O’Reilly Defends Cherry-Picking Comments To Attack Blogs
O’Reilly Defends Cherry-Picking Comments To Attack Blogs
On Wednesday, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly attempted to demonstrate that the blogosphere is full of extreme hate-mongers. To do so, he pulled random comments from both ThinkProgress and Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air blog. However, he never noted that they were comments. Instead, he attributed them as official posts by the blogs:
ThinkProgress, another crazy website on the left: “It will be so funny seeing a bunch of old white guys questioning her during the Senate hearings.” Nothing racist about that. You know, these people — as I said on the conservative guy — they don’t think that they’re racist. They don’t think that they’re bigoted. But you know, it’s so obvious they are.
Malkin went on Fox and Friends the next day and responded that her site was “smeared” by O’Reilly.
Last night, O’Reilly responded to the criticisms, saying that he “should have been more precise” and identified that the remark was made by a “civilian” not by Hot Air’s staff. (O’Reilly never acknowledged that he similarly smeared ThinkProgress.) However, he then went on to defend his actions:
O’REILLY: Wow. Miss Malkin is upset, because I did not identify the Hussein comment was made by a civilian, not her or her staff. And that’s true. I should have been more precise.
But we often cite hateful civilian comments on blogs and say they should be edited, as we do on BillOReilly.com. That’s the point. The Daily Kos traffics in hatred all day long. It’s not enough to say, “I didn’t do it.”
And pointing out hateful things on any Web site is not a smear.
Watch it:
As ThinkProgress editor Faiz Shakir explained yesterday, “The comments policy of this blog — like most blogs on the Internet — is to allow postings from people with whom we agree and disagree. … Those comments do not always reflect the positions and views of the site’s editors and authors. As long as commenters abide by our terms of use, they are free to post whatever they’d like, even things which offend Bill O’Reilly’s sensitivities.”
But by O’Reilly’s logic, he himself should be held responsible for hoping that Hillary Clinton falls “into a moat filled leeches and (gulp) rats” and speculating that “it’s time to burn down the capitol building like Hitler did with the Reichstag building.” As Hot Air writer AllahPundit noted, “if the O’Reilly Factor can’t figure out the difference between a blog post and a comment, they have no business opining about the Internet at all.”
If O’Reilly is sincere in his belief that he “should have been more precise” in identifying the source of the comment on Hot Air, we expect that he will do the same next time he highlights something written on ThinkProgress, DailyKos, or any other liberal blog.
Transcript:
O’REILLY: “Back of the Book” segment tonight, “Reality Check,” where we spotlight the truth and expose the falsehoods. A good recipe, indeed.
“Check” one, last night we annualized how both right- and left- wing Web sites were handling the Sotomayor controversy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: This comes from HotAir.com. “Unqualified militant and socialist. Next, please. The GOP has to block any of Hussein’s” — that’s the president — “extremist picks.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Well, HotAir’s Michelle Malkin’s Web site, and this morning, she said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHELLE MALKIN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think there’s this attitude about the blogosphere that, “Oh, they don’t know what they’re talking about.” There’s denigration. Hot Air was smeared, unfortunately, by “The O’Reilly Factor” last night.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Wow. Miss Malkin is upset, because I did not identify the Hussein comment was made by a civilian, not her or her staff. And that’s true. I should have been more precise.
But we often cite hateful civilian comments on blogs and say they should be edited, as we do on BillOReilly.com. That’s the point.
The Daily Kos traffics in hatred all day long. It’s not enough to say, “I didn’t do it.”
And pointing out hateful things on any Web site is not a smear.
By the way, we also heard from Jim Robinson, who runs the right- wing Free Republic, and he said some personal comments can get through their filter, which is understandable. It happens to us, too.
Jim then went on to call me an elite gas bag. I guess that’s better than a run-of-the-mill gas bag.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Falafel!
May 29th, 2009 at 3:15 pmThat honky cracker needs to shut his wonderbread-and-mayonnaise-eating trap.
(aka please put my comment on your show, Bill!)
May 29th, 2009 at 3:18 pmAnyone who settles out of court for millions of FOX News’s money for a delicious sexual harassment suit has no business telling ANYONE they’re bigoted–or inferring they ‘don’t know’ how bigoted they are.
FreeRepublic? Can’t help but let offensive comments?
ha ha
Hey, they screen EVERY offensive comment–offensive to THEM, and no one else. They’re incredibly accurate on THAT point.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:19 pmO’REILLY: But we often cite hateful civilian comments on blogs and say they should be edited, as we do on BillOReilly.com.
In other words, Freedom of speech is a nice talking point, but not something he wants on his site.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:19 pmCool it, O’Reilly. Or Christmas gets it.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pmMalkin gets bashed by O’Reilly….I love it. Did you see her eyes bug out of her head? I thought her was about to blow!!!!
