayyy behind OReilly by they way. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
I am, re-read the page, he has NOT dropped that much - he HAD dropped that much in March, of which he regained in April. So no he HAS NOT (present tense) dropped that much in his current ratings. So that's an intentional LIE on your part.
You say you want an honest debate, then you post dishonest lies. You're a piece of lying sh*t.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:06 pmExcept that ThinkProgress is a text-based media, not audio/video so "every second" means absolutely nothing. It's like saying "on page two of O'Reilly's broadcast."
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:06 pmRead the ridiculous report. They tell you themselves that their methods have been discredited. But they are going use them anyway.
Today, the seven devices are mentioned as part of the lineage of propaganda study,
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 pmbut viewed as not rigorous enough for quantitative research and devoid of grand theory
for qualitative work (Jowett, 1987; Severin and Tankard, 1997; Sproule, 1989, 1997). A few
researchers have resurrected the seven propaganda devices to help explain language from
today’s news media. Severin and Tankard
http://journalism.indiana.edu/papers/oreillyjourstud07.pdf
Michael Moore, discredited?
Yeah, so was Chomsky by ... Dershowitz??? He he he.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:08 pmIn his first few years after starting FOX News, Rupert Murdock lost over $250 million on the venture. Using the same standard by which they judge Air America, conservative news television should have been called a complete failure.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 pmBill O'Reilly IS a derogatory name...
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 pmBAHAHA, you mean where that r*t*rd said global warming scientists are NAZIS? BAHAHA, really funny coming from a REAL NAZI like him and YOU!!!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 2, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
now this is a perfect example of a left wing hypocrite. he cries about the right wingers insulting, about pundits from the right insulting those they disagree with, yet what does he do?
insult, and insult, and insult anyone he deems to have a different opinion than him.
this guy, ValiantVenus, is but the perfect example of what is wrong with liberals today.
don't worry ValianVenus, I know you are too stupid to figure out why you are the perfect example of what is wrong with liberals today. Just stand there, look pretty and keep on posting your vile and hate. You make look like the crazy lunatics that many, if not most, of you are.
peace and love brother.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 pmBush cultist: "Olberman’s ratings are dropping like a rock."
Riiiight. That must be why MSNBC gave him a giant new contract. This is the kind of concise, logical thinking I have come to expect from Bush cultists.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pmwell, since I always tell this to Liberals, wikidpedia isn’t too reliable, but I have seen the same stats somewhere else. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
They link to the actual ratings - idiot.
Olberman’s ratings are dropping like a rock. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
You've seen it elsewhere, but it's a lie.
O’reilly’s ratings have dropped since the elections, just like all other network shows. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Everyone EXCEPT Olbermann - whose ratings are BACK UP since the election.
the fact remains that whether or not Olberman’s ratings have gone up or down, or O’Reilly’s gone up or down, O’Reilly still destroys Olberman’s ratings. I mean O’Reilly constantly has over 1 million viewers, most of the time, 2 million viewers. Olberman has anywhere between 200,000 to 500,000 viewers a night. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
B*llsh*t, Olbermann WAS at 500k, he's at 850k now.
hmmm….and the winner is? O’Reilly! This kills Olberman, the reason why he is so pathetitc and constantly takes jabs at O’Reilly. They both started at the same time and O’Reilly has killed him.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
You've declared "mission accomplished" before the war is over - idiot.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pmRead the ridiculous report. They tell you themselves that their methods have been discredited. But they are going use them anyway.
Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Shhhhh.....don't tell this to the Liberals, now they are going to turn on Indiana University and call it a right wing propaganda machine! how dare they claim that their own study and methods have been discredited, how dare they?!!!
hahahahaha!!!
funny how the left grabs unto any study, regardless of how well it was done, whether the methods were discredited or not and use it as fact.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 pmMichael Moore discredited???
Hmmm. Evidently this is because he was wrong about..... what exactly?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:12 pmvaliantthehater,
sorry. I'm seeing a site which is reviewing what Keith says and then commenting on it from a right-wing perspective.
Let's remember that while Keith's show is a news show, it is full of slant. Keith has never said that it isn't. So when he slants a story, and uses facts to back his assertions, I have little problem with that. the site you gave did nothing more than throw right-wing talking points on all of Keith's assertions. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it hardly points out lies.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:13 pmSo Juan, is Moore taken seriously where you live? Around here, he's a joke. Except among the radical left, who, of course, grovel at his feet.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:13 pmO'Reilly just exposes the Leftist-Islamic alliance. That's why nuts hate him.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:14 pmHe's had plenty of Moderate Liberals like Sen. Schumer on and agrees with them. He's clased with the Free Market right like Neil Cavuto over Oil prices.
O'Reilly states his show is Opinion.
Teheran Keith Ullbermahn claims he's a nonmm partisan news show.
Ulbermahn has insulted many on the Right personally.
This study is hypocritical and if you did an analysis of all Political commentators and blogs you would find insulting langauge.
now this is a perfect example of a left wing hypocrite. he cries about the right wingers insulting, about pundits from the right insulting those they disagree with, yet what does he do? Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
I'm not laughing at being insulted - idiot. I'm laughing at how st*pid and just blatantly *false* the insult is. It's ridiculous, just like your ignorant posts!!!
insult, and insult, and insult anyone he deems to have a different opinion than him. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
I don't insult you because you have an *opinion*, I insult you because you're so st*pid, you can't distinguish the difference between an *uninformed-opinion* and a FACT!!!
this guy, ValiantVenus, is but the perfect example of what is wrong with liberals today. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
What, that we won't put up with your sh*t, lies* and propaganda anymore? Maybe that's why the MAJORITY of Americans agree with me, and not YOU on every major issue?
don’t worry ValianVenus, I know you are too stupid to figure out why you are the perfect example of what is wrong with liberals today. Just stand there, look pretty and keep on posting your vile and hate. You make look like the crazy lunatics that many, if not most, of you are.
peace and love brother. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
All Projection - sad...
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:14 pmShhhhh…..don’t tell this to the Liberals, now they are going to turn on Indiana University and call it a right wing propaganda machine! how dare they claim that their own study and methods have been discredited, how dare they?!!!
hahahahaha!!!
funny how the left grabs unto any study, regardless of how well it was done, whether the methods were discredited or not and use it as fact.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Yeah, like Beck, discrediting the "global warming scientists?" BAHAHAA, you're r*t*rded...
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 pmCrump's Brother,
example of thinkprogress.org lying. with this article that they have put about O'Reilly. thinkprogress.org has lied through omission. They linked you up to the study that Indiana University did. They only link you up to the tables, they don't link you up to the verbage and the conclusions of the study. I wonder why?
might it be because even Indiana University isn't sure that the study itself was correct?
thinkprogress.org is doing here what they claim the right does all the time. Lying.
the sad part is that looka t all the left wingers that flocked to this article and swear by it now. How many of the left wingers will now go to their friends and fmailies and quote this article, which only tells half of the truth, when talking about O'Reilly.
all I can do is shake my head and be embarrassed for thinkprogress.org. they are using the tactics of the communists and nazis. But it is expected of them. I am in no way surprised.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm"Just stand there, look pretty and keep on posting your vile and hate. You make look like the crazy lunatics that many, if not most, of you are," says the thoughtful poster who calls himself "VALIANTTHEHATER."
Again, I feel like we're dealing with a mental patient on the computer in the common room of his asylum.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm> here is another example of a left winger that uses insults and
> edits to attack the right, Michael Moore, who has been completly
> discredited.
LULZ!!
But it's good to have confirmation that creeps, paranoiacs, warmongers, white collar criminals, gun nuts, irresponsible and
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:16 pmclueless politicos, talking point droids etc. are indeed, part of "the right".
John M, still waiting for you to apologize for posting a LIE!
Tic, toc!!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:16 pmvalianthethater,
I will submit that O'Reilly's numbers are currently better than Olbermann's, but with the political winds blowing as they are, that trend is in Keith's favor.
but more to point how about this
"Bill O’Reilly's viewers are actually less educated than Stewart's"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6117542/
Read this article then tell me why the smart kids are watching the fake news over O'Reilly. Kinda makes you wonder who is watching O'Reilly and why.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:18 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
Look at the latest ratings:
Ulbermahn has been between 580,000 to 650,000.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:18 pmHis ratings have declined in recent months.
valiantthehater,
sorry. I’m seeing a site which is reviewing what Keith says and then commenting on it from a right-wing perspective.
Let’s remember that while Keith’s show is a news show, it is full of slant. Keith has never said that it isn’t. So when he slants a story, and uses facts to back his assertions, I have little problem with that. the site you gave did nothing more than throw right-wing talking points on all of Keith’s assertions. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it hardly points out lies.
Comment by Crump's Brother — May 2, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
hmmm....sorry, Olbemran's show is NOT a news show. It is a joke of a show, with him opining and bringing in guests which agree with him. Olberman is a sad, sad, very sad joke.
Heard of when he was robbed at gun point? had to run to the psychiatrist because the poor, weak minded fool couldn't sleep for weeks.
the guy is an embarrasment to humanity.
he doesn't use facts to get to the truth, just like thinkprogress.org has done with this article, he uses bits and pieces of data, edits what he needs to edit and then shows his edits as facts. We all know how editing a story, what someone said, etc can make someone say what they never said.
Michael Moore is excellent at doing this and Olberman is no different.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:18 pmI am, re-read the page, he has NOT dropped that much - he HAD dropped that much in March, of which he regained in April. So no he HAS NOT (present tense) dropped that much in his current ratings. So that’s an intentional LIE on your part.
You say you want an honest debate, then you post dishonest lies. You’re a piece of lying sh*t.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Can you show where it says he regained the 21% in April? I don't see it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm#123 - Dear valiantthehater - Please do me a favour - if you feel you must to respond to the pathetically vulgar poster who latches onto my every moniker, ValiantVEnusFromUranus, please address him/her as VVGFU - do not call him/her valiant venus (this poor person is neither valiant or lovely). I would hate to think your fine retorts were directed at me erroneously!! Happy hunting!!
Toooodles.........
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:19 pmjust me,
could you please point out where the study calls itself flawed. I'm not finding that. I did find this though
"An earlier version of the study won a top faculty award from the Journalism Studies Division of the International Communication Association."
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:20 pmI wonder how often right-wingers do the same with O'Reilly's bile.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 pmvalianthethater,
I will submit that O’Reilly’s numbers are currently better than Olbermann’s, but with the political winds blowing as they are, that trend is in Keith’s favor.
but more to point how about this
“Bill O’Reilly’s viewers are actually less educated than Stewart’sâ€
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6117542/
Read this article then tell me why the smart kids are watching the fake news over O’Reilly. Kinda makes you wonder who is watching O’Reilly and why.
Comment by Crump's Brother — May 2, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
1) I wouldn't put too much credence into what a competitor network says about another network's show.
2) If you bother to look into this study, you will find that O'Reilly's viewers along with Limbaughs listeners were in the top 5 most educated people in America. Yes, Colbert beat them, but not by much.
3)MSNBC is not exactly telling you the truth. Look at the table and you will be shocked as to how MSNBC, who carries Olberman is lying to you. Don't believe everything you read guy. WOW!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 pmvalientthehater,
First, it is hard to have "without Insults" with your screen name.
But, to answer your post, I used to watch O'Rielly. I know it will be hard for you to believe, but I used to be a conservative. Maybe not "A conservative" as much as "way more conservative" than I am now. I used to watch and listen to both Rush and Bill O. I joined the Army to go and fight "the towel heads" as I used to call them. I own guns, I support the death penalty. I was never a Bill Clinton fan and still don't really support him or Hillary.
But, then I saw the error of my ways. I grew up and educated myself. I became politically involved. I started reading stuff other than the mass media. I started getting my news form outside the US and I found that we as a country have been duped.
I have watched Fox News and I will never do it again. I don't even watch the clips that TP posts here. Bill O'Rielly and the rest of the Fox News crew are what I call Newsertainment (tm). They don't do the real news and neither does any of the mass media.
So, I have already given Bill O the chance you ask me to give him.
Now, you answer me this without insults:
Why would I give two minutes of time to a person who calls me and 72% of Americans traitors and do you think that political debate is helped by people in the media calling a majority of Americans traitors?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 pm#140
My apologies Valian Vneus, I didn't realize that this scum bag was making fun of you. I will do as you asked.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 pmYou know, saying that Michael Moore has been "discredited" is not the same thing as him being discredited. I'd like to know exactly how he has been discredited. Was he wrong about the war? Was he wrong about our media spreading fear? Did the Bush administration not quickly allow Saudis to leave the country after 9-11?
What major issue has Michael Moore been wrong about in the last 6 years?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 pmI would hate to think your fine retorts were directed at me erroneously!! Happy hunting!!
Toooodles………
Comment by valiant venus — May 2, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Kinda like when you were slamming VVGFU left and right from his "pic" on myspace, only to find out it was Jason Misongynist Hendler ( a fellow republican), to which you stopped the attacks?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 pmHMMMMM....
Now go and eat a cheeseburger, ye hypocrite one!
The University’s findings don’t surprise me after all you loons on the left supply O’Reilly with all the ammo he needs everytime you open your mouths! Comment by michael
I don't much listen to media pundits cause I got sick listening to media pundits and turned off the radio and then I got sick of watching media pundits and cause I got sick of watching media pundits I turned off the TV and now I don't much wanna read about media pundits cause I'm sick of reading about media pundits and quit reading their web pages.
Now, we have this, people actually repeating what the inconsequential media pundits said and cause I am turned of reading about some inconsequential set of lips blubber on about an idiotic biased talking point that is devoid of any factual debate on actual legislation I am going to hit the X in this tab.
Punditry is but political soap opera for slopeheads and it should be made illegal so that anyone who watches or regurgitates their inane gobbledegook would not be allowed to breed, ever!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 pmWhy don't you just go back to posting as mighty aphrodite?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 pmIs it just me or is the arguing about who has better ratings just a variation of the "who has the bigger manhood" argument?
What does it matter? Olbermann fans can be happy because he makes MSNBC money and isn't going anywhere. O'Reilly fans can be happy for the same reason!
My only gripe with O'Reilly about his show is that he constantly infers that he has "no spin" as in he's just reporting facts with no opinion. This is not the case! With Olbermann, I find it much more clear when he diverges into opinion pieces, but he could do a little better himself since he doesn't seems to not want to admit that he does anything more than just a news broadcast. And I say this as a FAN of Olbermann.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 pmvalianthehater,
Heard of when he was robbed at gun point? had to run to the psychiatrist because the poor, weak minded fool couldn’t sleep for weeks.
This is a patently offensive statement. Maybe you could tell us how we all should react to moments of trauma? Are you a clinical psychologist now as well? Ridiculous to attack a person, your countrymen in this manner. Is this the same way you feel about the Va Tech victims who need some counseling? It must be.
Again though you offered nothing in your last post to refute what I said. you have a lot of accusations, but nothing to back them up with. It's getting old and cumbersome.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 pmWhy would I give two minutes of time to a person who calls me and 72% of Americans traitors and do you think that political debate is helped by people in the media calling a majority of Americans traitors?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — May 2, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
You know it is funny, because I used to be more of a Liberal, and then, as you said, I grew up, got educated, traveled and realized the errors of my ways. I guess to each his own, right?
anyway, I don't think O'Reilly calls 72% of Americans traitors. If you have watched his latest shows, what he says, individuals like Cindy Sheehan, and the far, far left which uses very irresponsible speech to speak against the war are traitors.
I mean you say you haven't seen his show in a while, I mean you can take my word for it, or not, but O'Reilly doesn't exactly support the Iraq War now. He has straight out said that he is completly displeased with the President's handling of the war after Hussein was toppled and how secterian violence has been allowed to escalate. He even calls Iraq a civil war, which most conservatives (which I think he is not) refuse to do.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 pmValiantVenus: "What, that we won’t put up with your sh*t, lies* and propaganda anymore? Maybe that’s why the MAJORITY of Americans agree with me, and not YOU on every major issue?"
Great point, Valiant Venus!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:26 pmSpudge_Boy,
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:27 pmThe reason that 72% of the People are gainst the war are for various reason.
The Far Left compnent of opposition wants to leave so America can look like losers and they can cheer on their Jihadi allies.
The Moderate and Rightwing compnent want to leave because if we do, we win.
If the US leaves Iraq the Islamists will turn on each other and it will leave to an intra-Islamic war leading to collapse of those nations.
After bankrupting themselves and killing each other off, they will be threat to no one.
That's why most Americans want to leave.
Wake up Lefty loon!
#142 Right here, brother:
Today, the seven devices are mentioned as part of the lineage of propaganda study,
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pmbut viewed as not rigorous enough for quantitative research and devoid of grand theory
for qualitative work (Jowett, 1987; Severin and Tankard, 1997; Sproule, 1989, 1997).
Except among the radical left, who, of course, grovel at his feet.
Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Perhaps you can explain me what is the radical left, since VALIANTTHEHATER IS UNABLE TO ANSWER THAT SIMPLE QUESTION. Can you do it?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pmProgs and Progettes - Why not do what normal people do when they happen upon something in the marketplace they don't like - don't buy it. In the case of Fox News - don't watch. Your numbers, if they are as large and influential as you keep crowing about, should force advertisers to abandon the Fox News venture in a heartbeat.
(Question for Progs - IF this is a place to discuss Progressive ideas and politics, WHY do you rarely, if ever, have Progressive topics, policy positions, candidates up for discussion. The MAIN thrust of this site is BASHING conservative people and policies. No wonder progressive whining is INCESSANT - you present NOTHING for Progressives to embrace.)
Tooodles................
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pmIt doesn't matter how right Mr. Moore is, since he's overweight and generally appears "unkept" ontop of having what is perceived by many as "radical opinions," he will always be written off as just a fringe "lefty extremist" who should not be taken seriously.
Sad, really.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:29 pmWAY TO GO BILLD'O! I told you you should take that comedy act of yours on the road!
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:29 pmThe question stands:
Michael Moore had it wrong when ...
Please, fell the blank space with a FACT.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 pmvaliantthehater,
MSNBC is not exactly telling you the truth. Look at the table and you will be shocked as to how MSNBC, who carries Olberman is lying to you. Don’t believe everything you read guy. WOW!