May 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pmnow that’s poetic justice. michelle “anchor baby” malkin who makes a career out of smearing people caliming her BFF bill o’lielly who also makes a career out of smearing people, smeared her.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:20 pmBlow it out your loofah-filled ass , O’Lielly ……….
May 29th, 2009 at 3:21 pmDaddy-O Says:
FreeRepublic? Can’t help but let offensive comments?
ha ha
Hey, they screen EVERY offensive comment–offensive to THEM, and no one else. They’re incredibly accurate on THAT point.
The Freepers probably claim that liberals are cowards because there are never any liberal commenters on their site.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm“But we often cite hateful civilian comments on blogs and say they should be edited, as we do on BillOReilly.com.”
essentially, this is all about plugging his pay-fer-play crappy-assed blog.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pmO’Reilly is against free speech, unless hes the one doing it.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:24 pmi’ve been away mostly… did anyone find out whose comment that is?
a google search with quotation marks, and i found it:
CParis Says:
The GOP is going to look like morons with these attacks on Judge Santomayor. I’m sure claiming she’s unqualified (because she’s a female and a minority) will attract even more women and minorities to the GOP.
It will be so funny seeing a bunch of old white guys questioning her during the Senate hearings.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:16 am
wonder why billo left off the first sentence of that comment post?
hmmmmm…….
May 29th, 2009 at 3:26 pmoh, and Congratulations, CParis!
May 29th, 2009 at 3:26 pmoops… and the link:
May 29th, 2009 at 3:28 pmhttp://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/sotomayor-lightweight/#comment-5656181
somehow this doesn’t surprise me :(
May 29th, 2009 at 3:29 pmBill-O took CParis post out of context. Figgers.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pmahha! L O L perry…
.
back to the garden… it’s rained every day this week…
May 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pmeverything and the weeds grew a foot this morning!
O’REILLY: Wow. Miss Malkin is upset, because I did not identify the Hussein comment was made by a civilian, not her or her staff. And that’s true. I should have been more precise.
__________
The Hussein comment?
So not only is he referring to the wrong blog, but also the wrong commenter. Bilbo Hussein Baggins made the comment after it.
Hey, Bill – please quote this: YOU’RE A DING-DONG!
Heh. Zinged him.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:34 pm“Civilians”? You say that as if the people running the blogs were government officials. Bill, I’ve got news for you. You’re a “civilian,” too. We refer to people who post comments as “posters.” Don’t worry, Bill. You may get the hang of this internet thingy soon.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pmI was just checking out Bill’O’s site, and apparently you have to be a “premium member” to comment in his blog area, which appears to be the only place that a visitor can comment. Example (scroll to the bottom of that post to see the message).
Becoming a premium member costs $49.95 a year, or $4.95 for one month.
So the only people commenting on his blog to begin with are those who are paying him money to be in his club to begin with.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pmI see you can only train monkeys to talk and fling feces, not make correlations.
Why hasn’t Glenn Beck shot the monkeys in the head yet? I thought Faux News was hiring its writers off of craigslist.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pmElBruce Says:
Becoming a premium member costs $49.95 a year, or $4.95 for one month.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
_____________
Why would anyone pay that much for stupid?
May 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pmHey Billdo: I got yer hateful civilian comments right here…
Now be a good boy and get back to falafelling your female producers…
May 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
ElBruce Says:
Becoming a premium member costs $49.95 a year, or $4.95 for one month.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
_____________
Why would anyone pay that much for stupid?
May 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
We paid at least $10 trillion that was “teh stupid” known as the Bush presidency/administration …….And we’re still paying for it.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:44 pmWow Elbruce, Billdo actually charges people to read and post bullsht and lies.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:44 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
ElBruce Says:
Becoming a premium member costs $49.95 a year, or $4.95 for one month.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
_____________
Why would anyone pay that much for stupid?
Because Billo doesn’t give up his assassin fascination friends and probably now gets his talking points through the site.
Lets face it, the GOP needs all the help it can get when it comes to coordination. And $50 is a buffet for the mindless, because IT IS BILLO!!!
May 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pmAh, more crap spewing from the mouth of a Sexual Predator, Falafel Pervert.
It’s a wonder that Bill0 has the time to look at blog posts, what with him sitting on a vibrator while surfing gay porn sites all day and night.
Use that one on you hate show Billdo.
Fcuk the Republic Fascist Party
May 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pmWhat blog?
I just checked and Bill-O has no publicly accessible blog. It’s FAR easier to “police” a private blog that one that receives literally hundreds of comments a day from anyone with a computer and time on their hands.
PS: On the subject of Bill-O denouncing “ambush journalism of celebrities”, there is currently a video link oh his homepage: “‘Factor’ Ambushes Rosie”.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:49 pmI would think that when discussing how “well moderated” his blog is, it might be a little bit relevant that participants at his site are limited only to people who are willing to pay for participation. Ya think?
It might be an interesting exercise to see what monthly-paying customers at his site can get away with saying vs. yearly-paying customers. After all, if you ban somebody who prepaid a year, you get to keep that, but you want to hit that monthly guy’s credit card again on the 1st, so he might get more slack. But that would be in their proprietary database information, and only a hacker might be able to get to that.
Which is why he might want to quit baiting the Internet to come after him. We’re all a law-abiding lot around here, but if those rabble over at 4chan, 7chan or ebaumsworld decided that he was picking on the Internets too much, they could do some massive damage to his credibility. Especially using the data analysis method that I helpfully outlined in the previous paragraph.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pm$49.95 per year, which includes arbitrary censorship, doesn’t sound like free speech to me.
PEACE
May 29th, 2009 at 3:52 pmI think it was a good thing that Bill included the very mean spirited, and Ann Coulter wanna be, Michelle Malkin in his rantings.
This shows that he IS “fair & balanced” when cherry picking lol.
I’m not for censoring comments for sensitive media types but If you’re gonna put a spot light on comments that are allowed on sites, include both sides.
All this shows is that these people actually read the comment sections on these sites and get upset lol.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:53 pmWow… Im pretty good at internets and I’ve never heard of “7chan”… I can only imagine that it’s 3 worse than 4chan and that terrifies me.
No thanks in advance for the nightmares, Bruce. :(
May 29th, 2009 at 3:57 pmBill O’Reilly is such a tiny-wienied, insecure, self-important, piss-soaked sexual deviant, that he has to charge people to comment on his “champagne blog.”
Cherry-pick that, Bildo.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:07 pmThe things said by many on this site are clearly beyond decency, thinkprogress should moderate it. If they do not moderate the hate filled things then they should be called out for perpetuating and facilitating hate speech.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pmJust an observation.
One thing I do notice is that conservatives aren’t for free speech and disagreement with there views.
If you go to a conservative blog you have to practically sign your life away to post a comment. And you’re constantly getting blocked and delleted.
Its almost like I’m in China on those site.
You go to a liberal site:
1. Easy sign in process
2. Your allowed to disagree
3. And I’m quite sure that I might have posted a couple of silly comments, but I have yet to be blocked, modified, or deleted.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pmBilldo could make millions if he was to charge people a dollar to give him a backhand upside his head. Is this comment hate speach? Billdo is filled with hate. Screw him.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:14 pmJohnM Says @ 34: thinkprogress should moderate it.
But TP is moderated.
I will admit that some things said here in comments are indelicate, but nothing worse than you hear in a half hour of “The Family Guy”.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pmJohnM Says:
The things said by many on this site are clearly beyond decency, thinkprogress should moderate it. If they do not moderate the hate filled things then they should be called out for perpetuating and facilitating hate speech.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
TP is moderated. Any yet…you’re still here.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:18 pmI hope Billo doesn’t uncover our secular-progressive plot to control the world.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:18 pmDruids Dream Says:
I hope Billo doesn’t uncover our secular-progressive plot to control the world.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
That would be a DISASTER. 8|
May 29th, 2009 at 4:20 pmare clearly beyond decency.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:20 pm—–
I suppose you might not wish to stick around then…
barracks9 Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says @ 34: thinkprogress should moderate it.
But TP is moderated.
I will admit that some things said here in comments are indelicate, but nothing worse than you hear in a half hour of “The Family Guy”.
I disagree, obviously people have found ways around the loose moderation here. Such as F@ck. There are a number of posters here that clearly should be moderated more.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
The things said by many on this site are clearly beyond decency, thinkprogress should moderate it. If they do not moderate the hate filled things then they should be called out for perpetuating and facilitating hate speech.
I *AGREE*! I find YOUR HATE SPEECH and INDECENT POSTS *UNACCEPTABLE*. Thanks for ADMITTING that a BIGOT LIKE YOU BRINGS DOWN THE PLACE!
I think you are an excellent example hate speech of this site clearly condones.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:23 pmDoes anyone, besides Bill-O, read the comments of blogs and take them seriously. Relax, Bill. They are one persons opinion in a country, that suppossedly believes in freedom of speech. If you do not like the fact that a dissproportionate amount of them make fun of you, then stop your ass-clownery.
Do you think Michele knows that “Hot Air” is a euphemism for being full of yourself and not knowing what you are talking about. If someone from the midwest tells you you are full of “hot air” it is the politest way they can say you are full of shit.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:24 pmBut we often cite hateful civilian comments on blogs and say they should be edited, as we do on BillOReilly.com.
Sure Bill, you edit out the hateful commends on your website. I have a friend who paid to be able to access Billo’s site and once used her login to read what people wrote. First it made me want to throw up and then it made me want to take a shower.
If the conservatives couldn’t lie, obfuscate, cherry pick or misquote, they would not be able to open their mouths and say anything.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:26 pmLuis Chapulin M Says:
In other words, Freedom of speech is a nice talking point, but not something he wants on his site.
Or on any conservatives website. I don’t know of any conservative blog that allows progressives to post more than one or two comments before they are banned.