Again, do you have proof, or just another baseless accusation? WHERE ARE THESE LIES YOU KEEP MENTIONING???
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pmJoker,
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pmThat's why I want to leave Iraq. Let them all kill each other!
just me,
could you link that please? sorry to be a pain in the ass.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pmWake up Lefty loon!
Comment by The Toker Joker — May 2, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
May I suggest spellcheck, as well as educating yourself about run-on sentences and sentence structure?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pmYou're welcome
Michael has an opinion:
The University’s findings don’t surprise me after all you loons on the left supply O’Reilly with all the ammo he needs everytime you open your mouths! Oh, and don’t forget to watch Glenn Beck’s show tonight on the hysterics of global warming. Don’t criticize the show unless you watch it and can refute what he says.
1) I like this. I really do. We are making O'Reilly angry? Moar please.
2) Why should I watch that "Glenn Beck" (who?) and want to refute anything he says? Better do a Sudoku. Source the stuff from where it's at: journals and articles. Go down to your local university library. Or you can go to the IPCC website. Reading... now there's a novel concept.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pmNo liberal needs to make conservatives look like idiots. They do it to themselves with great ideas like invading a sovereign country, denying that condoms are effective against disease, calling frozen embryos babies and refusing to fund stem cell research, preaching abstinence while hiring hookers, accepting $20,000 golf trips from crooked lobbyists, accepting millions of $$ in bribes from crooked contractors, outing covert CIA agents, oh, I could keep going, but my fingers are tired.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pmWhat major issue has Michael Moore been wrong about in the last 6 years?
Comment by Bluedog49
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm#
The problem is the ROnald Reagna killing the fairness doctrine has enabled a few companies to buy up most of the media outlets, be they Newspapers, or TV and Radio networks. These companies are all owned by right wingers, so there isn't any fair and balanced reporting going on.
So, while the right wingers only have Olberman, Air America and the Daily Show to point to, left wingers can point to hundreds and hundreds of right wing shows.
This has nothing to do with who is popular and who is not, it has to do with who owns the media conglomerates.
So, prove that the media conglomerates aren't owned by right wing political hacks.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 pmBluedog, asking proof from ValianttheHater is pretty much useless. Remember the Lenin´s description of his comrades as useful idiots? No proof of that.
And this is coming from a guy who grew up, got an education and traveled a lot... hehehehe.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 pmJuan C,
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 pmThe Radical Left is a bunch of all knowing Hypocrites who belive they know what's best for people. They belive in taking away property rights, high taxation, One World Government, are anti-Judeo-Christian, Pro-Muslims and belive in gun Control.
They belive the State should control all aspects of people's life and belive in silencing their opponents througfh their control of the Media.
There's your answer.
Wow the trolls are out in full force, with extra helpings of racism, bigotry, over generalizations (whoa, I'm generalizing the trolls while criticisizing them for over generalizing -- kick ass!), lies, deceipt, logical fallacies, and just flat-out old fashioned mud slinging.
Is this like when a rabid animal gets cornered?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 pmYou keep telling yourself that.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 pmYou mean like with Imus? Kick ass idea! Be careful what you flame for.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 pmDRXJ - Please discuss my "numerous" comments about VVGFU linked page - and then come back with the number of times that pathetic creature and others have mentioned the faux aphrodite MySpace page here, attributing it to me? Did you attend the Ted Kennedy School for Truthtelling, Competitive Drinking and Safe Driving/Diving? Look in the mirror, hypocrite! tee-hee!
'til later....
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:36 pmJohn M. @ 166
Take your time at educating yourself here:
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pmhttp://www.opednews.com/wade_071004_deception.htm
valiant venus,
Why not do what normal people do when they happen upon something in the marketplace they don’t like - don’t buy it. In the case of Fox News - don’t watch. Your numbers, if they are as large and influential as you keep crowing about, should force advertisers to abandon the Fox News venture in a heartbeat.
The problem is, that many people choose not to get there news from TV. Especially those of higher educations. They tend to get their news from print sources. So while on the surface you make an interesting point, it's not quite as simple as you make it sound.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pmThe problem is the ROnald Reagna killing the fairness doctrine has enabled a few companies to buy up most of the media outlets, be they Newspapers, or TV and Radio networks. These companies are all owned by right wingers, so there isn’t any fair and balanced reporting going on.
So, while the right wingers only have Olberman, Air America and the Daily Show to point to, left wingers can point to hundreds and hundreds of right wing shows.
This has nothing to do with who is popular and who is not, it has to do with who owns the media conglomerates.
So, prove that the media conglomerates aren’t owned by right wing political hacks.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I can agree with that to an extent. However, what do you propose the solution be? Do you want the government to regulate televison stations on political matters? There are plenty of left wingers out there with money, they could get their guys on the radio. This bill only has a goal of silencing the right wing here, which I feel is censorship.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:38 pmPoor Valiant Venus. She wants to discuss the issues. You know, the ones she keeps bringing up. Her reasoned discussion would probably be something like this: Resolved - Cut and run defeatocrats. Are they ruining America? VV, we've seen the kinds of "issues" you want to discuss and most of us aren't interested.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:38 pmO'Liely is what we call a firestarter -he's nothing but a trouble maker.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:39 pmDear Parrot - Like with Imus? You bet!! According to Progressives, your side is in the vast majority - and everyone knows how much Progs despise ideas different from their own. Who has time for a "minority" viewpoint, Progressives? Contact those advertisers NOW!!
What a bunch of entertaining phonies....
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pmThe Joker,
The Radical Left is a bunch of all knowing Hypocrites who belive they know what’s best for people. They belive in taking away property rights, high taxation, One World Government, are anti-Judeo-Christian, Pro-Muslims and belive in gun Control.
They belive the State should control all aspects of people’s life and belive in silencing their opponents througfh their control of the Media.
Man you guys are making this easy today. Do you know of anyone on the "Radical Left" who has promoted such an agenda? Please list them and back your assertions. I am a lefty I guess and I don't prescribe to any of the above, except that I am not a believer in monotheistic religion. OF ANY KIND!
So where do you get this idea of yours?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pmComment by valiant venus — May 2, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
So, you don't deny you were making fun of what you thought was VVGFU's pic, only to cease when you found out it was a fellow conservative who shared your morbid ideology.
Great, at least that's cleared up. Hypocrite.
Now, about the smoking and eating disorder, as well as your fantasy life.....
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 pmJohn M, this is from the article you posted:
In Fahrenheit, Moore pretends to support our troops. But in fact, he supports the enemy in Iraq-the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda operatives, and terrorists controlled
by Iran or Syria-who are united in their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any possibility of democracy in Iraq.
This doesnt seem very independent, right? Sound like any other Mulsim wants to rule the world looney.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 pmPerhaps you can explain me what is the radical left, since VALIANTTHEHATER IS UNABLE TO ANSWER THAT SIMPLE QUESTION. Can you do it?
Comment by Juan C — May 2, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Sometimes my 7 yr old students pretend they don't know something just to waste a little time. You wouldn't be doing that, would you Juan? Radical left= anti-American, military is evil, government should take care of us cradle to grave, no personal responsibility, I deserve to have as much as anyone else even if I don't want to work for it, I should be able to do anything I want and if it hurts me it's not my fault and the government should fix it, anyone should be allowed to come to the United States no questions asked as long as they don't declare that they are terrorists who intend to kill people, the only things that are morally wrong are killing, being financially well off or violating any of the above. Is that enough for a start Juan?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 pmI don't want anyone silenced. I don't care what Bill O or Keith O say. I don't watch either one of them.
What I do want is the media conglomerates broken up. Five companies should not be controlling all media. Period.
Why? To give people choices instead of having an agenda shoved down their throats, be it left or right.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 pmSweet, you strawmanned me and I didn't even notice (yea, right). Keep patting yourself on the back. Please.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:45 pmJohn M. @ 166
Take your time at educating yourself here:
http://www.opednews.com/wade_071004_deception.htm
Comment by DRxJ
You are using Wade as a source. Now that is funny.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 pmThis doesnt seem very independent, right? Sound like any other Mulsim wants to rule the world looney.
Comment by Juan C —
I never said he was very independent. Is Michael Moore?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:47 pmThere’s your answer.
Comment by The Joker
I just happen to have the Communist Manifesto...a document that most of left should follow...and it pretty much says anything but the stupid things you posted. You studied economics...exactly where?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:47 pmAddendum to my Michael Moore defense post.
I looked at the CBS/CNN report cited in Mike's F911 citations and noticed that even in CBS' OWN REPORT, they admit they were one minute behind calling Florida for Bush compared to the rest (which is what Mike's F911 movie claims) and the "59 points" conservative thinktank disputes (saying CBS was the first in their "report").
Evidence, anybody? Beuller? Amusing.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 pmJohn M., the site you gave which supposedly debunks Moore is a laughable set of distortions.
Just one example: #6 states that the media consortium found that Bush would have won Florida under any of Al Gore's requested recounts. This distorts the main finding of the media consortium's report. The most important result of the study was to show that if all votes in Florida had been counted as the Florida Supreme Court wanted, Gore would have won Florida UNDER ANY OF THE COUNTING STANDARDS! Go look it up for yourself.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 pmIt appears that vagrant vagenus is forgetting some basic english lessons. Con = against. Pro = for.
It's quite simple. You side with the Con's which are against moving forward. The majority of this country is for Progress.
I'd love to discuss the issues. Dollar amount being spent in Iraq on a daily basis. Qty. of hired guns in Iraq. Hell, I'd like to know what mission was accomplished and what mission hasn't yet been accomplished.
So strap on a pointy one VV and talk real issues.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:48 pmBill O’Reilly is unquestionably an important voice in American political discussion.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:52 pmHe has the highest-rated news analysis program on Fox News Channel, which is the most
popular 24-hour news channel in the country. His books are bestsellers and his work is
disseminated around the world through television, radio, Internet and in print.
http://journalism.indiana.edu/papers/oreillyjourstud07.pdf
#
>> The Joker
The Radical Left is a bunch of all knowing Hypocrites who belive
they know what’s best for people. They belive in taking away property
rights, high taxation, One World Government, are anti-Judeo-Christian,
Pro-Muslims and belive in gun Control. They belive the State should
control all aspects of people’s life and belive in silencing their
opponents througfh their control of the Media.
There’s your answer.
Right on! They are also Jewish or in league with Jews. The Illuminati is actually a Jewish Left-Wing Buddhist Shinto organization that worships Shub Niggurat and whose emerging tip is the Carlyle group.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:52 pmI just happen to have the Communist Manifesto…a document that most of left should follow…and it pretty much says anything but the stupid things you posted. You studied economics…exactly where?
Comment by Juan C — May 2, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Nice to know that you carry such an evil document. Didn't need to tell anyone that you owned one to be known that you own one.
Just remember Juan, Communist nations have killed more people than any other type of government. think about that, ponder upon this for a while and then tell me why being a communist is a good thing.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:52 pmYes, but the problem is that O'Rielly insights his viewers to call 72% of Americans traitors. Take post number 154. I haven't responded to any of The Jokers posts, but they have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what I am stating here.
The other problem is the Iraq isn't the only thing Bush has fu*ked up and you have to admit that. If you don't think he has completely fu*ked up just about everything he has done, post some stuff he has done right. Prove me wrong.
If not, stop standing up for Bush just because he has an (R) after his name. He is not a republican and he is not a Christian and what he has done in the past 6 years is give a bad name to both of those groups, because they keep supporting him, because he says that he is one. And he clearly isn't.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:53 pmFor CITED facts, see Michael Moore’s website. He lists multiple links to reputable sources. http://www.michaelmoore.com/ books-films/ f911reader/ index.php?id=16
Please, analyze them and dispute them, but don’t just say they are false because a conservative think tank “says so†with no evidence.
Comment by Parrotlover77
This one is nice-anybody see this as misleading?
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “Bush tried to stop Congress from setting up its own 9/11 investigation.… When he couldn’t stop Congress, he then tried to stop an independent 9/11 commission from being formed.â€
The original effort by the White House was to limit the scope of the 9/11 investigation to only two congressional committees. “President Bush asked House and Senate leaders yesterday to allow only two congressional committees to investigate the government's response to the events of Sept. 11, officials said.†Mike Allen, “Bush Seeks To Restrict Hill Probes Of Sept. 11; Intelligence Panels' Secrecy Is Favored,†Washington Post, January 30, 2002.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:53 pmHey Spudge Boy,
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:55 pmCare to comment on my reasoning why most people want to leave Iraq?
Most Amercans can care less about about dead Muslims.
If we leave there'll be an Itra-Islamic fight exhuasting the strength of the Jihadis.
I say that's a good thing!
Michael Moore is but a sad, sad, pathetic, liar that uses the left like Lenin did. Believe me, Michael Moore goes home each night laughing his behind off.
he speaks against capitalism, he tells us how evil it is, yet he uses capitalism to become rich!
he speaks against racism in America, yet you will be shocked to find that he has never hired a minority in his staff.
he speaks against Halliburton, Lockheed, etc, yet he owns stocks in these companies.
here are a few sites, educate yourselves Liberals.
Michael Moore is but a sad, sad, sad liar.
http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://moorelies.com/
also read, Liberals, "Do as I say and not as I live" and watch, Farhenhype 911.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:56 pmIs that enough for a start Juan?
Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
?????? I didnt really know what you wanted to clarify with that statement.
On topic: Revolutions of 1848 didnt happen just because workers wanted to take over the world. They happened due to the unjustice that prevailed in the working and social conditions of the people. Thanks to them, 9 y/o were forbidden to work. And the working day was reduced to 10 hours in textile factories. How would you like your pupils working after their classes in order to get better opportunities in life? You did know that it was the right wing of social spectrum that was against this, didnt you. That Atheists wanted to disrupt the Christian "virtue of "work". You did know this, didnt you? OH...the left is so evil. yep.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:56 pmJohn M. thanks for pointing me to this Dave Kopel thing which purportedly debunks Michael Moore. It's laughable. I had no idea that his main critics were so pathetic.
Another great and laughable example is the idea that the 9-11 commission debunked Moore's complaints about the Saudis being allowed to leave by pointing out that some Saudis were asked "very detailed questions." Very detailed questions???!!! Get serious. They were allowed to leave after some FBI agents were given a few minutes to ask questions. You tell us, cowboy. If the attack were carried out by 19 Venezuelans or 19 Cubans, would Cuban citizens be allowed to leave after a few questions? Get serious. This Dave Kopel is full of crap.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:57 pmEl Tonno,
"They are also Jewish or in league with Jews. The Illuminati is actually a Jewish Left-Wing Buddhist Shinto organization that worships Shub Niggurat and whose emerging tip is the Carlyle group."
Yeah, that's why the media is Pro-Muslim?
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:57 pmMost Leftist groups are funded by George Soros,China, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Nice to know that you carry such an evil document. Didn’t need to tell anyone that you owned one to be known that you own one. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
What's wrong, no room for it beside your copy of Mein Kampf?
Just remember Juan, Communist nations have killed more people than any other type of government. think about that, ponder upon this for a while and then tell me why being a communist is a good thing.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
B*llsh*t.
Unless you're going to say that disease and *famine* are acts of government *killing*? You're an idiot.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:59 pmJust one example: #6 states that the media consortium found that Bush would have won Florida under any of Al Gore’s requested recounts. This distorts the main finding of the media consortium’s report. The most important result of the study was to show that if all votes in Florida had been counted as the Florida Supreme Court wanted, Gore would have won Florida UNDER ANY OF THE COUNTING STANDARDS! Go look it up for yourself.
Comment by Bluedog49
Looks pretty clear. Bush wins.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:00 pmI call bullsh*t on that one. I highly doubt that communism (which is relatively "new" compared to most other forms of governance) has killed more than say, dictatorships. I'd love to see some actual data showing that communist governments killed more.
Although, with the case of the Soviet Union, the line between dictator and true communism government is a little blurry due to the fact that it tended to be self-sustaining against the general will of the people.
But I digress. Even pulling the Soviet Union and China out of potential "dictatorship" categories, I say that kings, emeperors, pharoahs, dictators, and so on (single person with absolute power), have killed way more.
And we want to give our own executive branch MORE power? Hell no.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:00 pmSpudge_Boy,
here is one great thing he has done.
No terrorist attack anywhere in the USA mainland, Alaska and territories since 9/11.
do you not think al qaeda has tried to get us since 9/11?
Our economy, it is doing great, look at the stock market hitting record breaking numbers on a daily basis.
More Americans own homes today and more Americans have opened up small business today than ever in the history of the USA.
More minorities own homes and have opened up small business under President bush than under any other President.
Unemployment today is as low as it was during the Clinton years.
just a tiny fraction of what he has done well.
of course he has failed, I think the Iraq War has been completly mismanaged after Hussein was toppled. I do not think it has to do with Bush being evil or anyone in his administration being evil, but rather with egos. Rumsfeld, just like the Democrats, wanted a small armed forces and he thought this could be done in Iraq. Instead of using the POwell doctrine, he used the Democrat and Rumsfeld doctrine, small, well equipped armed forces could do the job. I think we have found out otherwise.
I don't think Iraq is a failure. We have had many set backs in many wars, but they weren't failures.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:01 pmOh, and poor valiantthehater - Stalinism and Maoism aren't *communism*, they're *separate* economic political systems. St*pid idiot.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:01 pmShow me where Mr. Moore. has EVER said capitalism is evil. That's pure BS. He believes in a government regulated capitalistic economy with "welfare" benefits for those who fall on hard luck, which is what nearly all liberals (and even a decent amount of conservatives) believe in.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:02 pmalso read, Liberals, “Do as I say and not as I live†and watch, Farhenhype 911. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
No, you clearly live your life from Limbaugh and O'Reilly lies. Poor little dum bass...
Stop projecting your own *unthinking* b*llsh*t on others, son.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:02 pmJohn M. thanks for pointing me to this Dave Kopel thing which purportedly debunks Michael Moore. It’s laughable. I had no idea that his main critics were so pathetic.
Another great and laughable example is the idea that the 9-11 commission debunked Moore’s complaints about the Saudis being allowed to leave by pointing out that some Saudis were asked “very detailed questions.†Very detailed questions???!!! Get serious. They were allowed to leave after some FBI agents were given a few minutes to ask questions. You tell us, cowboy. If the attack were carried out by 19 Venezuelans or 19 Cubans, would Cuban citizens be allowed to leave after a few questions? Get serious. This Dave Kopel is full of crap.