Perhaps one of our resident troll could clue us in to any conservative site that allows progressives to post.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:28 pm#35, your absolutly right conservative blogs do not post liberal comments. Liberal blogs will post a cons. comments.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:29 pmLiberals dont have to make up lies to support their beliefs.
The moderators on conservative blogs know that we can back up our claims with facts. We all know how wingnuts hate facts and the truth. The right is one big circus with a very small tent.
So does that mean we get to “edit out” the hateful comments on your show?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pmJohnM Says:
The things said by many on this site are clearly beyond decency, thinkprogress should moderate it. If they do not moderate the hate filled things then they should be called out for perpetuating and facilitating hate speech.
I agree. They should moderate you and your fellow trolls right out of town.
BTW John, can you direct us to any conservative website that will even allow a Progressive to post more than one or two posts before banning them?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm:|
Who do we see about that?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pmJohnM Says:
Such as F@ck. There are a number of posters here that clearly should be moderated more.
We’re all grown ups here, aren’t we?
If the coarse language used by some offends your tender sensibilities, by all means, feel free to leave at any time.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:32 pmwatchdog:
May 29th, 2009 at 4:32 pmI think you forgot the final “A”…..
watchdog Says:
TP keeping em honest. This site would never participate in cherry picking comments. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Ok Watchdog, you assignment is to show us any post on this site that is based on cherry picking something. Let’s see if you can man up and do so. If you can’t, then you really do need to STFU…..Oh dear….I guess I just said something that the pansy trolls would consider to be “hate speech”. Too bad so sad.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:33 pmF uck moderation and f uck those who can’t handle words…
May 29th, 2009 at 4:34 pmI wish Bill’O would do a piece on that damn sesli guy… if he wants to demand TP clean up its comments, that’d be the place to start.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:36 pmspencers mom Says:
$49.95 per year, which includes arbitrary censorship, doesn’t sound like free speech to me.
So, if you sign up to have access to Billo’s site and you post things he doesn’t like and he bans you, does he refund your money?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:36 pmI’ll pay the 50 bucks just to wish the dipshit Happy Holidays…
May 29th, 2009 at 4:38 pmMost of O’Reilly’s audience are still traumatized by the blinking 12:00 on their VCR. They will never understand the nuance of comment section vs. blog and Pervert Bill takes full advantage.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pmJohnM Says:
There are a number of posters here that clearly should be moderated more.
All posters are created equal. Some posters are just more equal than others, eh?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pm——————————————————————————–
Gregor Samsa Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Such as F@ck. There are a number of posters here that clearly should be moderated more.
We’re all grown ups here, aren’t we?
If the coarse language used by some offends your tender sensibilities, by all means, feel free to leave at any time.
I don’t mind the language, I was just showing how people get around the “moderation” on this site.
If thinkprogess does not mind being tied to the people that spew hate speech that is their choice, but they should not get riled up when they are called out on it.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:44 pmOh, and more more thing for you, JohnM:
As coarse the language and blunt the discussion as they sometimes are on this blog, nothing -and I mean nothing- compares to the vulgarity of the rightwing’s smears against, well, anyone they oppose.
Like the most recent, gross, vile, obscene comment made by Gordon Liddy about Sotomayor -as if a woman was incapable of doing a good job because of her menstrual cycles.
Disgusting, obscene and repulsive -that’s how I’d describe the “prominent” figures of the conservative movement. Spare me your concern & fake outrage, Ms. Manners.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:47 pmConservativeForProgress
May 29th, 2009 at 4:50 pmCan I get that list of progress items you are for or are you still just going to complain….
JohnM babbles:
If thinkprogess does not mind being tied to the people that spew hate speech that is their choice, but they should not get riled up when they are called out on it.
What a way to miss the point. Are you usually this slow or am I just typing too fast for you?
Did you understand that O’Reilly has no business pointing out the “hate” on anyone’s blog because his own blog contains just as bad language as those he criticises? Did you miss that part on purpose?
And if ThinkProgress is going to be “tied” (as you put it) to the people who comment here, O’Reilly should “tie” himself to those commenting on his blog -something he clearly missed to do.
Again: Leaving a post standing does not mean that ThinkProgress necessarily agrees with it. I know this concept is new and a bit alien to you.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:51 pmThis is so rich: the pro-torture sickos are offended by a few anonymous postings on a site they go out of their way to register and comment on.
Drowning people is ok but belittling one’s politics is beyond the pale.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pmConservativeForProgress
May 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pmOkay then why do all of your posts have a negative tone?
Oh c’mon. Even our pet trolls have to see the irony of a guy who devotes a nightly segment to labeling anyone who disagrees with him, or he can’t comprehend, “pinheads”; whining about “hateful” speech?
Bill0 is the effing poster boy for hate.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
My name is an oxymoron…
Finally, something we can agree on!
May 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
With regard to race issues, I consider myself more progressive than Progressives, as I think it is time for us to progress past race based hiring, race based scholarships, and race based organizations, etc
Then you can’t be very progressive. If you understood why we have affirmative action laws, you would know that we are nowhere near ready to give them up entirely just yet. It’s because there still are people, mostly conservative, who do ignorantly discriminate in hiring based on race that we need to keep those laws. Personally, I think you should just drop the “ForProgress” from your screen name.
But that’s probably just me.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:15 pmYeah, let’s just breeze past the race issue, since it’s been all of —what….badum, badum…—45 years since blacks were marching for the right to sit in public restaurants.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:30 pmI think it’s time to progress past race based hiring, race based promotions, race based admissions, etc…
May 29th, 2009 at 5:33 pm—
would etc include collegiate legacy programs and athletic “scholorships” for the less than scholarly?
Do you think W got into the schools he attended based on merit? A simple yes or no will do…
May 29th, 2009 at 5:38 pmHow old are you CFP? 45 years is not an eternity for progress. Forty five generations maybe, but not 45 years.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:41 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
45 years is an eternity for progress, wiley. Aren’t you ready to move on? or should we be stuck in the 1950’s and 1960’s when most Democrats fought against Civil Rights? you do want to Move On ™, don’t you?
If you’re going to post crap like this pig-headed ignorance, then I will have to do away with my personal preference for being polite. Just as the Republican Party used to have liberals in it, the Democratic party used to be the favorite of conservatives. The Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act were primarily from the South. Hence, LBJ’s comment after singing the bill, “We’ve lost the South for a whole generation.” In protest, many of the conservative Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act joined the Republican Party, where they enjoy a happy, bigoted home today.
Anyone who tries to pretend that the Democrats are the racists by pointing to what Democrats from forty years ago did is too ill-informed to be talking on political blogs.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:44 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
I think it’s time to progress past race based hiring[...]
1) Affirmative action does not equal “race-based hiring”.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:47 pm2) Every time I am close to believing people are ready to look beyond race & gender, some brain-dead conservative blowhard comes along and spews things like “I hope important stuff doesn’t happen at work when she’s having her period” or “our new president is Halfrican-American”, or “Hispanic immigrants will never assimilate”. Then I realize how wrong I am.
My friend Wayne Ant Schneider
May 29th, 2009 at 5:47 pmI see nothing impolite above yet I commend you on your awareness of the power of manners…
cheers-
I will say as I always do …. I read both sides arguments as an informed citizen should do. I also read the readers posts. I have got to give kudos to those peeps from theleft .. ya’ll sure know how to hate!! Without fail the readers from the left throw out more attack posts than any I have read from the right. Where do I get this “HATE” lesson plan?? The left is constantly calling the right intolerant or stupid or whatever …. Where does this level of hatred come from???
May 29th, 2009 at 5:56 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
68. Spring. Belittling one’s politics is fine. Calling someone with whom you disagree a wife beater or a child molestor, or in favor of child rape is not fine.
1. You are in favor of enhanced interrogation.
2. Enhanced interrogation has been proven to include child rape.
3. You are in favor of child rape (1, 2)
It’s called a “syllogism.” Look it up.
.
ConservativeForProgress Says:
Aren’t you ready to move on? or should we be stuck in the 1950’s and 1960’s when most Democrats fought against Civil Rights? you do want to Move On ™, don’t you?
And yet here are all these white guys – today – still trying to keep a person of color out of a job just for being a person of color, denigrating respected large-scale equal-rights organizations, and generally acting as though if they don’t have 100% white/male control of everything that somehow they’re the ones being discriminated against. I look at the stuff coming out of these Republican’s mouths – one of only two supposedly major parties in the U.S.A. today – and it sounds like they’re still stuck in 1965. On the wrong side.
I’d love to move on. But, as the civil rights era demonstrated clearly, ignoring the endemic problems that exist in society isn’t the way to solve them.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:56 pmgivemelibertyordeath
May 29th, 2009 at 6:01 pmWanna talk about your thesis? I look forward to it.
——————————————————————————–
Gregor Samsa Says:
——————————————————————————–
ConservativeForProgress Says:
I think it’s time to progress past race based hiring[...]
1) Affirmative action does not equal “race-based hiring”.
Of course it is. How could hiring somebody because they are considered an under-represented minority not be hiring based on race?
May 29th, 2009 at 6:05 pmWhat the stupid trolls can’t seem to grasp is that we hate those who damaged our country and those who apologize for those who did the damage.
Personally, I’ve been patient enough to wait for the electoral process stop the bleeding. That appears to have happened. But I don’t see any reason to be patient with those who are committed to repeating the mistakes that led us to where we are. And if Bill0 can’t handle the anger? He should STFU.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:07 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
ConservativeForProgress Says:
68. Spring. Belittling one’s politics is fine. Calling someone with whom you disagree a wife beater or a child molestor, or in favor of child rape is not fine. Rather, it is outrageous, “beyond the pale,” and does nothing but give ammunition to Mr. O’Reilly about the hate filled speach of the left. Some here, like toasterhead, do nothing but prove O’Reilly right in this regard.