Comment by Bluedog49
Do you mean Richard Clarke? Here is a quote from him regarding it.
"May 25, 2004: In an interview with The Hill newspaper, published the following day,[13] Clarke said "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again." He went on to say that "It didn’t get any higher than me... On 9–11, 9–12 and 9–13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.""
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:03 pmB*llsh*t.
Unless you’re going to say that disease and *famine* are acts of government *killing*? You’re an idiot.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 2, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Well you prove with each post that education is not your forte. Go fing out how many people Stalin had exterminated. How about Mao Tsung, how about in N. Korea, in Cuba.
please, go play in the sandbox where you belong.
Yes, my youngen, more people have died under Communist countries than any other form or government.
believe it or not, it is the truth.
no retort with your pathetic insults, youngen.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:03 pmNice to know that you carry such an evil document.
Now, you are just talking in medieval. Please, when you want to contribute with something of value, as a grown up, I will answer properly. Lets keep child talk out of reality issues.
Just remember Juan, Communist nations have killed more people than any other type of government. think about that, ponder upon this for a while and then tell me why being a communist is a good thing.
Comment by valiantthehater
I can agree with that to some extent. However, Stalin and Mao were two thugs, that knew little about what communism means. Pretty much like the right wing. And Im not gonna use good or bad or evil to describe political issues. Im sorry I do not engage with that verbal misuse.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 pmUmm, ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Oh, and poor valiantthehater - Stalinism and Maoism aren’t *communism*, they’re *separate* economic political systems. St*pid idiot.
Cough. Actually, they are worst-of-breed authoritarian regimes. But that has not much to do with "communism" except that the name was used to inflame the masses. Something like the word "freedom" and such.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 pmNo terrorist attack anywhere in the USA mainland, Alaska and territories since 9/11.
Comment by valianttheflatulence — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
How convenient you forget about the Anthrax attack.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 pmOh, that's right, it's not considered terrorism because they were mailed to Democratic congressmen, as well as to the so called liberal media.
Comment by Parrotlover77 — May 2, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Incredible how the left runs to the aid of communism when anyone dares call it what it is, a monster, a horrific form of government.
sad, truly sad.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 pmMichael Moore is but a sad, sad, pathetic, liar that uses the left like Lenin did.
ValianttheHater
Ok, this is simply STUPID. Cant we have some decent trolls?
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:06 pmTP has gobbled my post, so again:
A special treat for VALIANTTHEHEATER:
Are you MAN ENOUGH TO TAKE A LOOK?
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
But remember: Fear for your sanity, kid!
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:07 pmJuan C,
Name one instance, one government, one country in which communism has succeeded. Just one. name one wealthy, rich, where everyone is equal country that has used communism.
and yes, the Communist Manifesto, as evil as Mein Kempf. Juan, I don't care if you don't like it, but it is the truth. Let us be honest and call things what they are and stop the political correctness.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:07 pmhere is one great thing he has done. Comment by valianthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
BAHAHA, now THIS is FUNNY!
No terrorist attack anywhere in the USA mainland, Alaska and territories since 9/11. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
And Clinton didn't have any attacks on American soil for a longer stretch between WTC attack I & II - means nothing. He still hasn't caught the people that attacked us - Bin Laden who? And our soldiers die daily from the same people that attacked us.
do you not think al qaeda has tried to get us since 9/11? Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Yeah, daily in Iraq - just as Bin Laden ordered them to do. The whole goal of 9/11 was to draw us out and bleed us - or didn't you ever hear about the *laptop* that was secured that laid out their plans?
Our economy, it is doing great, look at the stock market hitting record breaking numbers on a daily basis. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
The stock market isn't the economy, we have inflation reaching some seriously bad levels - growth is fairly anemic as it has been for much of the presidency - and the poverty rates have increased, as have the number of "unemployeed" that don't qualify for benefits anymore, as well as an increase in the gap between rich and poor. Overall, Bush has failed miserably in this *recovery*.
More Americans own homes today and more Americans have opened up small business today than ever in the history of the USA. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Because more of them bought with loans they can no longer afford, bringing up loan defaults to scary levels - that are only getting worse.
More minorities own homes and have opened up small business under President bush than under any other President. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Most of whom now face risk of losing those homes because of the predatory unregulated lending that was brought on by this hands off f*ck up administration.
Unemployment today is as low as it was during the Clinton years. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
You're confusing *real* unemployed, with the "unemployment-insurance" idiot.
just a tiny fraction of what he has done well. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
None of which is significant, or even praiseworthy.
of course he has failed, I think the Iraq War has been completly mismanaged after Hussein was toppled. I do not think it has to do with Bush being evil or anyone in his administration being evil, but rather with egos. Rumsfeld, just like the Democrats, wanted a small armed forces and he thought this could be done in Iraq. Instead of using the POwell doctrine, he used the Democrat and Rumsfeld doctrine, small, well equipped armed forces could do the job. I think we have found out otherwise. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
His entire administration is one string of failures - you just don't *care* about the other ones.
I don’t think Iraq is a failure. We have had many set backs in many wars, but they weren’t failures. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
You could have just stopped your sentence at "I don't think", because it's true! And Iraq IS a failure.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:08 pmyes, a communist tactic today is to call failed, horrific communist nations, none communist nations.
very old tactic guys, please!
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:09 pmNo terrorist attack anywhere in the USA mainland, Alaska and territories since 9/11.
...
Our economy, it is doing great, look at the stock market hitting record breaking numbers on a daily basis.
...
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Okay, Hater, here's a couple responses to these "good things" Bush has done.
1. You obviously don't consider the anthrax attacks to be terrorism, right? Even though the FBI does? And by the way, guess when the Bush administration solved those acts of terrorism (that just happened to be directed at primarily liberal targets)? That's right. Never.
2. Economy: Dow above 13,000, sure. Rich people getting richer. Well done. In the meantime, earning power is down, home foreclosures are skyrocketing and, much like the federal government, personal savings for the nation was negative for the last two years. That means that the sector of the economy that depends on consumer spending (roughly 60%of GDP) is being supported by more borrowing. Do you know the last time the personal savings rate was negative for two consecutive years? That's right -- 1933 and 1934. The height of the great Depression, which was brought on by the conservative economic policies of Herbert Hoover.
You're doin' a heckuva job, Bushie!
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 pmName one instance, one government, one country in which communism has succeeded. Just one. name one wealthy, rich, where everyone is equal country that has used communism. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
You really don't know sh*t do you? Communism cannot happen in an unindustrialized nation. Western Europe which enjoys stable economic growth, is in fact as communistic as we've gotten. And most Europeans would much prefer their better quality of life - than the *American* reality.
and yes, the Communist Manifesto, as evil as Mein Kempf. Juan, I don’t care if you don’t like it, but it is the truth. Let us be honest and call things what they are and stop the political correctness.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Oh please, that's b*llsh*t. Mein Kampf is evil - but there's nothing evil with the Communist Manifesto. What's evil is that people have called totalitarianism Communism and *destroyed* what Communism is. There has never been a full implementation of Communism - and there probably won't be for decades or even Centuries. You're a fool.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:11 pmSpudge_Boy,
another is Bush is the President that has appointed the most minorities to positions of powers, whether in his administration or as federal judges. he had the most amount of minorities leading his campaigns aroudn the USA, more than Kerry, Clinton, Al Gore, and all those that claim to defend my people.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:11 pmyes, a communist tactic today is to call failed, horrific communist nations, none communist nations.
very old tactic guys, please!
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
No, a very old tactic is to use your *opinion* to disregard *facts*.
Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? Do you even know what it says? You're an idiot.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:12 pmDo you know the last time the personal savings rate was negative for two consecutive years? That’s right — 1933 and 1934. The height of the great Depression, which was brought on by the conservative economic policies of Herbert Hoover.
You’re doin’ a heckuva job, Bushie!
Comment by KRank — May 2, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
it never fails with you liberals, always calling upon the Great Depression to trash President Bush's economy, please.
Jimmy Carter had one if not the worst economy after the Great Depression.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:13 pmStalinism and Maoism are Communism?
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:13 pmWhat a joke!
No, because I am no longer going to play Whack-a-Troll. If you would like to start debating like a real person, then fine, but if you are going to throw around bullsh!t like 'lefties are terrorist sympathizers' then I won't be addressing you or your comments.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:14 pmName one instance, one government, one country in which communism has succeeded. Just one. name one wealthy, rich, where everyone is equal country that has used communism.
Comment by valiantthehater
If you knew anything about communism you would know that it cant exist until capitalism has reached its decadence. Thats why the Soviet Union failed...(no, it wasnt Reagan), because you cant just jump from a feudal society like China and Russia towards communism without experiencing capitalism.
and yes, the Communist Manifesto, as evil as Mein Kempf. Juan, I don’t care if you don’t like it, but it is the truth. Let us be honest and call things what they are and stop the political correctness.
Whatever your priest tells you.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:14 pmIncredible how the left runs to the aid of communism when anyone dares call it what it is, a monster, a horrific form of government.
sad, truly sad.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
How would you KNOW whether it's a horrific form of government? It has NEVER EXISTED - you lying st*pid piece of sh*t.
There was never a chance that Communism would be created in Russia or China or Cuba - because you can't form Communism out of Totalitarian/Undemocratic and Agrarian society?
Those countries, and their Stalinist/Maoist philosophies weren't Communism, they were *Stalinism* and *Maoism*...
You know CHILD - you can go look it up. Those are specific *terms* that define their political/economic systems. And who's defending them? They were AUTHORITARIAN!! You know, like the way YOU PREFER! You NAZI Jake*SS!
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:15 pmI am not sure if anyone of you read an article a few days ago, or few weeks ago on CNN, which compared the Clinton economy to the Bush economy, and it did a pretty good job of it.
It rightly pointed out that both economies are incredibly strong when compared to any other time period in American history, both had super low unemployment rates, etc, etc. But it also pointed out that each one had its strengths in different places of the economy.
sorry, the Bush economy is one of the strongest ones in the history of America. Deny it all you want, it doesn't mean it is not.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:15 pmit never fails with you liberals, always calling upon the Great Depression to trash President Bush’s economy, please. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Those who learn nothing from history are doomed to repeat them - that would be you.
Jimmy Carter had one if not the worst economy after the Great Depression. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Actually he *inherited* one of the worst economic situations - brought on by Nixon's deranged middle east policies and an Oil Embargo of the US. Or did you forget that? Jake*ss.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 pmand yes, the Communist Manifesto, as evil as Mein Kempf. Juan, I don’t care if you don’t like it, but it is the truth. Let us be honest and call things what they are and stop the political correctness.
Comment by valiantthehater
That's so EFFING BULL.
"Mein Kampf" is actually quite funny to read, in a "Little Adolf's adventures in Delusioverse" kind of way. It's cheap entertaiment, like rightos often demand.
Marx tries to a outlay an idea of economic evolution. Yeah it doesn't work in practice, so what.
Now pay attention:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level producesa medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
versus
But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.
Notice the differences?
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:17 pmvaliantthehater,
one person on this blog mentioned communism and you group us al with him? Sad yet again.
I have always been for democracy. Why do you make statements like that?
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:18 pmWhatever your priest tells you.
Comment by Juan C — May 2, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
Juan, please, grow up.
Name one communist nation which has succeeded, one. Name one communist nation in which everyone is equal. I guess you believe like in animal farm, everyone is equal, just some more than others, right? this is your lovely communist manifesto.
or are you going to use the communist tactic of saying that any country that has called itself communist wasn't really communist?
you know, but you do fit well to who a communist is....atheist and everything.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:19 pmThose countries, and their Stalinist/Maoist philosophies weren’t Communism, they were *Stalinism* and *Maoism*…
You know CHILD - you can go look it up. Those are specific *terms* that define their political/economic systems. And who’s defending them? They were AUTHORITARIAN!! You know, like the way YOU PREFER! You NAZI Jake*SS!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 2, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
yes, keep on telling yourself this. If it helps you sleep at night. the fact is that communist nations have killed more people than anyone else in the history of humanity.
sorry that the truth hurts.
peace and love brother. :)
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:21 pmThat is only true if you ignore the Anthrax attacks that took place in November of 2001, two months after 9/11.
Let's not forget the Egyptian guy that killed two Isrealis at the El Al ticket counter on July the 4th 2002.
Let's not forget The DC area snipers in October of 2002.
Let's not forget the Iranina guy that drove his SUV through a crowd at Chapel Hill in 2005.
How about the guy from Afghanistan who drove his SUV through a crowd in San Francisco in 2006.
And last but not least, let us not forget the Virginia Tech guy that killed 32 people last month.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:22 pmCrump's Brother,
will you condemn those on the left that group all right wingers? of course not. please.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:22 pmValiant Douche Bag, Jake A$$, Patti 1" - are perfect examples of the rightwingnutz - they spew lies and distortions constantly, take Valiant Douche Bag's comments about, "What Liberals think" she constantly spews - this tells you right away that she doesn't know jack sh*t.
Then as for Jake the Fake, and Patti 1", they are just sick, twisted losers, spewing their hate because in reality they are hated by everyone in real life and they come here to take it out of someone who can't get to them to kick their deadend a$$es.
Valiant is just an ugly, ugly person and not even her family likes her, get a clue losers.
Hating the TP Trolls daily
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:24 pmSorry, you got the wrong guy here. I don't do minority counts for anybody and don't care. If a white guy is better great. If a black guy is better great. If a women is better that's great.
Now, with that said, most of Bush's appointments have turned out to not know what the fu*k they are doing. So, I would suggest that he chose people of color, so you could have that talking point.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:25 pmJohn M
Okay, so what the fairness doctrine basically says is that issues of public importance must be presented, and presented in a manner which is balanced, honest and, well, fair. and you have a problem with this?
It isn't censorship, it is simply stating that fiction must be presented as such and fact, must be factual. I have no problem whatsoever with the truth, do you?
Lets be honest here, the rightwing lies the whole time. It is why the rightwing is dying, the lies have simply gotten to critical mass and people have simply stopped believing the liars.
Lets go towards a concept where the truth is more important then the bias. That is what the truth is of a liberal, we see the truth as being an important part of finding solutions to modern day problems. That is what the rightwing objects to, as they start spreading smear campaigns and building their straw men.
I mean, come on, why is it that a leftwinger has to be a saint morally just to be sort of ignored, and a rightwinger who commits fraud (Like Delay) is acceptable, lauded even?
Look around, the rightwing doesn't hold to the standard they hold the leftwing to.
This is the truth about the rightwing. Everyone has the right to an opinion in Iraq, except for those of us who were right in the first place. Anyone criticises the president and he is called a traitor who is attacking the troops.
Look at Ann Coulter, from her book Slander, to Godless, she spreads nothing but hate, vitriol and lies about a political position which frankly, has always worked to America's benefit. If Ann Coulter was forced to either present her work as fiction, or actually tell the truth, she wouldn't be where she is today.
And the same goes for Rush, Bill O, and all the rest of the shit. Lets be honest here, the rightwing has no argument anymore. Six years of rightwing rule and America is weaker then before those six years, and it wasn't the leftwing that did it. The leftwing didn't have much of a voice for six years, and now that the leftwing is speaking up, should the rightwing really, after all that was said during that six years, be surprised that the leftwing is angry?
And do you know what I think of the "Don't insult the troops" mantra with the warhawks?
If the troops can't take the president of the USA getting called names, or for that matter impeached, then frankly pull out of Iraq because if they are such wussies as that actually having people at them must be a thousand times more then they could ever hope to cope with.
I do not believe the forces in Iraq are wussies. I think they are brave, strong people who see their president getting lambasted for lies, stupidity and incompetence, and clap. I think they recognise the situation, recognise that it was not their fault, and recognise that their valued service, will be equally given to a Democrat in 2009.
Lets face it, the Republicans had their chance at government, and what they achieved was horrendous. K-Street, the biggest partisan political scandal of them all, and Katrina, an American city destroyed not so much by the hurricane but the constant reduction of funds towards facing such a disaster.
The Republicans have failed not just in their weaker points, such as public welfare, but also in their "Strong" points. America's debt, not just the debt of Americans, I am talking about the government debt, has doubled under Bush after Clinton paid 10% of it off. Bush has managed to spend as much as every president before him, combined.
Job growth is still not strong enough to make Bush look anything but weak on job creation in the eyes of history: Remember, he lost 2 million jobs in his first year. His economy wasn't strong BEFORE 9/11.
And then there is national security, which the conservatives claim they do better then anybody else. 9/11 didn't happen on a Democrats' watch.
Under Bush there has been a constant weakening of America on several fronts: Science, world support, moral high ground, economy, and perhaps most damningly, legally. America, if it was an African state, would have sanctions placed upon it for breaking several world treaties including the NPT.
We demand a fairness doctrine because most Americans don't think about the real issues. They have a constant bombardment of "Who is the dead glorified prostitute's daddy?" Over "America has agreed to sell India nuclear technology despite India not abiding by the NPT and India's ongoing war with American ally, Pakistan."
It is why Paul Wolfowitz, who used his position and power to get his girlfriend a 200K increase, doesn't get slapped down by every single American for whining that there is a smear campaign out to get him.
Fairness isn't nice, it isn't nasty, its fair and so far, where is the fairness?
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:26 pmjust me, do you have a rebuttal for my post?
mmm...I know it is fun to throw things in the air...and communism this, communism that. Yeh, it´s american favorite villain. Thats why US had to kill thousands of peasants and farmers in Central America, so the seed of communism couldnt grow up, right? Yeah, US really had an A at that.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:26 pmJuan, please, grow up. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Says the CHILD.
Name one communist nation which has succeeded, one. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
As I already pointed out Stalinism and Maoism are NOT Communism - Communism requires DEMOCRACY - Jake*ss.
Name one communist nation in which everyone is equal. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
That would be *hard* when there hasn't been a Communist state yet - now would it, Jake*ss?
I guess you believe like in animal farm, everyone is equal, just some more than others, right? this is your lovely communist manifesto. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Oh please. The countries you call *communist* are nothing more than Fascism calling itself Communism. The difference was whether the government decided the CEO versus the CEO deciding the government.
or are you going to use the communist tactic of saying that any country that has called itself communist wasn’t really communist? Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Iran calls itself a Democracy - are you saying it isn't?
you know, but you do fit well to who a communist is….atheist and everything. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Ah wah, you know our founding fathers believe that ATHEISTS were equal here - apparently you religious bigots don't? Then again, there isn't anything AMERICAN about your NAZI values - piece of sh*t.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:27 pmwill you condemn those on the left that group all right wingers? of course not. please. Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
How are you not grouped - please explain?
So you're a minority? Which one? Black?
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:27 pmwill you condemn those on the left that group all right wingers? of course not. please.
Comment by valianttheflatulent — May 2, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Will you stop posting opine as fact?
Like a non existent article from CNN claiming the economy under Bush parallels Clinton.
Or that there has been no attack since 9/11.
Or that Michael Moore thinks government is evil.
You have talking points based on echoing Rush and Ann, yet have to provide any facts or truths.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:28 pmKinda makes the right look incompetent, eh???
you know, but you do fit well to who a communist is….atheist and everything.
Comment by valiantthehater
How could you know? You dont know whats communism ... and dont get a grip of a universe without a god. So, you cant really know that.
I will care about your comments when you have an idea of what you are talking about. Otherwise, they are pretty much irrelevant.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:29 pm#235
Comment by Buck Fush — May 2, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Well well well bucky boy is a little testy today!
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:29 pmThat is only true if you ignore the Anthrax attacks that took place in November of 2001, two months after 9/11.
Let’s not forget the Egyptian guy that killed two Isrealis at the El Al ticket counter on July the 4th 2002.
Let’s not forget The DC area snipers in October of 2002.
Let’s not forget the Iranina guy that drove his SUV through a crowd at Chapel Hill in 2005.
How about the guy from Afghanistan who drove his SUV through a crowd in San Francisco in 2006.
And last but not least, let us not forget the Virginia Tech guy that killed 32 people last month.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — May 2, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Oh please.....there hasn't been a terrorist attack under Bush's watch since 9/11. All these other stuff were crimes, murders, and wackos, not terrorist attacks. Even the FBI doesn't classify these as terrorist attacks.
The anthrax attack, I predict it was some left wing lunatic. Probably the same lunatic that was caught making a list of right wingers and then going to their homes to kill them.
sorry, Al Qaeda hasn't hit mainland USA since 9/11 and you can bet your behind they have tried.
I am sorry that you hate Bush so much that you can't see any good coming from his Presidency. You remind me of my conservative friends who shut their eyes and ears to any good that Clinton every did. While I don't particularly like Clinton, I can be honest enough to say that he did some good for america. I am sadden that the left has become so control by the fringe leftwingers that they refuse to believe that Bush can do any good.
it is honestly sad.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:29 pmit never fails with you liberals, always calling upon the Great Depression to trash President Bush’s economy, please.
Jimmy Carter had one if not the worst economy after the Great Depression.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
I understand why you wouldn't recognize this tactic, but I actually called on some FACTS to compare the two, based on a striking similarity. I didn't just pull some claim out of my rectal region and state opinion as fact like you seem to enjoy doing.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:29 pmCan we have like two successive posts without strawmen, please? I'm not "defending" communism as a form of government, I'm pointing out that stating more people died under communist rule than any other form of government is just a silly false statement. Many died in many communist governments, and continue to do so. But many also die under many other forms of government. In fact, the USA is in great company with COMMUNIST nations in its favor of the death penalty. That's death by government decision. You don't need to make communism sound "evil" by using baseless claims such as this. It already goes against the attitudes of the VAST majority of americans when compared to the capitalist economy we already have. Bringing it up is just a way to make modern liberals, progressives, socialists, and other left-wingers sound evil. Even MANY forms of modern socialism embraces capitalism! Jeesh! What happened to the real issues?
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:30 pmIf it helps you sleep at night. the fact is that communist nations have killed more people than anyone else in the history of humanity.
sorry that the truth hurts.
peace and love brother. :)
Comment by valiantthehater
Another day, more bullshit from the pinhead brigade. T
Try telling that to any of the peoples once subjugated by the Khan. They still tell stories of the animalistic brutality of the Khan's forces. The communists were pikers by comparison.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:30 pmSpudge_Boy
Also:
Clinton achieved pretty much exactly the same results, sans the Anthrax attacks of course, without compromising America's civil liberties, without weakening America's relations with the outside world, and without doubling America's debt.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:32 pmThe anthrax attack, I predict it was some left wing lunatic.
Sending anthrax to democratic representatives. Right. Did any republicans get a letter in the mail? No. Case closed; you're an idiot.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:32 pmsorry, Al Qaeda hasn’t hit mainland USA since 9/11 and you can bet your behind they have tried.
Comment by valiantthehater
Proof, please.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:33 pmO'Reilly will 'Swiftboat' the University researh team who did the research...and will accuse them of being lefties...Cummies...Anti American for analysing him...
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:33 pmThis site just keeps proving O'reilly's point.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:34 pmThe Radical Left are Communist Pro-Muslim sysmpathizers.
Especailly that rich stupid little clown Juan C.
The anthrax attack, I predict it was some left wing lunatic. Probably the same lunatic that was caught making a list of right wingers and then going to their homes to kill them.
Comment by valiantthefacthater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Need I really post anything more?
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pmOne cannot debate without facts to back up their assertion, so one just spouts off non sensical ideas.
I understand why you wouldn’t recognize this tactic, but I actually called on some FACTS to compare the two, based on a striking similarity. I didn’t just pull some claim out of my rectal region and state opinion as fact like you seem to enjoy doing.
Comment by KRank — May 2, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
you called your opinion and fake numbers facts? Oh my bad child. you are one funny character kRAnk. remember the voices in your head do not count as sources kid.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pmsorry, Al Qaeda hasn’t hit mainland USA since 9/11 and you can bet your behind they have tried.
Comment by valiantthehater
Proof, please.
Comment by Juan C — May 2, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Juan, still waiting for you to give me the one communist nation that has been succesfull, in which everyone was equal and everyone had a terrific life. tic, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock.....
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm------- ATTENTION ------------
------- ATTENTION ------------
MAJOR TROLL INFECTION WITH AGGRAVATED
ZOMBIFICATION HAS BEEN DETECTED.
PLEASE VACATE THIS THREAD IMMEDIATELY.
THREAD SELF DESTRUCT MECHANISMS ARE NOW
ENGAGED.
I REPEAT....
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:37 pmvaliantthehater
South Africa, under the ANC.
The ANC is even allied to the communist party.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:44 pmHe was the host of "Inside Edition"-- what does anyone expect from someone with ZERO credentials as a political analyst or commentator. He's an angry guy who wants it to be 1955 again.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:48 pmJohn M
Okay, so what the fairness doctrine basically says is that issues of public importance must be presented, and presented in a manner which is balanced, honest and, well, fair. and you have a problem with this?
It isn’t censorship, it is simply stating that fiction must be presented as such and fact, must be factual. I have no problem whatsoever with the truth, do you?
And who is the one that decides what is true? Free speech was not created so the government could filter opinions and dictate what is said. I am really amazed that the left would not be upset with this on principle only.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 pmAre you aware who got Anthrax in their mail? Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Russ Fiengold and Tom Brokaw. Only left wingers, and the most out spoken ones at that, got Anthrax, so you can pretend it was a lefty, but you would be dead wrong.
So, I just did a simple Google for FBI terror attacks and it took me here:
FBI Counterterrorism Site
You will see under "Cases" in the upper right corner. You will see "9/11 Attacks" and right under that you will see "Anthrax" Then "More"
So, while you may not consider Anthrax a weapon of mass destruction, the FBI does and they also feel that the Anthrax attacks of November 2001 were terrorist attacks.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:51 pmTito Mboweni, was a staunch member and leader in the communist Party. He is the head of our reserve bank.
Not doing a bad job either.
Our crime rate, though still appallingly high, is down on when the ANC came into power. Poverty is down on when the ANC came into power, and unemployment, though still at 25% is still down 15% from 15 years ago.
Though recently we have suffered some problems with our power grid: We are bitching and moaning about maybe 5 hours where in America, where the power is privitised, you can get 5 days without power.
Though perhaps you would be justified in claiming that not every South African is happy, we have a lot of murder and mayhem in this country, compared to where we were under the rightwing Nationalist Party, our country is doing well under a bunch of communists.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:52 pmyou called your opinion and fake numbers facts? Oh my bad child. you are one funny character kRAnk. remember the voices in your head do not count as sources kid.
Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
What exactly constitutes a "fact" to you? Or is that question irrelevant because you don't deal with facts at all in your world?
It is a fact, a statistical fact, that the US personal savings rate has been negative the last two years. It is also a statistical fact that the last time the national personal savings rate was negative (meaning people spent more than they earned) was in 1933 and 1934.
This can be verified here, here and here.
Can you point to any "fake numbers" in these analyses, Hater? Thanks for playing.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 pmyou called your opinion and fake numbers facts? Oh my bad child. you are one funny character kRAnk. remember the voices in your head do not count as sources kid.
Comment by valiantthehater
This, coming from the person who claimed that the military was overwhermingly republican, and pointed to polls as proof?
Best Comedy Posting of the Day.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:57 pm...Tom Brokaw. Only left wingers...
Comment by Spudge_Boy — May 2, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
did you just admit that Tom Brokaw is a left winger? wow! I'll give it to you, at least you are honest. No left winger ever admits that Brokaw was a left winger.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:57 pmNice chicken neck pic.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:59 pmAnd who is the one that decides what is true? Free speech was not created so the government could filter opinions and dictate what is said. I am really amazed that the left would not be upset with this on principle only.
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
The principle is why the leftwing fell for getting rid of it.
As to who decides:
Nobody decides whether something is true or not, it either is or it isn't. Fact is fact, you can have your own opinion but the facts remain constant. The world circles the sun, this isn't opinion it is fact.
If you aren't entirely sure, or it hasn't been proven, you stick the word alleged in front of it. Joe Blow allegedly killed his wife, Robert Mugabe is allegedly human etc...
As to if it came down to a case of it going before anybody, it would be the courts. If something is untrue you can sue the station broadcasting it and prove to the court that it was in fact untrue.
Any damages resulting from the unfair, and untrue accusations of the media in that case would be paid over, and the station would have to issue a formal retraction and apology.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:02 pmThe Anthrax attack was the work of DICK CHENEY, that is why the 5 scientists that worked on it at the Utah Labs all died or dissapeared within 10 days of that event, Left wingers my ass, it was our own government attacking any opposition to their Pat.Act. you are so freaking stupid..VALIANT DOUCHEBAG
Hating the Repukian Mafia daily
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:03 pmThat is great, I am honest and always have been. Now, you be honest and admit that I am right about the Anthrax being a terror attack on US soil after 9/11.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:04 pmSpudge_Boy
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2265
Now I am not much of a conspiracy theorist but...
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 pmI say levae Iraq so the Muslims go at it and destroy each other!
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:11 pmThat's what most Americans want!
It is very telling that valientthehater said the FBI didn't consider the Anthrax attacks to be terror attacks, then when I show them proof on the FBI's web site, he changes the subject and leaves before admitting that they were wrong.
Gotta hang onto those right wing talking points.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pmThis just in - Bill is a dick.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pmI say levae Iraq so the Muslims go at it and destroy each other!
That’s what most Americans want!
Comment by The Joker's Stokered! — May 2, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Hi Patrick1. It's easy to tell, from you stupid hatred to your inability to actually spell to your continued use of run on sentences.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:20 pmI'll await your cut and paste "talking points" from right wing blogs
This information came out shortly after the Anthrax terror attacks in November of 2001 two months after 9/11. The news immediately dropped the story and we haven't heard anything since.
Odd isn't it?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:20 pmJuan, still waiting for you to give me the one communist nation that has been succesfull, in which everyone was equal and everyone had a terrific life. tic, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock…..Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Still waiting for you to give me one example of where a *communist* nation has ever existed? Sorry, but your totalitarian (right wing) authoritarian governments don't count! They aren't communist, they aren't even leftists - as they're anti-democratic!
I hate to break it to you but democracy and a democratic government is by it's very nature the far left. St*pid wingNUT!
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:24 pmGotta hang onto those right wing talking points.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
The same thing happened when I called him on his bullsh*t assertion about the troops being overwhelmingly republican. He couldn't provide any proof, so he pulled a Jake, and ignored me entirely.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pmNobody decides whether something is true or not, it either is or it isn’t. Fact is fact, you can have your own opinion but the facts remain constant. The world circles the sun, this isn’t opinion it is fact.
If you aren’t entirely sure, or it hasn’t been proven, you stick the word alleged in front of it. Joe Blow allegedly killed his wife, Robert Mugabe is allegedly human etc…
As to if it came down to a case of it going before anybody, it would be the courts. If something is untrue you can sue the station broadcasting it and prove to the court that it was in fact untrue.
Any damages resulting from the unfair, and untrue accusations of the media in that case would be paid over, and the station would have to issue a formal retraction and apology.
Comment by Bruce Gorton
See you are missing the entire point of it. You bring up the world orbiting the sun as what is fact? What about issues that are not so black and white? The FCC will have the power to edit This is not fairness, it is nothing more than the democrats seeing that right wing radio is very popular thanks to Limbaugh and other names and they see it as a threat. The option is there for anybody to get liberal shows on. There are more than 10,000 radio stations. Under the proposed bill, broadcasters will be required to "fairly" represent each side of the debate? The FCC would regulate this, can we trust them to regulate fairly? Right not the left screams that the right controls the media and the right says that there is a liberal bias, who is to say that the FCC members will unbiased either way? Forced fairness is anything but fairness. This is blatant censorship in an attempt to cut off right wing radio hosts. What's next no more political books witout making them fair? No more editorials without making the author present both sides fairly. We are moving close to 1984.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pmOkay, so what the fairness doctrine basically says is that issues of public importance must be presented, and presented in a manner which is balanced, honest and, well, fair. and you have a problem with this? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
You have a problem with the news being balanced? What kind of NAZI are you?
It isn’t censorship, it is simply stating that fiction must be presented as such and fact, must be factual. I have no problem whatsoever with the truth, do you? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
You're a wingNUT, of course, so the concept of *factual* seems to be what you're struggling with.
And who is the one that decides what is true? Free speech was not created so the government could filter opinions and dictate what is said. I am really amazed that the left would not be upset with this on principle only. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
The government isn't preventing you from saying your b*llsh*t, it just has to be factual and fairly presented - is that a problem for you?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:26 pmJohn M,
You are doing that thing again. You aren't listening to what we are saying and you keep repeating the same talking point. Nothing will get solved that way.
We don't want censorship. We want to break up the giant media conglomerates that control every bit of information in the United States.
Please stop repeating the talking point.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:30 pmJuan, still waiting for you to give me the one communist nation that has been succesfull, in which everyone was equal and everyone had a terrific life. tic, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock…..
Comment by valiantthehater
Now, Im not going to call you an idiot...yet. That issue was answered by several other posters besides me. MY guess is that you get paid to post here. You have not back up any one of the assertions you have made here from Lenin´s useful idiots through the illegal alien protesters provoked the police officers until the last one that Al-Qaeda has tried to attack US after 9/11. Not a proof from you. Yet, you resort to moral description to describe Communist Manifesto whose economic rationale is based on the Capital, which is a scientific study of how economy works and is studied in every economy class in every single university in the world and then claim that Michael Moore and Lenin hold the same ideas...
Now, do you see my point?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:31 pmOkay, so what the fairness doctrine basically says is that issues of public importance must be presented, and presented in a manner which is balanced, honest and, well, fair. and you have a problem with this? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
You have a problem with the news being balanced? What kind of NAZI are you?
It isn’t censorship, it is simply stating that fiction must be presented as such and fact, must be factual. I have no problem whatsoever with the truth, do you? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
You’re a wingNUT, of course, so the concept of *factual* seems to be what you’re struggling with.
And who is the one that decides what is true? Free speech was not created so the government could filter opinions and dictate what is said. I am really amazed that the left would not be upset with this on principle only. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
The government isn’t preventing you from saying your b*llsh*t, it just has to be factual and fairly presented - is that a problem for you?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I have a problem with the government regulating what is factual and fair. Do you have complete confidence in the government? What if they filtered blogs? Are you okay with them being fair, because this site would be a whole lot different.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pmSee you are missing the entire point of it. You bring up the world orbiting the sun as what is fact? What about issues that are not so black and white? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Then they have to be presented fairly - as opposed to what you wingNUTS do now, which is distort, misrepresent, and ignore FACTS.
The FCC will have the power to edit This is not fairness, it is nothing more than the democrats seeing that right wing radio is very popular thanks to Limbaugh and other names and they see it as a threat. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
That's not how the fairness doctrine works - idiot. It doesn't censor you - it requires that you present both sides of an issue *fairly*. Why is being *fair* such a hard thing for you to support?
The option is there for anybody to get liberal shows on. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Yet the large corporations that own the bulk of the media somehow prevent that from happening.
There are more than 10,000 radio stations. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Most are owned by a couple of companies though - so that's a st*pid remark. Clear channel owns 1,100 alone.
Under the proposed bill, broadcasters will be required to “fairly†represent each side of the debate? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Yeah, you have a problem with fairness and journalism? That's what's being required *journalistic-standards*. You know something we had until it was removed in the 80s? And the news lived within these standards just fine.
The FCC would regulate this, can we trust them to regulate fairly? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Well under this administration - that's a good question. However, they've already proven they could regulate fairly - they did it for decades. What's your point jake*ss?
Right not the left screams that the right controls the media and the right says that there is a liberal bias, who is to say that the FCC members will unbiased either way? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
BAHAHA, st*pid comment. If both sides are being allowed to air their side of the point - what again are you saying is the problem?
Forced fairness is anything but fairness. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
B*llsh*t. Corporate unfairness and propaganda is anything but fairness.
This is blatant censorship in an attempt to cut off right wing radio hosts. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
That's a distortion and a lie.
What’s next no more political books witout making them fair? No more editorials without making the author present both sides fairly. We are moving close to 1984. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
More wingNUT st*pidity.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pmI have a problem with the government regulating what is factual and fair. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Really? What do you think the criminal justice system is - Jake*ss?