They why do you NOT CRITICIZE YOURSELF and ALL OF THE TROLLS that come here and SPEW HATEFUL RHETORIC at LIBERALS? HYPOCRISY MUCH little DUM BASS?
What’s *OUTRAGEOUS* is that you BELIEVE you have a RIGHT to be a complete d*ckhead under the GUISE of FREE SPEECH and how it’s EVERYONE ELSE’S FAULT for calling you OUT as a SELF RIGHTEOUS PR*CK.
Posts like this make proviong our point very easy.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:07 pmSo did W get into those schools on merit or not? Is the affirmative action of affluence acceptable to those who dislike decisions based upon racial diversity?
May 29th, 2009 at 6:08 pmOf course, your “proof” depends on focusing only on the intemperate comments like RHF is known for, and ignoring the polite yet persuasive ones of folks like Wayne Ant Schneider. After all, this is a diverse community, as is the loose coalition of interests you guys like to denigrate as “The Left”, and a single comment can hardly function as a reasonable representative of the whole.
But that kind of myopia shouldn’t be too tough for you, should it JohnM? It’s kind of your stock-in-trade.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:16 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
They why do you NOT CRITICIZE YOURSELF and ALL OF THE TROLLS that come here and SPEW HATEFUL RHETORIC at LIBERALS? HYPOCRISY MUCH little DUM BASS?
What’s *OUTRAGEOUS* is that you BELIEVE you have a RIGHT to be a complete d*ckhead under the GUISE of FREE SPEECH and how it’s EVERYONE ELSE’S FAULT for calling you OUT as a SELF RIGHTEOUS PR*CK.
Posts like this make proviong our point very easy.
Of course, your “proof” depends on focusing only on the intemperate comments like RHF is known for, and ignoring the polite yet persuasive ones of folks like Wayne Ant Schneider. After all, this is a diverse community, as is the loose coalition of interests you guys like to denigrate as “The Left”, and a single comment can hardly function as a reasonable representative of the whole.
But that kind of myopia shouldn’t be too tough for you, should it JohnM? It’s kind of your stock-in-trade.
I never said that he represented the whole. My point if you would have taken the time to follow it, was that there are a number of posters like this on this board and their hate filled rhetoric is condoned by this website as they facilitate such words.
May 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pmJohnM Says:
Posts like this make proviong our point very easy.
Your point is that many of the participants here are very angry with Republicans? That perhaps some of us – gasp – hate you? I’ll concede that. But let’s not look backwards, let’s move on into the future!
.
JohnM Says:
My point if you would have taken the time to follow it, was that there are a number of posters like this on this board and their hate filled rhetoric is condoned by this website as they facilitate such words.
You might be able to make that case if you were just skimming these pages, but when you registered an account with TP you legally agreed that TP is not responsible for what we say. Therefore, you are legally on record as disagreeing with your little “point.”
May 29th, 2009 at 6:56 pmJohnM Says:
How could hiring somebody because they are considered an under-represented minority not be hiring based on race?
Well, under your definition of affirmative action I suppose your premise is true.
While race is taken into consideration, it is not the only factor: A candidate still needs to have the required qualifications, which is what you and the other reichwingers ignore in order to build your strawman.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:14 pmGregor Samsa Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
How could hiring somebody because they are considered an under-represented minority not be hiring based on race?
Well, under your definition of affirmative action I suppose your premise is true.
While race is taken into consideration, it is not the only factor: A candidate still needs to have the required qualifications, which is what you and the other reichwingers ignore in order to build your strawman.
Unless the qualifications are lowered in order to get more diversity, which happens. The best case in point is the firefighter case involving the test that was vacated because the only ones to get a high enough score were all white candidtates and one hispanic candidate. So there is no strawman in stating that hiring is based on race.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:20 pmThanks, dbadass. Thanks, ralph. I tells ya the best critters in the world is Zoo Critters!
May 29th, 2009 at 7:20 pmAs I remember it, the point of Affirmative Action was to encourage businesses to make an extra effort to hire more minorities, by actually doing things affirmatively, such as advertising for job openings in areas primarily having minorities. They don’t have to bus them in from another state, just make more of an effort to let minorities in the neighborhood know of job openings. Believe it or not, it was not unusual at all, forty-five years ago, to see a business owned by a white person that was staffed entirely of other white people despite being located in the middle of a black neighborhood. Affirmative Action was meant to require that business owner to hire people more representative of the neighborhood, meaning from the neighborhood.
Instead, conservatives who didn’t want to comply looked at it from the other side and said “What’s the minimum I can do to not be considered as ‘not hiring enough minorities’?” They were told numbers that would keep the feds off their backs and many of them (not all of them, but a lot of them) started viewing it as a “quota system,” where they had to hire black people just because they were black, instead of what it was supposed to be, an end to hiring white people just because they were white. They didn’t like their racism being made illegal. They still don’t. And because they still don’t, we need to have Affirmative Action.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:30 pmDoes givemelibriumorgivememeth get a nickle every time it makes the same post?