Do you have complete confidence in the government? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
You rely in them to police your streets, schools, even protect your country through military force. You're saying that you don't trust a law that doesn't censor the media, simply requires it to present both sides of the story as something that you can't have confidence in? You're an idiot.
What if they filtered blogs? Are you okay with them being fair, because this site would be a whole lot different. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
The fairness act isn't a *filter*, it's a requirement that you support both sides. As for FILTERING, actually that's EXACTLY what the wingNUT sites do today. If this law were applied, it would in fact require that they permit dissent that they don't currently allow. See how that works - CENSOR BOY?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:35 pmValiant:
This is some left achievement...against US, of course.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html
I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: 'The Contras are the moral
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:37 pmequivalent of our Founding Fathers.'
The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led
by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.
The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of arrogance and their political philosophy contained a
number of contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable,
decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were
brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite
remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established
and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.
The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a
dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it
was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect,
neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce
resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.
I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a
'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and
fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of
torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html (9 of 21)30/10/2006 03:48:09 p.m.
Nobel Lecture - Literature 2005
There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons
were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected
government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military
dictatorships.
Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San
Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man
Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed?
They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately
qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty,
disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.
The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but
relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were
exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education
were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.
John M,
You are doing that thing again. You aren’t listening to what we are saying and you keep repeating the same talking point. Nothing will get solved that way.
We don’t want censorship. We want to break up the giant media conglomerates that control every bit of information in the United States.
Please stop repeating the talking point.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I disagree, people see that right wing radio is extremely successful and it is a threat to the left. They want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Savages because of their strong following. It is censorship. The reason right wing radio exists the way it does today is that it sells, ratings are great and advertisers pay handsomly to put their jingles on during commercials.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:37 pmJohnM, stop lying, you mentally deranged piece of sh*t.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:37 pmThen they have to be presented fairly - as opposed to what you wingNUTS do now, which is distort, misrepresent, and ignore FACTS.
Look at this website. Do you want it to be more fair? You are showing your hypocrisy again.
BAHAHA, st*pid comment. If both sides are being allowed to air their side of the point - what again are you saying is the problem?
My point exaclty, why does the government need to regulate then?
That’s a distortion and a lie.
The left hates that it is so successful. They tried playing and lost and now they want to shut down the game.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:39 pmThe fairness act isn’t a *filter*, it’s a requirement that you support both sides. As for FILTERING, actually that’s EXACTLY what the wingNUT sites do today. If this law were applied, it would in fact require that they permit dissent that they don’t currently allow. See how that works - CENSOR BOY?
Again, back to this blog then. Do you want an equal amount of right wing righters posting on the front page?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:40 pmThat might be true IF the ratings for right wing talk radio was really something to write home about which they aren't. Bill O'Rielly averages 1.9 million viewers. That seems high when compared to the 600,000 that you claim Keith O gets. But, it is tiny when compared to the 8 million people who play World of Warcraft for much longer everyday than Bill O is on the air. Four times as many people would rather live in Blizzard Entertainments fantasy world than would want to live in Bill O's fantasy world.
Then you compare the 8 million WoW players to the 298 million people living in the US and you find that it is only a tiny fraction of that.
What you see as an attack on right wing media is a trumped up lie made by the right wing media.
The reality is opening the flow of REAL information, rather than talking points. Those talking points are repeated so much that right wingers come on here and repeat them verbatim on a daily basis.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:47 pmJohn M,
Stop with the friggin' talking points for one minute.
Do you know that Air America. The lefty network is owned by righties?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:49 pmLook at this website. Do you want it to be more fair? You are showing your hypocrisy again. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
B*llsh*t. Are you allowed to post here, unimpeded? That's EXACTLY what the fairness doctrine requires - equal access. YOU ALREADY HAVE IT on Liberal sites - but wingNUT sites almost to the last one either don't allow posts at all, or censor heavily.
My point exaclty, why does the government need to regulate then? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Two words, Bill O'Reilly. Sorry, but you wingNUTS pass off propaganda and disinformation as news - it's UNAMERICAN.
The left hates that it is so successful. They tried playing and lost and now they want to shut down the game. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Hate that what's so successful? Propaganda? It's UNAMERICAN - it's NAZI, it's b*llsh*t, just like your posts.
If it's so successful, why do the majority of Americans share OUR values, not YOURS? It's only successful in keeping you 30%ers so in the dark that you and your leaders actually talk about military coups and other sinister sh*t. You're a lunatic!
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:49 pmFine as long as it is the truth and not talking points. Just like I told you yesterday. We don't care if conservatives want to talk, debate and give their point of view, as long as it is the truth.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:50 pmAgain, back to this blog then. Do you want an equal amount of right wing righters posting on the front page? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Actually, this site is VERY fair. Lets compare it to Drudge or Malkin. You say the *front-page* - how convenient. Tell me, you read any article on that front page - and what's the first thing you see? Some comment by a wingNUT. You get equal access to post your own comments - don't you Jake*ss?
Besides, we're talking about a BLOG, not a JOURNALISTIC NEWS ORGANIZATION - you blithering idiot.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pmJohn M, doesn't believe Journalists should have "Journalistic Standards" - that's how you know he's a wingNUT. Loser.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pmThat might be true IF the ratings for right wing talk radio was really something to write home about which they aren’t. Bill O’Rielly averages 1.9 million viewers. That seems high when compared to the 600,000 that you claim Keith O gets. But, it is tiny when compared to the 8 million people who play World of Warcraft for much longer everyday than Bill O is on the air. Four times as many people would rather live in Blizzard Entertainments fantasy world than would want to live in Bill O’s fantasy world.
Then you compare the 8 million WoW players to the 298 million people living in the US and you find that it is only a tiny fraction of that.
What you see as an attack on right wing media is a trumped up lie made by the right wing media.
The reality is opening the flow of REAL information, rather than talking points. Those talking points are repeated so much that right wingers come on here and repeat them verbatim on a daily basis.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
If you want more liberal voices in radio that is one thing. But to only have people on there that are going to go point counterpoint, never leaning anyway will put an end to am radio. Perhaps that is ultimately what the left wants here.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:52 pmThe reason right wing radio exists the way it does today is that it sells, ratings are great and advertisers pay handsomly to put their jingles on during commercials. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
You know Hitler's shows were popular as well - I'm sure he'd agree with your free market stance... He hated the *commies* as much as you do!
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 pmdo any of you libs even watch the show? "Talking Points" is Bill's personal rant that opens every show and lasts for about 1-2 minutes. He clearly is more biased in that segment, but the study is skewed for trying to extrapolate that out to make it sound like he spends 60 minutes bashing people every 6 seconds. He spends the rest of the show allowing moonbats like Malik Shabazz and Sunsara Taylor to bring their "unique perspective" to the audience. Definately more fair and balanced than anything on CNN or MSNBC
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 pmB*llsh*t. Are you allowed to post here, unimpeded? That’s EXACTLY what the fairness doctrine requires - equal access. YOU ALREADY HAVE IT on Liberal sites - but wingNUT sites almost to the last one either don’t allow posts at all, or censor heavily.
And right wing radio takes calls everyday from left wingers. It isn't about posting here. I mean actually posting the articles on the main page, with the opinions. That would be fairness that you are talking about. Are you okay with that happenning?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:55 pmIf you want more liberal voices in radio that is one thing. But to only have people on there that are going to go point counterpoint, never leaning anyway will put an end to am radio. Perhaps that is ultimately what the left wants here. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
B*llsh*t. The left wants you guys to stop lying, and spreading propaganda as *fact* to your mindless ignorant minions (like yourself).
You're full of sh*t.
As for putting an end to AM Radio - are you saying that an educated populace would no longer listen to wingNUTS like limbaugh? Well, that would be a shame - wouldn't it?
He can start having Journalistic standards - and only speak the truth, and his should would certainly survive, right?
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:56 pmHe spends the rest of the show allowing moonbats like Malik Shabazz and Sunsara Taylor to bring their “unique perspective†to the audience. Definately more fair and balanced than anything on CNN or MSNBC Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Your talking point is already debunked - liar.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:56 pmJohn M, trust the US government to take away his civil liberties, protect his home, his personage, even his shores. But how dare they require Journalistic standards!!!
you're an idiot JohnM*r*n.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:57 pmActually, this site is VERY fair. Lets compare it to Drudge or Malkin. You say the *front-page* - how convenient. Tell me, you read any article on that front page - and what’s the first thing you see? Some comment by a wingNUT. You get equal access to post your own comments - don’t you Jake*ss?
Besides, we’re talking about a BLOG, not a JOURNALISTIC NEWS ORGANIZATION - you blithering idiot.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Are you okay with a right winger posting the article about something a democrat leader does that is corrupt? Yes I am able to debate the "news" that is posted on this site? But what if a right winger controlled the news that was posted here? You want fair-then you would be lying if you said it isn't okay.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:58 pmThank you for taking what we all already know and giving it an air of sophistication, proving this stance's ethos with a study was an excellent move
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:00 pmAnd right wing radio takes calls everyday from left wingers. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Those callers are filtered, cut off, and not the same - Jake*ss.
How many of your posts have been censored? Just call up Limbaugh, and really (I do mean REALLY) pretend to be a competent thoughtful liberal. Since you aren't competent or thoughtful, this probably isn't possible - just TRY!
It isn’t about posting here. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
You're right - but your arguments are all b*llsh*t.
I mean actually posting the articles on the main page, with the opinions. That would be fairness that you are talking about. Are you okay with that happenning? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Actually, it wouldn't cover blogs - idiot. It would cover JOURNALISM and the Mainstream push media - or are you to st*pid and/or r*t*rded to even know that?
You really are a complete moron, aren't you son?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:01 pmYou have now entered the "I can't debate it so I will call you names zone"
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:01 pmAre you okay with a right winger posting the article about something a democrat leader does that is corrupt? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Happens all of the time - once again, we're not talking about blogs, we're talking about JOURNALISTS and JOURNALISM.
Yes I am able to debate the “news†that is posted on this site? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
This is a *blog*, not a news site - idiot.
But what if a right winger controlled the news that was posted here? You want fair-then you would be lying if you said it isn’t okay.
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Once again, this is a *political-blog*, not a NEWS OUTLET - you complete f*cking moron.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:02 pmYou have now entered the “I can’t debate it so I will call you names zone†Comment by Know kidding — May 2, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Yep, that's OReilly.
Then you have the "I can't debate, so I repeat talking points" - which is ALL the wingNUTS like John the Moron do.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 pmSo I repeat John Moron - what exactly do you have against Journalists having Journalistic Standards? We have legal standards, military standards - you owe your right to free speech on Constitutional standards that the government you so DON'T TRUST supports. So why again are you against Journalistic Standards? Is it just because you'd miss the propaganda re-enforcing your st*pid world misviews?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm"Your talking point is already debunked - liar."
Debunked where GUY? You're telling me Code Pink and the New Black Panthers DO NOT get time on the show? Seriously? Is that what you're telling me? Let me share a little exchange I had with the President of the "Whack Panthers"
Mr Shabazz
I just wanted to make sure that you are aware that your refusal to own up to your mistakes today, dissolved any remaining benefit of the doubt I had given you, your organization, and Ms. Mangum.
Michelle was dead on in her assesment of your character and your agenda.
I will take your future support of ANY "victim", of any crime, with less than a grain of salt. You have done irreperable harm to your credibility.
Response:
im at an all time high fool
i took a losing case, turned it around an defeated the host
you are mad because you are not used to a strong blackman telling it like it is , beast
-----Original Message-----
From: jvining3@yahoo.com
To: Shabazzlaw@aol.com
Sent: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 3:38 PM
Subject: your appearence today on the Factor
And you defeated her so bad that you got yourself 86'd from the Factor!!
lol
Response:
I NEVER ASKED TO BE ON THE FACTOR, THE FACTOR CALLS ME. It is as much an honor the banned from the factor as it is for Moses to be banned from Pharoes TV outlet for teaching the truth and defending the slaves.
We are Gods chosen people and I, like Moses, come to liberate my people in this house of bondage. Orielly has given me enough publicity to last years. So tune in to CNN, C Span, Fox, ABC, NBC and the like because you will here about me ad from me as much as Pharoes people heard about Moses.
It is my greatest honor to be banned by my enemy.
-----Original Message-----
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pmFrom: jvining3@yahoo.com
To: shabazzlaw@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 3:30 PM
Subject: Bye Bye Soapbox!
Debunked where GUY? You’re telling me Code Pink and the New Black Panthers DO NOT get time on the show? Seriously? Is that what you’re telling me? Let me share a little exchange I had with the President of the “Whack Panthers†Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Already debunked by how he censors who shows up, whether they're permitted to speak, and how rarely they're allowed to show up compared to the wingNUTS.
Every independent (including the one referenced here) analysis shows you're debunked. A couple of wingNUT fan letters that show you're no more than a religious fanatic in the mold of Bin Laden just proves the point. St*pid Jake*ss.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:11 pmand by the way valient, as a journalism major I can tell you that "journalistic standards" do not apply to editorials in the same way that they apply to hard news reporting. If you want to beat that drum, why don't you start with the NY Times et al who repeatedly put forth false information mascarading as hard news.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:13 pmActually, it wouldn’t cover blogs - idiot. It would cover JOURNALISM and the Mainstream push media - or are you to st*pid and/or r*t*rded to even know that?
You really are a complete moron, aren’t you son?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I know it would, but you say that you want fairness and no lies. Then you should be for the government taking over the internet as well. Why won't you answer whether or not you are okay with it? And a radio host is not a journalist by the way.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:13 pmSo I repeat John Moron - what exactly do you have against Journalists having Journalistic Standards? We have legal standards, military standards - you owe your right to free speech on Constitutional standards that the government you so DON’T TRUST supports. So why again are you against Journalistic Standards? Is it just because you’d miss the propaganda re-enforcing your st*pid world misviews?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Radio hosts are not journalists. They give their opinions-I am against the government regulating opinions. I guess I like the first amendment.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:14 pmAnd Valient...Based on my own study....you name call about once every sentence...let he who is without sin eh?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:15 pmStill waiting John, for you to explain what you have against Journalistic Standards?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:16 pmI know it would, but you say that you want fairness and no lies. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
In the media - absolutely.
Then you should be for the government taking over the internet as well. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
You're such a r*t*rd. If Organizations are News outlet, then their internet content would be covered. Once again, political blogs are the place of *opinion*, not *news*, foolist sh*thead.
Why won’t you answer whether or not you are okay with it? And a radio host is not a journalist by the way. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
A radio host doing political news *is* a journalist - Jake*ss.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:17 pmand by the way valient, as a journalism major I can tell you that “journalistic standards†do not apply to editorials in the same way that they apply to hard news reporting. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
I can tell you as someone quite familiar with journalism, a show that includes interviews, discussions and news coverage of issues isn't an *editorial* - st*pid Jake*ss. You shouldn't have fallen asleep in class, you clearly learned *nothing* about your profession - other than it's OK to lie if you plan to work for Fox.
If you want to beat that drum, why don’t you start with the NY Times et al who repeatedly put forth false information mascarading as hard news. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
That's true, but David Brooks is just an "Editorialist", and Judith isn't there anymore. I'm sure some other wingNUT reporters to qualify though.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:20 pmValient you are such a patheitc hypocrit. How can you stand here and be against O'reilly calling someone "evil" and then in the same sentence call someone all of the names you are. I guess keep it up though...people with your communication skills make our lives easier.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:22 pmYou’re such a r*t*rd. If Organizations are News outlet, then their internet content would be covered. Once again, political blogs are the place of *opinion*, not *news*, foolist sh*thead.
So you don't want fair news? Which is why you come here for it. Thanks.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:22 pmAnd Valient…Based on my own study….you name call about once every sentence…let he who is without sin eh? Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 5:15 pm
When I am acting as a Journalist in the Public Trust - how again would this be different? Oh yeah, it would be *relevant* - you jake*ss.
You yourself point out that Editorials are different than Journalistic coverage - and then you say I am the SAME as a journalist in my posts? You're a moron.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:23 pm"I can tell you as someone quite familiar with journalism"
Is that supposed to be a credential? lol
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:24 pmSo you don’t want fair news? Which is why you come here for it. Thanks. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Pure projection, from the git that doesn't want Journalistic Standards. You're a r*t*rd.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:24 pmA radio host doing political news *is* a journalist - Jake*ss.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
They are commentators, not journalists. There is a big difference.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:25 pmEveryone that'd like to punch Bill O in the face, raise your hand!
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:26 pmValient you are such a patheitc hypocrit. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
A Journalism Major that can't spell "hypocrite"? Yep, you're a republican incompetent fool all right. I'm a hypocrite because I post on a political blog? You're an ignorant fool
How can you stand here and be against O’reilly calling someone “evil†and then in the same sentence call someone all of the names you are. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Says the Journalism major that doesn't know the difference between Journalistic standards and the actions of a "private-citizen". You're a r*t*rd.
I guess keep it up though…people with your communication skills make our lives easier. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Says the f*cker that can't spell hypocrite, or even make a definitive argument for why Journalistic standards shouldn't be applied to broadcasting! People like you and O'Reilly are why the media isn't trusted anymore to do news - and why it's important to restore fairness and accountability into the media.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm"You yourself point out that Editorials are different than Journalistic coverage - and then you say I am the SAME as a journalist in my posts? You’re a moron."
I think you miss my point GUY. Which would be that it isn't appropriate in either context to resort to name calling. So you are more than welcome to do it. But you kind of give up the "high moral ground" you liberals so deserately try to claim when you start calling people "jackasses" and "morons"
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 pmIs that supposed to be a credential? lol
Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
No, what's LOL is a Journalism Major that can't spell "hypocrite"!!! That's downright hilarious!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:29 pmIf the simple twits don't want to hear strong, forceful language, readjust your parental controls and watch the Disney Channel or something more calming and juvenile. If too dumb to do that, change the frickin channel! GO BILL O'REILLY!!!!!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pmPure projection, from the git that doesn’t want Journalistic Standards. You’re a r*t*rd.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Why do you only want fair news if it means silencing the right, but get all your news from blogs? I have also seen thinkprogress interview, does that mean they are journalists then? Why don't you want journalistic standards?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pmso I leave for a while and no one has been able to name the communist country that has been sucessful and has brought the Marxist Utopia that Marx promised. interesting.
Spudge,
yes I made a mistake, the Anthrax attack is listed by the FBI as a terrorist attack, but you seem to forget that this happen almost immediatly after 9/11. so, after these two attacks there haven't been anymore terrorist attacks on mainland USA, Alaska or any of USA's territories. right?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pmI think you miss my point GUY. Which would be that it isn’t appropriate in either context to resort to name calling. So you are more than welcome to do it. But you kind of give up the “high moral ground†you liberals so deserately try to claim when you start calling people “jackasses†and “morons†Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
You had a point? Sorry, but your point was b*llsh*t. I'm not a public figure, nor am I a national broadcast host. The standards for Journalists are just that "Journalistic Standards". What kind of high moral ground are you taking, claiming to be the "values" party, while acting like a bunch of ignorant Jake*sses defending the actions of O'Reilly.
You're the hypocrite, for criticizing me, and defending him. Moron.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 pmyes I made a mistake, the Anthrax attack is listed by the FBI as a terrorist attack, but you seem to forget that this happen almost immediatly after 9/11. so, after these two attacks there haven’t been anymore terrorist attacks on mainland USA, Alaska or any of USA’s territories. right? Comment by valiantthehater — May 2, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
So you *lied*? SHOCK!
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 pmWhy do you only want fair news if it means silencing the right, but get all your news from blogs? I have also seen thinkprogress interview, does that mean they are journalists then? Why don’t you want journalistic standards? Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
You'd only be silenced, if you were lying.
I re-state, why do you fear Journalistic Standards? Harder for you to push propaganda and LIES?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:32 pmJohn M.: I argued that the media consortium's investigation of the Florida vote showed that Gore would win if ballots were counted statewide under any standard for counting. You replied with a link to a CNN article which was headlined "Bush still wins."
See, this is what I was talking about. You should know (and I don't blame you for not knowing) that the actual report yielded results which were obfuscated and covered up by the media. As I said, read the actual report. You can find a pdf of it here: http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
Scroll down to the table of results and notice the numbers where it says "Statewide." What you will find is that Gore won Florida under any standard. His margins of victory are very slim, but also remember that this does not even include "overvotes." Now, my question for everyone is why aren't Americans more aware of these results? I understand your position if you were relying on the headlines.
Secondary question for you: how could a "liberal media" misrepresent the results of a presidential election so blatantly?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 pmYou’d only be silenced, if you were lying.
I re-state, why do you fear Journalistic Standards? Harder for you to push propaganda and LIES?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I re-state radio hosts are not journalists. Now since you want fairness are you going to say you are okay with the government regulating this webiste so that it is fair?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:39 pmAs A American CURRENTY SERVING IN YOUR ARMED SERVICES ONLY ABOUT 135000 OF US WOULD LIKE TO ASK OUR COMMANDER AND CHIEF AND OUR PRESIDENT TO PLEASE STOP MURDERING US, PLEASE SIR STOP MURDERING YOUR OWN TROOPS AND AMERICANS,PLEASE STOP..
LISTEN TO BE: AS COMMANDER AND CHIEF I ORDER YOU TO STOP YOUR CRYING AND GET BACK TO FIGHTING,AND IF YOU DONT FIGHT, THAN I WILL COURT MARSHALL YOU. SO GET BACK IN THERE AND DIE FOR ME AND CHENEY,ROVE,RICE,RUMSFELD..WE HAVEN'T MADE ENOUGH MONEY YET.
EXTRA EXTRA- COMMANDER AND CHIEF AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
REFUSSES TO FUND HIS TROOPS...
EXTRA EXTRA- WE THE PEOPLE FIND THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF AND PRESIDENT GUILTY AS CHARGE FOR DARRALECTION OF DUTY. TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS IN A TIME OF WAR. BY VETOING THE BILL THAT CONGRESS APPROVE FOR YOU AS COMMANDER AND CHIEF OF OUR ARMED FORCES KNOWENLY AND PURPOSLY TURN DOWN THE FUNDS THAT ARE NEEDED TO PROTECT OUR TROOPS..YOU ARE HEREBY ARRESTED AND WILL BE TRIED BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.....
AMERICA DISMISSES ANYTHING AND ALL THAT IS SAID FROM ANYONE IN THE WHITEHOUSE....
AND ALL THAT SUPPORT THIS CRIMMENALS IN THE WHITEHOUSE ARE AS GUILTY AS BUSH IS,CHENY,ROVE,RICE,RUMSFELD THAT STILL HAS A OFFICE AT THE PENTAGON!!!!!
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMS/REPS/WHITE OR BLACK/ THIS HAS TO DO WITH SAVEING OUR TROOPS..NOW DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONUAL DUTY.....
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:46 pmJohn M.: "are you going to say you are okay with the government regulating this webiste so that it is fair?"
Just set that strawman up and knock him down, right? Sorry, but this is about public airwaves. Radio stations get licences to use the public airwaves in return for providing the public service of information. Many people believe that the right wing dominating the airwaves is unfair because they are public airwaves. A case could be made that this should also apply to national cable news networks since many people throughout the country can't get television by any means other than cable.
The internet is not a passive form of information. You must take action to go to TP. The comparison doesn't hold water.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:51 pmAnd he's got a turkey neck to go with it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 pmI re-state radio hosts are not journalists. Now since you want fairness are you going to say you are okay with the government regulating this webiste so that it is fair?
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
What you ignore is that the justification for the Fairness Doctrine rested not on any "need for fairness" in society, but on the fact that THE PEOPLE own the airwaves. Broadcasting companies, as part of their obligation to use this public asset responsibly, were required to present a certain number of hours of public interest programming and to conspicuously offer equal time to opposing viewpoints when airing opinion.
There's no mention of "silencing" anyone. There's no provision for censorship. There is simply a demand that both sides of an issue be presented.
The internet is not the same thing as public airwaves.
On top of that, liberals don't want to silence Bildo or Lushbo -- we just want to hold them to account when they lie. We think everyone who lies should be held to account, conservative or liberal. It's just that so many more of the liars turn out to be CONservatives. Is that our fault?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 pmThis is a discrase. How can they allow something like this on television in the United States?
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 pmJust set that strawman up and knock him down, right? Sorry, but this is about public airwaves. Radio stations get licences to use the public airwaves in return for providing the public service of information. Many people believe that the right wing dominating the airwaves is unfair because they are public airwaves. A case could be made that this should also apply to national cable news networks since many people throughout the country can’t get television by any means other than cable.
The internet is not a passive form of information. You must take action to go to TP. The comparison doesn’t hold water.
Comment by Bluedog49
I understand that they are not the same thing. If you will follow what was said, the comments I was responding to had to do with having fair and truthful news and I stated that nobody can say what is truly fair and then VVGFU started talking about stopping lies, to which I responded that VVGFU is not interested in stopping lies, which is why he gets his news here.
Airwaves may be public, but radio stations are not. Anybody can get a radio station broadcast, but it takes the money for all the equipment and sending the signal. It should be up to the radio station to air whatever opinion they want within reason. Obviously the FCC should regulate hate speech and obscenities, but they should not inhibit free speech.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:00 pmhow long with it be before o'lielly appears on his show in his white hood and robe, sending quivers of delight throughout his mouth breathing minions?
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmHow many times do I have to say that this has nothing to do with left or right newsertainers on the radio. It has to do with breaking up the media conglomerates that are all owned by the right wing.
Look, if I owned a pizza place and my biggest competitor was a wing joint and I wanted people never buy them again, I could just buy the wing joint, and then not advertise the wing joint and then start using less than sauce and not clean the place as often, move the store to an obscure location.
What do you think would happen to the wing joint owned by the pizza parlor? They would go out of business, but not because people don't like wings. It is because they can't find them and the sauce isn't that good.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:08 pmJohn M., I notice you didn't respond to my posting of the actual consortium report info. You posted one of the many media distortions about the report as if that was the end of the argument. I responded (later) with the actual report link which supported what I said. It really doesn't matter now, but I do want people like you to understand the game our media played on this one. And, I want people like you to get it through your heads that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election. The fact that the Supreme Court stopped the legally mandated counting of votes in Florida is what put Bush in office.
And, yes, the entrepreneur buys the broadcasting equipment, but the broadcast goes out on public airwaves. Look at it from the opposite perspective. If all owners of broadcasting companies were raving liberals and were blanketing the airwaves with Noam Chomsky, conservative views would not be heard on the public airwaves. You'd have a problem with that, right?
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:10 pmAirwaves may be public, but radio stations are not. Anybody can get a radio station broadcast, but it takes the money for all the equipment and sending the signal. It should be up to the radio station to air whatever opinion they want within reason.
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
You're a freakin' idiot.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:10 pmHow many times do I have to say that this has nothing to do with left or right newsertainers on the radio. It has to do with breaking up the media conglomerates that are all owned by the right wing.
Look, if I owned a pizza place and my biggest competitor was a wing joint and I wanted people never buy them again, I could just buy the wing joint, and then not advertise the wing joint and then start using less than sauce and not clean the place as often, move the store to an obscure location.
What do you think would happen to the wing joint owned by the pizza parlor? They would go out of business, but not because people don’t like wings. It is because they can’t find them and the sauce isn’t that good.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
It is about silencing the right's most influential platform. Nothing else, the dems that want this to go though are all about winning elections, and the best way to get it is eliminate the competitions main platform. As for you analogy of the pizza place, it happens all the time. I don't see it as an issue. The wing joint owner gets money for selling the business and the pizza joint continues until another competitor comes along.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:17 pmJohn M., I notice you didn’t respond to my posting of the actual consortium report info. You posted one of the many media distortions about the report as if that was the end of the argument. I responded (later) with the actual report link which supported what I said. It really doesn’t matter now, but I do want people like you to understand the game our media played on this one. And, I want people like you to get it through your heads that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election. The fact that the Supreme Court stopped the legally mandated counting of votes in Florida is what put Bush in office.
And, yes, the entrepreneur buys the broadcasting equipment, but the broadcast goes out on public airwaves. Look at it from the opposite perspective. If all owners of broadcasting companies were raving liberals and were blanketing the airwaves with Noam Chomsky, conservative views would not be heard on the public airwaves. You’d have a problem with that, right?
Comment by Bluedog49
I didn't see your link, I will try and read it today.
I don't care if they liberals were the dominant ones on radio. It is about government regulation for political reasons, I am against that.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm"BAHAHA, you mean where that r*t*rd said global warming scientists are NAZIS? BAHAHA, really funny coming from a REAL NAZI like him and YOU!!!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 2, 2007"
Valiant, you never seem to let me down with probably the stupidest posts on this blog!
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:20 pmActually John M, the regular posters on this site often ask TP to cover stuff more evenly. This is supposed to be a progressive site, not a liberal site. Therefore all parties should have a light shone on them. Me in particular. I don't really like Hillary Clinton. She says fu*ked up sh!t all the time, but TP doesn't cover it.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:22 pmActually John M, the regular posters on this site often ask TP to cover stuff more evenly. This is supposed to be a progressive site, not a liberal site. Therefore all parties should have a light shone on them. Me in particular. I don’t really like Hillary Clinton. She says fu*ked up sh!t all the time, but TP doesn’t cover it.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
To me it seems like an attack republican site. I have never seen any negative blogs from the main page against democrats (except Lieberman).
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:25 pmThere is a bill that some democrats are trying to pass that is the equivilent to the Fairness Doctrine that went away in the mid 80s. The bill would essentially put an end to right wing radio, making every host give equal airtime for each side of political discussion. What do people here think about this? Do people see it as censorship? Do people see it as the first amendment right of free speech being taken away. Or do people think that since it is public airways, the FCC and the government can filter what we hear?
The problem with the Fairness Doctrine is that in would force ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN to give equal time to right wing commentaries and give all these left wing stations access to time on the only right wing station, Fox News. Fox News was started as a conservative answer to the ultra-left news stories on the other networks. Fox gets the ratings because it provides what the public wants. People get turned off by the other media becuase they're filled with pure liberal crap.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:34 pmJohn M I just said that.
"Actually John M, the regular posters on this site often ask TP to cover stuff more evenly."
You do know the difference between posters and site owners right?
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 pmMSNBC has Kieth Olberman, other than that they are all right wing. The "liberal media" lie that has been told for the past 30 years while the right wing bought the media outlets is just that. A LIE.
If the mass media was liberal, George W Bush would have been impeached during his first term.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:46 pmthere are sponsors that pay him to represent them. who are they and why do they want him delivering their message?
what is interesting is that there is a market for it or it would not be. stop watching or listening, don't consume the product the sponsor is pushing, everything evens out or not.
vote with your pocketbook, then vote with your vote in '08. it will even out, or not.
btw, don't worry about o'r, if something happens to him, sirius may want him along with beck and imus sincer there's always seems to be a market for that kind of expression. people are mad, they will find someone to listen to, they will find a way to express their rage, they will pay whatever it takes to support a beck or limbaugh, no doubt, just think the sponsors would be more careful who their market is and what it might mean to their market share.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm"Is that enough for a start Juan?
Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
"?????? I didnt really know what you wanted to clarify with that statement."
Comment by Juan C — May 2, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Juan, do you always have this much trouble keeping up with your own posts? It's a little hard to respond to your questions if you can't keep them straight.
This is the post in reference. Apparently you confused me with someone else you meant to address:
Perhaps you can explain me what is the radical left, since VALIANTTHEHATER IS UNABLE TO ANSWER THAT SIMPLE QUESTION. Can you do it?
Comment by Juan C — May 2, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:07 pmValiant, you never seem to let me down with probably the stupidest posts on this blog! Comment by michael — May 2, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
That's just because I always include YOUR quotes in them - dum bass! ;)
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 pmTo me it seems like an attack republican site. I have never seen any negative blogs from the main page against democrats (except Lieberman). Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
How many democrats do you see attacking progressives? I guess you missed the slam against Lieberman last week - who's anti-progressive, but still calls himself a *democrat*?
You're an idiot.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:18 pmI don’t care if they liberals were the dominant ones on radio. It is about government regulation for political reasons, I am against that. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
B*llsh*t. It's about government ensuring that political parties don't violate the *public-trust* of organizations that get their FCC licenses for FREE so they can broadcast. It's about how a wingNUT propaganda outlet FALSE ADVERTISES that they're NEWS.
Sorry, but this is no different than the government regulating any other commodity that's found to be unsafe. When NAZIS like you are involved, your *lies* are unsafe for the entire democracy.
See how that works, son?
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 pmThere is a bill that some democrats are trying to pass that is the equivilent to the Fairness Doctrine that went away in the mid 80s. The bill would essentially put an end to right wing radio, making every host give equal airtime for each side of political discussion. Comment by Don — May 2, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Equal airtime, and truth and honesty in the broadcast. You're right, that would put an end to rightwing radio. But mainly because of the *truth* part. So tell me, which HIVE sent you out to repost almost verbatim the same sh*t the other trolls posted? Who's behind this anti-fairness effort? Which wingNUT is attacking JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS now, and rebranding it FALSELY as CENSORSHIP?
What do people here think about this? Do people see it as censorship?Comment by Don — May 2, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Censorship takes away the right of people to be heard, this is ANTI-CENSORSHIP. What wingNUTS fail to recognize is that talk radio IS the CENSORSHIP - as it's entirely lopsided propaganda, controlled by mega-corporations that shut out the free flow of ideas and truth.
Do people see it as the first amendment right of free speech being taken away. Or do people think that since it is public airways, the FCC and the government can filter what we hear? Comment by Don — May 2, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Yeah, that's why I believe in the fairness doctrine. Currently you're only free to speak NEWS if you're a mega corporation. That shuts out any ideas that pretty much aren't WINGNUT ideas.
The problem with the Fairness Doctrine is that in would force ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN to give equal time to right wing commentaries and give all these left wing stations access to time on the only right wing station, Fox News. Comment by Don — May 2, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Are you f*cking insane? Most of those media outlets are already littered with wingnuts. And commentaries are NOT covered under fairness doctrines - as long as they're advertised as such. Liar.
Fox News was started as a conservative answer to the ultra-left news stories on the other networks. Fox gets the ratings because it provides what the public wants. People get turned off by the other media becuase they’re filled with pure liberal crap. Comment by Don — May 2, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Fox News was started as a wingNUT propaganda outlet that intended to ensure that the left was censored - as opposed to the other media outlets that actually tried to be "fair and balanced".
People get turned off by the media, because wingNUTS like you lie about it so you'll have a reason to wallow in your own bile, hate, bigotry and ignorance. You st*pid lying disgusting piece of filthy sh*t!
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:26 pmB*llsh*t. It’s about government ensuring that political parties don’t violate the *public-trust* of organizations that get their FCC licenses for FREE so they can broadcast. It’s about how a wingNUT propaganda outlet FALSE ADVERTISES that they’re NEWS.
Sorry, but this is no different than the government regulating any other commodity that’s found to be unsafe. When NAZIS like you are involved, your *lies* are unsafe for the entire democracy.
See how that works, son?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
So make them pay for their licenses. The government regulating any other commodity that's found to be unsafe? Wow your stupidity knows no bounds.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 pmEqual airtime, and truth and honesty in the broadcast. You’re right, that would put an end to rightwing radio. But mainly because of the *truth* part. So tell me, which HIVE sent you out to repost almost verbatim the same sh*t the other trolls posted? Who’s behind this anti-fairness effort? Which wingNUT is attacking JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS now, and rebranding it FALSELY as CENSORSHIP?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
You moron, he was putting my quote up at the top to respond. Please try and keep up.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:32 pmI look to each reading upon this person and how one that is dishonest feel about a honest person. If you done know the real meaning about life,you will never, never learn what this man is trying to tell you to the
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:35 pmessence of life.Dishonesty come first when you live in a life of not knowing to what is.
You moron, he was putting my quote up at the top to respond. Please try and keep up Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
You moron, you still haven't explained why you're opposed to Journalistic Standards - yet you are OK with us having Election standards (also regulating politics), and Voting Standards (a big wingNUT position).
You're a hypocrite, an idiot, and a moron.