May 29th, 2009 at 7:33 pmGO TP!! I sense the insect bites are turning into stings?
They keep repeating their nonsense over and over, and you keep sticking it right back in their you know what over and over. Keep up the good work! Quick let’s pass the healthcare thing while bill is busy taking swats at the insects!
May 29th, 2009 at 7:51 pmoh and my 2cents:
If you fear for your job security due to affirmative action, I am willing to bet you are not working hard enough. And even if not, I would still prefer an affirmative action hire and risk getting a hard working employee, to having a buddy handed an important position that may be clueless…cough..FEMA..cough…
May 29th, 2009 at 8:01 pmJohnM Says:
The best case in point is the firefighter case involving the test that was vacated because the only ones to get a high enough score were all white candidtates and one hispanic candidate
Under current law, the test had been statistically proven to be racially biased. Overturning that ruling would have constituted judicial activism. Your complaint about her is that she is not a judicial activist on behalf of white people.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:06 pmIt is freaking Impossible to get an account on MM. Fox news website edits thousands of comments of their site and their polls are not directly clickable(hopefully you know what I mean). And the Fox site retroactively deletes comments too. I posted a comment on there and it stay up for about and hour. I posted something else on a different article they didn’t let that one go through, but they did delete my other post too. Fox News is just for old morbid people. every add they run is about getting life insurance. what sells more life insurance than scary stories about death? Bill ‘o got a good racket pandering to both sides without really taking sides. He is the jerry springer of “news”.
Olberman gets a third of the viewer billo does. why? because fox has a totally unique perspective in that they make up their news. regular news can get heard from hundreds of sources Fox has only 1 outlet. Fox is not evil, it is just making a profit. If people don’t like fox; don’t buy from their advertisers. and left wing people prefer the daily show anyways.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:35 pmIf you think that TP “condones” RHF’s rhetoric, then they must also “condone” your ignorant ramblings, right?
There are a number of posters who are polite and reasoned like Wayne as well. Why don’t you assign their good qualities to the Left? Why are you so myopically focused on the abusive rhetoric (which you seem to delight in inspiring, by the way)?
Your point is completely undisciplined and thus entirely unconvincing, JohnM. But i suspect you knew that.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:16 pmAaronQ of Maine Says:
Olberman gets a third of the viewer billo does. why?
Yeah, I noticed something pretty interesting regarding that. I know it’s one data point against thousands of others here, but listen to what I have to say.
I stayed at a Sheraton hotel this past weekend. I wanted to watch something on a Friday night, since I was pretty tired, so I decided I would bypass C-SPAN, CNN, CNBC, and Fox News for some MSNBC programming. I’ve been a big fan of Rachel Maddow, so I wanted to see what she had to say for the day’s news cycle.
Only problem was that I couldn’t access MSNBC. It wasn’t a problem of the channel being fuzzy or a glitch with the cable; MSNBC wasn’t a choice, period.
Not that big a deal, since I had internet access, but this is a pretty interesting situation. This was a hotel chain without MSNBC. It’s got me thinking if anyone has gone to a hotel to scan the stations. Can anyone confirm if they’ve been in a similar situation? And to the trolls, can you tell me if there has been a situation where Fox News was unavailable while MSNBC was?
May 29th, 2009 at 9:57 pmI can tell you the last time I ever stepped into a Walmart, there were televisions hanging from the ceilings with Faux’s Countdown to Iraq on every screen.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:02 pmPurple State / Lavender Boy Says:
Yeah, I noticed something pretty interesting regarding that. I know it’s one data point against thousands of others here, but listen to what I have to say.
I stayed at a Sheraton hotel this past weekend. I wanted to watch something on a Friday night, since I was pretty tired, so I decided I would bypass C-SPAN, CNN, CNBC, and Fox News for some MSNBC programming. I’ve been a big fan of Rachel Maddow, so I wanted to see what she had to say for the day’s news cycle.
Only problem was that I couldn’t access MSNBC. It wasn’t a problem of the channel being fuzzy or a glitch with the cable; MSNBC wasn’t a choice, period.
Data point 2 – I get basic Comcast cable in Portland, OR. MSNBC has never been available to me. Although they advertise themselves as “ready for the switchover,” a couple weeks ago they decided to give set-top boxes to everybody who was on basic cable. Then I could get MSNBC. The reason – MSNBC was on channel 128, and without a set-top box I could only go up to 99. FAUX News was on 48. So for basic cable subscribers in the Portland area, nobody was able to get MSNBC although they could get FAUX News. I don’t know for how many years that’s been the case.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:09 pmJohnM Says:
Unless the qualifications are lowered in order to get more diversity, which happens.
I see; in your opinion, the only way minorities are ever hired to positions of any relevance is when standards are lowered.
Careful, your bigotry is showing.