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 pmSo make them pay for their licenses. The government regulating any other commodity that’s found to be unsafe? Wow your stupidity knows no bounds. Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Yeah, the government already regulates election standards - what do you have against Journalistic standards to ensure that large media isn't just producing propaganda? Are you PRO-PROPAGANDA? You really are the little boy who just Projects, aren't you?
Wow your stupidity knows no bounds.
You claim the law is anti-censorship, it isn't, but the current system is.
You claim you're against the law censors editorials, it doesn't, but the media currently does.
You claim that it will prevent people from stating their *opinion*, it won't - it will however require them to differentiate their *opinion* from the *facts*.
So tell me, SON, why are you so *st*pid*, that you're opposed to *facts*?
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:54 pmSo make them pay for their licenses. The government regulating any other commodity that’s found to be unsafe? Wow your stupidity knows no bounds.
Comment by John M — May 2, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Lefties will never go for that. Then they would have to admit they don't have the audience to sustain more then a couple programs, not to mention a whole network. The only thing that will get them on the air is to force the popular conservative radio and tv shows, which are being blasted here by the way, to give them equal time. Odd how Democrats are trying to get onto the shows that liberals are blasting. Sounds like "anus" is really getting ticked that lefties are on the losing end on this one. Just be content that the MSM still leans left though not as much in the last couple years.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 pmWhy don't all of you whiny, liberal retards go find another country to ruin. Hey, I understand that Cuba might be available soon. It's already set up just the way you guys like it. Joe McCarthy was right all along, we were being infiltrated by communists. 50 years later, the once great USA is just a socialist cesspool. Progress, huh? Sure, if you're striving to become a third world country that's socially and morally bankrupt. This country was fine until you "progressives" got your filthy paws all over everything. Well, you're almost there...we are quickly becoming a socialist Utopia. Go to hell!
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:26 pm"Lefties will never go for that. Then they would have to admit they don’t have the audience to sustain more then a couple programs, not to mention a whole network. The only thing that will get them on the air is to force the popular conservative radio and tv shows, which are being blasted here by the way, to give them equal time..."
Funniest post yet. The ignorance is mind-boggling.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:44 pmLefties will never go for that. Then they would have to admit they don’t have the audience to sustain more then a couple programs, not to mention a whole network. Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
I state again - why do you reject Journalistic Standards? Do you prefer media that's permitted to lie?
The only thing that will get them on the air is to force the popular conservative radio and tv shows, which are being blasted here by the way, to give them equal time. Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
That's because wingNUTS like you own most media outlets. *ssh*le.
Odd how Democrats are trying to get onto the shows that liberals are blasting. Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Odd how wingNUTS like you are trying to get on blogs like this one, that you are blasting. St*pid Hypocrite.
Sounds like “anus†is really getting ticked that lefties are on the losing end on this one. Just be content that the MSM still leans left though not as much in the last couple years. Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Sounds like you're an anus, that's getting ticked that you might finally have to be *truthful* with journalism.
Having one left show, doesn't make a network "lean left", except among wingNUTS that believe in ABSOLUTE PROPAGANDA!
Just be glad that wingNUTS don't all have to go to jail for their treason. R*t*rded *ssh*le.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:44 pmI watch O'Rielly and the people he throws names at deserve it. Like all th edumb shit liberals here.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 pmLeft wing nuts are just as bad.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 pmFirst this:
Lefties will never go for that. Then they would have to admit they don’t have the audience to sustain more then a couple programs, not to mention a whole network.
Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
Followed by this:
Just be content that the MSM still leans left though not as much in the last couple years.
You cannot say that there is no audience for a "lefty" media, and then proceed to state that the media leans left.
Which is it, just me? Or the media leans left in spite of not having an audience to sustain them?
What an amazing capacity for non sequiturs.
May 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 pmI watch O’Rielly and the people he throws names at deserve it. Like all th edumb shit liberals here. Comment by g — May 2, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
That's not the role of a *journalist*. So then you don't have a problem with Olbermann? Or is your issue that name calling should only be reserved for people that *deserve* it? If so, then I'd say that you're a st*pid hypocrite that deserves the f*cked up country you've helped created. I however don't deserve to live in a world dictated by people like you that have IQs and Shoesizes that match! F*ck off loser.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 pmLeft wing nuts are just as bad.
Comment by g — May 2, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
Get your terminology straight - you r*t*rded inbred fool. Lefties are "moonbats", righties are "wingnuts". So there aren't any left wing nuts - but you are an ignorant, useless wingNUT - *ssh*le!
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 pmHey Valient....I'm impressed that you could manage to name call for 4 straight hours. That has to be some kind of record. I've never even seen O'reilly go on a tear like that!!
Unfortunately you've still failed to make a cogent point. What a tragedy for the liberal cause to have a mind as great as yours that cannot communicate it's vast knowledge in any kind of mature fashion. You are incredibly mean spirited, and your name calling detracts from any validity your arguments might have. As a conservative, I often cringe when I hear Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity go down the name calling path, but if you go by the numbers, the liberals are FAAAAAAAR more likely to be guilty of it.
Regarding your ongoing call for "Journalistic Standards" The beauty of the first amendment is that BOTH SIDES have an opportunity to present their evidence. The left's problem is that they don't have anything to bring to the table. You rarely have any solid evidence to prove that conservatives are "lying" so you resort to name calling.
And as far as their not being an audience for left leaning news. The truth is that for the last 30 years, (and up until about 10 years ago), there was no alternative. Just look at the spiraling numbers for all of the left wing outlets, NBC, NY Times, Air America, etc... I honestly believe that we are in the midst of a huge tide shift in where people get their news from, and not a moment too soon!
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:26 pmTo those that criticize Fox as being 'right wing'...
If I concede that they are biased to the right, are you willing to concede that all of the other networks are liberal-biased?
Let's see... Fox. Rush Limbaugh. Sean Hannity. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Times.
Against... The Washington Post. NBC. ABC. CBS. MSNBC. CNN. The New York Times. Newsweek. TIME. PBS. NPR. Gannett. MTV. VH1. Comedy Central. HBO. The LA Times. Chicago Tribune. The list is endless.
Never argue that the mainstream media is anything but liberally biased. You'll lose.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:26 pmWhich is it, just me? Or the media leans left in spite of not having an audience to sustain them?
What an amazing capacity for non sequiturs.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — May 2, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
This is really tedious greg. No it's not just you, buddy, it's lefties in general. Let's go through this slowly. MSM newscasters lean left, but their news programs are generally dedicated to all news, not just politics. So you get slight lefty views on political news of the day and then you get which sports figure or entertainer went to jail today, stock market results, weather etc. The righty shows being discussed here are predominently dedicated to political topics. That's where liberals lose ground. They have a few current topics where the general public is with them like the war and Gonzalez. That can't really sustain a show. Radio and tv stations are businesses and they won't keep a money losing show for long. If a lefty show makes money, with possibly the exception of Murdoch, they will show the lefty program. It's big business, remember. The bottom line is money and who brings it in.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:29 pmHere is the UCLA media bias study for anylib who has the NERVE to read it. (I know you all have the TIME to!!)
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pmSounds like you’re an anus, that’s getting ticked that you might finally have to be *truthful* with journalism.
Having one left show, doesn’t make a network “lean leftâ€, except among wingNUTS that believe in ABSOLUTE PROPAGANDA!
Just be glad that wingNUTS don’t all have to go to jail for their treason. R*t*rded *ssh*le.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 2, 2007
ROTFLMAO Anus you really need to calm down. I hope you don't have blood pressure problems. You aren't talking about "truth in journalism." You sound like a spolied child trying to force someone to let you play with their toys. ;)
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pmHey Valient….I’m impressed that you could manage to name call for 4 straight hours. That has to be some kind of record. I’ve never even seen O’reilly go on a tear like that!! Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
And I'm impressed you wingNUTS can still believe "W" after 6 years of lies. Must be some kind of record in American politics. You know even under Nixon you wingNUTS weren't so st*pid!
Unfortunately you’ve still failed to make a cogent point. Comment by jv —May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Unfortunately you're too st*pid to know what a cogent point is.
What a tragedy for the liberal cause to have a mind as great as yours that cannot communicate it’s vast knowledge in any kind of mature fashion. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
So I have a *great-mind*, yet how could you possibly believe that to be true - if I couldn't form a *cogent-point*? Alas, if you only had a drop of *knowledge*, beyond how to act like a complete *ss, maybe you and your political party would have so much defection, and be so unpopular? Then again, you are the party of hate, misinformation, corruption and mismanagement. Why should your posts be any different?
You are incredibly mean spirited, and your name calling detracts from any validity your arguments might have. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Project much?
As a conservative, I often cringe when I hear Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity go down the name calling path, but if you go by the numbers, the liberals are FAAAAAAAR more likely to be guilty of it. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Which *numbers* are those? I don't recall many liberals using bigoted, racist and sexist remarks - but that's a daily occurrence for you wingNUTS. Your friend JohnM started his conversation this week with the alias "liberalism=mental disorder", hardly the mark of distinction? And in your *description* of me, you just name called me - hypocrite.
Regarding your ongoing call for “Journalistic Standards†The beauty of the first amendment is that BOTH SIDES have an opportunity to present their evidence. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
You've confused free speech of the individual, with the public trust of a News. Amateurs, fools and partisan republicans often confuse the two.
And I hate to remind you *yet again*, that if a corporate entity blocks that free speech - then really, how free is it?
The left’s problem is that they don’t have anything to bring to the table. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Actually that's the right's problem, which is why you work to block equal access to the public. Pure projection as usual. And despite all of the media control of the outlets, the fact that major media presents conservatives to liberals almost 2 to 1 (and that even counts Lieberman as a liberal - *cough*) - the majority of Americans WANT what we bring to the table, more than what you bring. That must REALLY suck for you.
You rarely have any solid evidence to prove that conservatives are “lying†so you resort to name calling. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
You rarely accept the solid evidence that proves conservatives are lying - like this thread. The thread that *shows* O'Reilly lying. Yet here you are, pretending it doesn't exist. And then you call me names, while criticizing me for doing that. Hypocrite, liar, fool.
And as far as their not being an audience for left leaning news. The truth is that for the last 30 years, (and up until about 10 years ago), there was no alternative. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Alternative to WHAT? The news always had the fairness doctrine - but it REQUIRE you the reporters to do their jobs. Truth has a liberal bias, so you blamed liberals, instead of facing the truth. You've always had equal access - bozo.
Just look at the spiraling numbers for all of the left wing outlets, NBC, NY Times, Air America, etc… Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Actually NBC, is very conservative - and NYTimes is LITTERED with Conservatives as well. The charge they're *liberal* is complete and utter b*llsh*t. As for Air America - the *numbers* spiraling wasn't the issue - it was the *cost* of creating a new radio network.
I honestly believe that we are in the midst of a huge tide shift in where people get their news from, and not a moment too soon! Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
We absolutely are in a huge shift - largely brought on by Americans being sick of fed wingNUT media.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:38 pmThat’s not the role of a *journalist*. So then you don’t have a problem with Olbermann?
They're both commentators GUY...or more specifically, "journalists openly dispensing commentary" it's possible to be both. You don't lose your right to have an opinion just because you practice journalism, as long as you do not present yourself as delivering hard news. Are you saying that you are under the impression that O'reilly is trying to pass himself off as a news anchor?
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:38 pmROTFLMAO Anus you really need to calm down. Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
You really need to stop projecting. Then again, if you could do that, you wouldn't be a wingNUT.
I hope you don’t have blood pressure problems. Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
I KNOW you have mental problems.
You aren’t talking about “truth in journalism.†You sound like a spolied child trying to force someone to let you play with their toys. ;)
Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
Actually that's what you're like, because you want the *toys* (news) all to yourself. Didn't your parents ever teach you to share? Or are you one of those *princess* children that believes the world belongs to you?
Bad parenting is at the base of Conservatism. You need therapy, and stop *projecting* your own derangements on others - waco.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:40 pmTo those that criticize Fox as being ‘right wing’…
If I concede that they are biased to the right, are you willing to concede that all of the other networks are liberal-biased?
You act like it's a point to debate - b*llsh*t. That's the problem with you wingNUTS - you won't face reality, unless it's a *negotiation* to get some *prize*. You're an idiot.
Let’s see… Fox. Rush Limbaugh. Sean Hannity. The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Times. Comment by Incpen — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Beck, Greta, etc., etc.
Against… The Washington Post. NBC. ABC. CBS. MSNBC. CNN. Comment by Incpen — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Those are NOT liberal. They're owned by media conglomerates, and the only one that even remotely *leans* left is CBS, and it only does that occasionally - while leaning right as much or more often. The difference between ALL of those organizations, and the ones you listed - is they do *journalism* on occasion. Which means you wingNUTS freak out - because it isn't spoonfed wingNUT propaganda.
The New York Times. Newsweek. TIME. PBS. NPR. Gannett. MTV. VH1. Comedy Central. HBO. The LA Times. Chicago Tribune. The list is endless. Comment by Incpen — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
You think comedy central is a *news* organization? BAHAHA, that's your problem!
Now by New York Times, you mean where *judy* helped George start the war in Iraq? You're an idiot.
Never argue that the mainstream media is anything but liberally biased. You’ll lose.Comment by Incpen — May 2, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Maybe lose your sanity, arguing with ignorant fools like yourself. Just because you *claim* an outlet is liberal, doesn't make it so. Tell me, how many of those outlets were doing any sort of hard hitting pieces against Bush in the lead up to the war? Name one? And we aren't even talking about "left leaning" - I'm talking JOURNALISM!
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 pm"Randi Rhodes used the sound of a shut gun after asking people to go kill the President."
Listen here you communist heathen, listen to what the song says, not what they tell you it says. There is no mention of the President, and the sounds could be made to be any other "oo" word such as "hoot" or "loot". So before you open your suck and insert foot remember that to have a battle of wits you need to come armed.
I bet after "Columbine" you were asking "what movies were they watching?" or "what games were they playing" or "what songs were they listening to". You know what intelligent people were thinking, "where were their parents".
You know why we don't even know the parents name, because "News" people such as your BO (funny what his initials spell) want to attack someone, anyone and that just like all other issues is just another round for their arsenal. I mean for gods sake they actually used a brain dead woman to make a political point. If that doesn't earn every single person with that thought process a front row seat in HELL then I don't know what does.
Some people are too stupid to speak, but I would die for their right to do so. So next time think before you spew blather like that forth. Remember just because your delicate sensibilities get hurt by the truth doesn't make false accusations any better.
So do everyone here a favor, go home, put your thumb in your mouth, hold your breath and fart, you may just clear your mind.
People like you should be the ones dieing in Iraq, instead of the good men and women that actually know what freedom is. You and Bill and Shrub should be on the front lines fighting for what you believe instead of hiding behind your false Patriotism.
You make me sick, but you have that right as an American. And when you try to stop someone else from exercising that same right, you are spitting in the face of all the good men and women who died for you to have that right. How dare you try to stop someone else from exercising the same right you just did. THAT MY FRIEND IS THE TEXT BOOK DEFINITION OF HYPOCRITE.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 pmThey’re both commentators GUY…or more specifically, “journalists openly dispensing commentary†it’s possible to be both. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Commentators don't *dispense* and *discuss* the news with guests. They do *opinion* pieces that clearly state what they're doing. So no, you're wrong.
You don’t lose your right to have an opinion just because you practice journalism, as long as you do not present yourself as delivering hard news. Are you saying that you are under the impression that O’reilly is trying to pass himself off as a news anchor?Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
You do lose the right to usurp the truth with your opinion - and that's what you wingNUTS do.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 pmI can't even break that down line by line. You're too far gone. I'm literally shaking my head through that entire diatribe. The problem is that you are clearly among the 5% of the population who is sooooo far left that you refuse to listen to ANYTHING. The Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Noam Chomsky gang. Let me ask you something, I devour books about Islam and the lapses in the CIA since the cold war leading up to the war in Iraq, and the consequences of open borders and so on....what to you read?
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 pm"You do lose the right to usurp the truth with your opinion - and that’s what you wingNUTS do."
SO DISPROVE THE LIE!!! YOU CAN'T GIVE ONE EXAMPLE WHERE YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF PROOF THAT BILL O'REILLY LIED!! JUST ONE!
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:53 pmI can’t even break that down line by line. You’re too far gone. I’m literally shaking my head through that entire diatribe. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
Like the empty headed decoration that you are.
The problem is that you are clearly among the 5% of the population who is sooooo far left that you refuse to listen to ANYTHING. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
Pure projection.
The Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Noam Chomsky gang. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
You mean George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove...
Let me ask you something, I devour books about Islam and the lapses in the CIA since the cold war leading up to the war in Iraq, and the consequences of open borders and so on….what to you read? Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
When do you fit that in, between "my pet goat"?
Have you read Chomsky? How about Michael Moore? Or anyone else that doesn't fit your agenda? Or are you another "Coulter"/O'Reilly fan of books that don't even bother "fact-checking".
I hope those *books* of yours list all of the CIA involvement in the overthrow of democratic governments in the middle east, and their assistance in the rise to power of Saddam. They should help you to understand how you "commie-fearing" Fascist wingNUTS actually created the worldwide hatred that so many in the middle east feel.
Or are your CIA books, more love novels to how "We're perfect, and they suck" wingNUT philosophies?
See the problem with you wingNUTS, is you think we don't "know" you, but you're blasted all over the media, from Falwell, to Foley - we know EXACTLY who you are. It's YOU that don't know who you are SON!
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:54 pmYou CLAIM that conservatives don't really lie - and that's fabricate. Here are a few(the top 10), just from that golden age of 2004 - some of O'Reilly's BIGGEST lies.
1. O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush didn't oppose 9-11 Commission. O'Reilly defended President George W. Bush from a Kerry-Edwards '04 TV ad highlighting Bush's opposition to creation of the 9-11 Commission by denying that Bush had ever opposed the commission. In fact, Bush did oppose the creation of the 9-11 Commission. (10/21/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm2. O'Reilly falsely claimed Iraq had ricin. O'Reilly responded to a caller to his radio show by defending the Iraq war: "They did have ricin up there in the north -- so why are you discounting that so much?" In fact, the Duelfer report (the final report of the Iraqi Survey Group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, which conducted the search for weapons in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion) indicates that Iraq did not have ricin. (10/19/04)
3. O'Reilly repeated discredited claims on Iraq-Al Qaeda link. O'Reilly interrupted a former Clinton administration official who tried to correct the record on O'Reilly's claim that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He also allowed a conservative guest to repeat without challenge other discredited claims about Iraq's supposed involvement in terrorism -- claims O'Reilly has himself cited in the past. (9/27/04)
4. O'Reilly fabricated "Paris Business Review" as source for success of French boycott. O'Reilly falsely claimed "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review'" due to an American boycott he advocated of French imports. Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." (4/27/04)
5. O'Reilly cited phony stats to argue that taxes on rich are excessive. O'Reilly tried to "blow off" the argument that wealthy Americans ought to pay more taxes by citing phony statistics about the tax burden the rich currently bear. (6/30/04)
6. O'Reilly confused on elementary economics. O'Reilly told a caller on his radio show, "We [the United States] have a trade deficit with everybody, because everybody wants our stuff, and we're not wild about snails" -- indicating that he doesn't know the definition of "trade deficit" and implying that the United States runs a trade surplus with France. In fact, in the first four months of 2004, the United States had a $3 billion trade deficit with France. (6/10/04)
7. O'Reilly doctored quotation to suggest Soros wished his own father dead. During his smear campaign against progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros, O'Reilly doctored a 1995 quotation by Soros to make it seem as if Soros wished his own father dead. (6/1/04)
8. O'Reilly questioned if Kennedy would show up to Democratic convention ... as Kennedy spoke behind him. O'Reilly teased an upcoming segment of The O'Reilly Factor, broadcast live from the Democratic National Convention, by saying of convention speaker Senator Edward Kennedy: "When we come back, we'll let you listen to Ted Kennedy for a while, if he shows up." In fact, Kennedy had already shown up and had been speaking for several minutes, as O'Reilly need only have turned around to see. (7/27/04)
9. O'Reilly disparaged Democrats with trifecta of voter falsehoods. In a discussion about what went wrong for Democrats in the November 2 election, O'Reilly claimed that Democrats "lost votes from four years ago"; that "18- to 24[-year-old]s didn't go" to the polls; and that "[c]ommitted Republicans didn't carry the day for the president; independents did." All three claims are false. (11/4/04)
10. O'Reilly on the radio: Three lies, one broadcast. Lie No. 1: Bush tax cuts didn't create the budget deficit. Lie No. 2: "Socialistic" French, Germans, and Canadian governments tax at 80 percent. Lie No. 3: Canadian, British, and French media are "government-controlled," but Italian media is free. (7/7/04)
SO DISPROVE THE LIE!!! YOU CAN’T GIVE ONE EXAMPLE WHERE YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF PROOF THAT BILL O’REILLY LIED!! JUST ONE!
Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
I just gave you TEN. How many do you need, you r*t*rded inbred piece of st*pid sh*t?
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:56 pmCrap, it looks like it censored my post, here, lets try this again.
1. O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush didn't oppose 9-11 Commission. O'Reilly defended President George W. Bush from a Kerry-Edwards '04 TV ad highlighting Bush's opposition to creation of the 9-11 Commission by denying that Bush had ever opposed the commission. In fact, Bush did oppose the creation of the 9-11 Commission. (10/21/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm2. O'Reilly falsely claimed Iraq had ricin. O'Reilly responded to a caller to his radio show by defending the Iraq war: "They did have ricin up there in the north -- so why are you discounting that so much?" In fact, the Duelfer report (the final report of the Iraqi Survey Group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, which conducted the search for weapons in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion) indicates that Iraq did not have ricin. (10/19/04)
3. O'Reilly repeated discredited claims on Iraq-Al Qaeda link. O'Reilly interrupted a former Clinton administration official who tried to correct the record on O'Reilly's claim that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He also allowed a conservative guest to repeat without challenge other discredited claims about Iraq's supposed involvement in terrorism -- claims O'Reilly has himself cited in the past. (9/27/04)
4. O'Reilly fabricated "Paris Business Review" as source for success of French boycott. O'Reilly falsely claimed "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review'" due to an American boycott he advocated of French imports. Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." (4/27/04)
5. O'Reilly cited phony stats to argue that taxes on rich are excessive. O'Reilly tried to "blow off" the argument that wealthy Americans ought to pay more taxes by citing phony statistics about the tax burden the rich currently bear. (6/30/04)
6. O'Reilly confused on elementary economics. O'Reilly told a caller on his radio show, "We [the United States] have a trade deficit with everybody, because everybody wants our stuff, and we're not wild about snails" -- indicating that he doesn't know the definition of "trade deficit" and implying that the United States runs a trade surplus with France. In fact, in the first four months of 2004, the United States had a $3 billion trade deficit with France. (6/10/04)
7. O'Reilly doctored quotation to suggest Soros wished his own father dead. During his smear campaign against progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros, O'Reilly doctored a 1995 quotation by Soros to make it seem as if Soros wished his own father dead. (6/1/04)
8. O'Reilly questioned if Kennedy would show up to Democratic convention ... as Kennedy spoke behind him. O'Reilly teased an upcoming segment of The O'Reilly Factor, broadcast live from the Democratic National Convention, by saying of convention speaker Senator Edward Kennedy: "When we come back, we'll let you listen to Ted Kennedy for a while, if he shows up." In fact, Kennedy had already shown up and had been speaking for several minutes, as O'Reilly need only have turned around to see. (7/27/04)
9. O'Reilly disparaged Democrats with trifecta of voter falsehoods. In a discussion about what went wrong for Democrats in the November 2 election, O'Reilly claimed that Democrats "lost votes from four years ago"; that "18- to 24[-year-old]s didn't go" to the polls; and that "[c]ommitted Republicans didn't carry the day for the president; independents did." All three claims are false. (11/4/04)
10. O'Reilly on the radio: Three lies, one broadcast. Lie No. 1: Bush tax cuts didn't create the budget deficit. Lie No. 2: "Socialistic" French, Germans, and Canadian governments tax at 80 percent. Lie No. 3: Canadian, British, and French media are "government-controlled," but Italian media is free. (7/7/04)
Not sure if those went up or not. You said just one.
O'Reilly falsely claimed Bush didn't oppose 9-11 Commission. O'Reilly defended President George W. Bush from a Kerry-Edwards '04 TV ad highlighting Bush's opposition to creation of the 9-11 Commission by denying that Bush had ever opposed the commission. In fact, Bush did oppose the creation of the 9-11 Commission. (10/21/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 pmSt*pid filters! One more time!
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
When do you fit that in, between “my pet goat�
Have you read Chomsky? How about Michael Moore? Or anyone else that doesn’t fit your agenda? Or are you another “Coulterâ€/O’Reilly fan of books that don’t even bother “fact-checkingâ€.
"Pet Goat" I mean, c'mon, you make my point...what did that bring to the table?
Funny you should ask. I am reading "Fateful Triangle" right now. Too early for me to form an opinion. As for CIA..I've read James Risens "State of War" and Col. Hunt's "They just don't get it" and they both reach the same conclusion. The CIA has been in atrophy since the cold war ended and did not have adequit HUMINT in the middle east. The difference is that Risen is a liberal and leaves the reader with NO SOLUTIONS...or even any SUGGESTIONS for a solution. Whereas the more conservative Hunt brings all sorts of possible ways to fix the situation. Kind of reminds me of me and you ...I have something to bring to the table to move the conversation forward, whereas you just point fingers and call names.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 pmI just gave you TEN. How many do you need, you r*t*rded inbred piece of st*pid sh*t?
Maybe you need to repost them....I didn't see any...and I scrolled the page...seriously...repost 10 lies you can disprove.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 pm“Pet Goat†I mean, c’mon, you make my point…what did that bring to the table? Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
More projection.
Funny you should ask. I am reading “Fateful Triangle†right now. Too early for me to form an opinion. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
I'm sure it's beyond your capacity - no surprise.
As for CIA..I’ve read James Risens “State of War†and Col. Hunt’s “They just don’t get it†and they both reach the same conclusion. The CIA has been in atrophy since the cold war ended and did not have adequit HUMINT in the middle east. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Wow, you mean Risen, that *liberal* reporter? Do tell! You just said the liberal press can't be trusted - hypocrite!
Actually Risen more accurately makes the case that the CIA is a corrupt and incompetent organization that is often too ham fisted with the delicate requirements of the modern world. You say atrophy, but stunted is a more apt description. They're stunted in a cold war *conservative* mentality - just like yourself. It's understandable how you'd reach the wrong conclusion.
The difference is that Risen is a liberal and leaves the reader with NO SOLUTIONS…or even any SUGGESTIONS for a solution. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
The job of a journalist is to *inform* - your suggestion that he *advocate* is exactly why I said you *don't-get-it* on this post. You've proven my point succinctly.
Whereas the more conservative Hunt brings all sorts of possible ways to fix the situation. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
So as a result, he wrote a pre-conceived advocacy book, where he no doubt cast the situation in his book to fit his own idea of what should be proposed.
Kind of reminds me of me and you …I have something to bring to the table to move the conversation forward, whereas you just point fingers and call names. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
That's what we call a *delusion*. You don't bring anything to the party I haven't heard over, and over again. That's the problem with you wingNUTS, you all think your talking point is *original*. You aren't a *thinker* son, you're a *follower* - which is why you so adore a book author that TELLS you what to think. Yet there you are *whining* that the liberal didn't do that for you. You're identical to the hoards of wanna-be wingNUT (pseudo) intellectuals that come here from time to time.
I've sh*t t*rds that were more aware of themselves than you are.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 pmAlright, you are officially a douchebag...(I've been holding off of that), but cutting and pasting from http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/misinformer.htm
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:13 pmIs about as pathetic as it gets.
Maybe you need to repost them….I didn’t see any…and I scrolled the page…seriously…repost 10 lies you can disprove. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
I did twice, it ate them. I'll try posting them one at a time after this post.
You only asked for one - why can't you admit you were wrong? Ego to fragile?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:14 pmLie 2.
O'Reilly falsely claimed Iraq had ricin. O'Reilly responded to a caller to his radio show by defending the Iraq war: "They did have ricin up there in the north -- so why are you discounting that so much?" In fact, the Duelfer report (the final report of the Iraqi Survey Group, led by Charles A. Duelfer, which conducted the search for weapons in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion) indicates that Iraq did not have ricin. (10/19/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 pmLie 3.
O'Reilly repeated discredited claims on Iraq-Al Qaeda link. O'Reilly interrupted a former Clinton administration official who tried to correct the record on O'Reilly's claim that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi constitutes a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He also allowed a conservative guest to repeat without challenge other discredited claims about Iraq's supposed involvement in terrorism -- claims O'Reilly has himself cited in the past. (9/27/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 pmMSM newscasters lean left, but their news programs are generally dedicated to all news, not just politics. [...]
The righty shows being discussed here are predominently dedicated to political topics. That’s where liberals lose ground.
Comment by just me — May 2, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
I see. The media are liberal except when they aren't.
Right. Got it.
So you get slight lefty views on political news of the day
And the facts have a liberal bias, I suppose.
It’s big business, remember. The bottom line is money and who brings it in.
So there is a market for lefty views, per your previous assessment on what the media broadcast: Political shows = righty, news in general = slightly lefty.
Do you read what you post?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 pmlie 4.
O'Reilly fabricated "Paris Business Review" as source for success of French boycott. O'Reilly falsely claimed "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review'" due to an American boycott he advocated of French imports. Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." (4/27/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 pmLie 5
O'Reilly cited phony stats to argue that taxes on rich are excessive. O'Reilly tried to "blow off" the argument that wealthy Americans ought to pay more taxes by citing phony statistics about the tax burden the rich currently bear. (6/30/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 pmlie 6
O'Reilly confused on elementary economics. O'Reilly told a caller on his radio show, "We [the United States] have a trade deficit with everybody, because everybody wants our stuff, and we're not wild about snails" -- indicating that he doesn't know the definition of "trade deficit" and implying that the United States runs a trade surplus with France. In fact, in the first four months of 2004, the United States had a $3 billion trade deficit with France. (6/10/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 pmAnd by the way...YOU'RE 39! GROW UP!!
You're too old to be in a name calling-pissing match with a 28 year old.
Nice rant, funny thing is, I don't beleive you've read ANY of those books.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 pmAlright, you are officially a douchebag…(I’ve been holding off of that), but cutting and pasting from http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/misinformer.htm
Is about as pathetic as it gets. Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
Nice example of hypocrisy. Poor little st*pid hypocrite.
I hate to inform you, but the post from media matters - that does a watchdog of O'Reilly. Or didn't you know that.
Then again, are you going to say those lies didn't happen? Or are you going to do what all coward conservatives do, and make up a *source* excuse for why you won't accept the truth?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 pmNext.
O'Reilly doctored quotation to suggest Soros wished his own father dead. During his smear campaign against progressive financier, philanthropist, and political activist George Soros, O'Reilly doctored a 1995 quotation by Soros to make it seem as if Soros wished his own father dead. (6/1/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 pmtp://www.oreilly-sucks.com/misinformer.htm
I get it GUY...nice research.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:19 pmAnd by the way…YOU’RE 39! GROW UP!!
You’re too old to be in a name calling-pissing match with a 28 year old.
Nice rant, funny thing is, I don’t beleive you’ve read ANY of those books.
Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
More projection. I'm how old again? You're 28? What in dog years? You have the mental and social development of a teenager at best son. Your parents did you NO FAVORS!
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 pmNext.
O'Reilly disparaged Democrats with trifecta of voter falsehoods. In a discussion about what went wrong for Democrats in the November 2 election, O'Reilly claimed that Democrats "lost votes from four years ago"; that "18- to 24[-year-old]s didn't go" to the polls; and that "[c]ommitted Republicans didn't carry the day for the president; independents did." All three claims are false. (11/4/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 pmnext
O'Reilly on the radio: Three lies, one broadcast. Lie No. 1: Bush tax cuts didn't create the budget deficit. Lie No. 2: "Socialistic" French, Germans, and Canadian governments tax at 80 percent. Lie No. 3: Canadian, British, and French media are "government-controlled," but Italian media is free. (7/7/04)
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:20 pmCome on jv, admit it.
You said he didn't lie. I gave you dates, and specifically what he lied about.
Admit you were wrong - or I'll know you're really 12, not 28.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:21 pmtp://www.oreilly-sucks.com/misinformer.htm
I get it GUY…nice research.
Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Actually, that would be more your speed. I prefer mediamatters which does a more thorough job of research, and provides links to transcripts and stories as a matter of course.
You should use it sometime, maybe you wouldn't be such an uninformed purveyor of lies and propaganda.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412230006
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:22 pmMy favorite was his "Paris Business Review" lie though! It takes some b*lls to not only lie about a story, but to lie about a magazine that only exists in luffah land!
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 pmMedia Matters is a Soros puppet. You win Zero points for citing media matters. Look me up if you're ever in SF...I'd love to shake your hand.
Goodnight
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 pmMedia Matters is a Soros puppet. You win Zero points for citing media matters. Look me up if you’re ever in SF…I’d love to shake your hand. Goodnight Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
And right on cue, instead of admitting you're wrong, you say you don't like the "source" of the information, and you dismiss reality. Sorry, but those *soros* links include transcripts from the show. That's called a *fact*. You can go check the transcripts yourself if you don't believe it.
But instead of that - you pull the *I don't want to believe you* b*llsh*t that's typical of the wingNUTS, and refuse to admit O'Reilly is a liar.
You can go to the wikipedia site if you like. They also list the "paris business review" incident. Or is wikipedia an unacceptable source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_controversies
You're such a loser child. How do you survive in a place like San Francisco? You must be a turd out of the toilet bowl there!
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 pmPoor jv, loses, but is too cowardly to admit. WingNUTs are all the same. Losers.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 pmYou win Zero points for citing media matters.
Comment by jv — May 2, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
It is pointless, with people like you, to provide links to anything at all. Your standard reply is "your source is biased", and you don't care if the source has links, transcripts, and even video you can stream.
It doesn't matter what sources one chooses, the rely from your side is always the same.
Better deny rather than be intellectually honest and admit you were proven wrong -like exactly as your Dear (mis)Leader does.
Some "journalist" you will be, assuming you were being truthful about that.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pmI would like to know how many of the ones defending O´Reilly here have read the whole study. Here is my take at why most of them probably have not. http://www.uglydoggy.com/2007/05/oreilly-exposed.html
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 pmYou think comedy central is a *news* organization? BAHAHA, that’s your problem!
That is an interesting point. According to your criteria of a journalist Jon Stewart and Colbert fit. They conduct interviews and comment about recent news. So are they journalists?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm"I can tell you as someone quite familiar with journalism, a show that includes interviews, discussions and news coverage of issues isn’t an *editorial* - st*pid Jake*ss."
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
So, here is your definition of journalism. Is Jon Stewart and Colbert journalists. For that matter Bill Maher includes interviews, discussions and news coverage of issues, so he must be a journalist as well. Please, I can't wait to see you insult your way out of this one.
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:02 pmNice to see there is some science at last behind O'Reilly's .
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:31 pmGosh, I dip in and out of this blog several times per 100 and it is deja vu - all over again, and again...All the trolls keep on dodging and shifting from one nonsense response to another, and when it seems if they finally have been cornered it's "beam me up Scotty" and shift to personal insults....IMHO, this is just like trying to have a serious conversation with a drunk, that happens to hear you talking to someone else. Do the other rational posters here have this same thought every now and then? The trolls have demonstrated by their postings and arguments that they don't use cognitive processes well and rational thought - statement, facts, proof, conclusion, somehow eludes them...Why bother?
May 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm"You really need to stop projecting. Then again, if you could do that, you wouldn’t be a wingNUT.
Actually that’s what you’re like, because you want the *toys* (news) all to yourself. Didn’t your parents ever teach you to share? Or are you one of those *princess* children that believes the world belongs to you?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 2, 2007
There now, don't you feel better since you calmed yourself? You actually seem lucid now. Still not quite normal, but not totally out of control. Yes, my parents taught me to share with normal children. They also taught me to avoid the spoiled brats who demanded what everybody else had. And guess what, the stations and equipment used by the companies that you hate do belong to them. They aren't public property. Only the airways are and I believe there is still room for plenty more radio and tv stations. Liberals are free to start their own. When Murdock wanted to start a