So there is no strawman in stating that hiring is based on race.
Yes, it is. Because, your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, the goal of affirmative action is to level the playing field since the hiring process in the US has historically been biased towards Caucasians. Duh.
May 29th, 2009 at 10:32 pmJohnM Says:
What should they do about your constant stupidity? Should they delete YOUR posts or should YOUR stupidity be blamed on THEM?
May 29th, 2009 at 11:16 pmConservativePUNK
They leave up YOUR Posts. Does that mean they are endorsing the abject stupidity of the RIGHT? You DO know you are a moron dont you?
May 29th, 2009 at 11:19 pmwatchdog
You are a lair and a fool
May 29th, 2009 at 11:20 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
With regard to race issues, I consider myself more progressive than Progressives
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I am sure you also consider the sky to be orange, supply side economics to make sense and Mud to be soap
May 29th, 2009 at 11:23 pmConservativePUNK 80
You are a liar and a fool and very VERY stupid. Most Democrats did NOT fight civil rights in the 60’s. Even NEWT admitted it was a liberal issue. Most Dems in the SOUTH fought it and then became REPUBLICANS you moron. My GOD you are brainwashed and stupid. Do you EVER know what you are talking about. If you bring up the civil rights vote I will CRUSH YOU with it.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:26 pmJohnM Says:
Unless the qualifications are lowered in order to get more diversity, which happens. The best case in point is the firefighter case involving the test that was vacated because the only ones to get a high enough score were all white candidtates and one hispanic candidate. So there is no strawman in stating that hiring is based on race.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You really NEVER know what you are talking about do you John? The test was vacated because they could not show it had anything to do with the ability to do the job and thus violated the civil rights law or at least left them vulnerable to a lawsuit based ON that law. Do you ever look into anything or just regurgitate what you were told to think by whatever screechmonkey is doing your thinking today?
May 29th, 2009 at 11:29 pm“But we often cite hateful civilian comments on blogs and say they should be edited…”
Oh, Bill. Bill, Bill, Bill. To you, hateful speech is any speech that disagrees with your hanging-off-the-rightmost-post-of-the-political-fence ideology.
Just to let you know, actual hateful speech would include such things as personal smears and attacks, inciting others to violence, racial attacks, etc. Seems that you’re familiar with hateful speech… you’re just not familiar with the correct definition.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:52 pmGregor Samsa Says:
Yes, it is. Because, your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, the goal of affirmative action is to level the playing field since the hiring process in the US has historically been biased towards Caucasians. Duh.
Exactly. The Limbaugh-philes always say “put it in context!” and “what if a white guy said that?” The thing is if we reversed it and put it in the full context, we’d have to posit a reality in which white people had been enslaved, subject to Jim Crow laws, lynched and blatantly discriminated against by normative society for centuries. If you put it in the full context, then reversing it would be entirely reasonable.
May 30th, 2009 at 2:12 amSince all comments are “Cherry picked” by both parties, I can’t imagine anyone even noticing this.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:49 amOr are we running out of gossip?
Watching Michelle Malkin’s eyes roll and bug out over and over again reminds me of the bullfrogs down by the river I grew up on, except the bullfrogs made more sense.
http://jackrabbitcafe.blogspot.com/2009/05/from-crooks-and-liars.html
May 30th, 2009 at 1:18 pmFirmMarci Says:
Since all comments are “Cherry picked” by both parties, I can’t imagine anyone even noticing this.
You just saw “cherry picking,” stopped reading and wrote that, huh? We’re not talking about parties, we’re talking about Bill’O. And we’re explicitly talking about participant blog comments at websites, including this one. That’s a ridiculous thing to do.
May 30th, 2009 at 5:12 pmFirmMarci Says:
Since all comments are “Cherry picked” by both parties, I can’t imagine anyone even noticing this.
Or are we running out of gossip?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Since your comment was purely stupid I have to wonder if you are proud of your stupidity or if you just ran out of people you KNOW to annoy by parading your stupidity in front of?
May 30th, 2009 at 6:35 pmI will say this…you all should reread all the post that are written in here. If you think Bill wasn’t dead on in his assessment of this site…you are not giving yourselves due credit. I read hateful and mean spirited post here on every thread.
May 31st, 2009 at 1:02 amPurple State / Lavender Boy Says:
can you tell me if there has been a situation where Fox News was unavailable while MSNBC was?
Try the Cleveland Airport. They will not put FOX up…but you have to put up with the MSNBC & CNN.
…furthermore…for many years FOX news was unavailable in many areas…and when it was finally brought in…they would make sure it was hard to find.
May 31st, 2009 at 1:07 amDo any of you posters ever read the highly mean spirited post of EugeneDebs? I am so surprised that the Mods here allow such terrible outburst…without pulling the plug on this person? Maybe that is the poster Bill was talking about? or it might have been Dbadass whatever?
May 31st, 2009 at 1:09 amThank You
June 5th, 2009 at 9:13 amseslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat