DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on October 25, 2007, 10:33:59 AM
-
Disrespecting The American Military
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
By Bill O'Reilly
Last night our lead story on 'The Factor' was the Medal of Honor awarded to Navy S.E.A.L. Lieutenant Michael Murphy who was killed in Afghanistan trying to save his unit. Lieutenant Murphy's bravery is chronicled in a best selling book, "Lone Survivor," and it is truly an incredible saga.
Why then did CNN and MSNBC fail to report the Medal of Honor story in primetime last night? Easy question, disturbing answer. Katie Couric on CBS News gave Lieutenant Murphy more than three minutes, Charles Gibson on ABC News more than two minutes, Brian Williams didn't report the ceremony although he did cover the story last week.
But apparently Lieutenant Murphy was not ready for primetime on our cable competition even though they had hours to get mention of it on the air. The hard truth is that MSNBC and CNN are not going to report stories that reflect well on the American military because those people over there despise the Bush administration and believe anything positive like American heroes in war zones, detract from their negative assessment of the administration.
Thus, the military becomes a casualty of a committed left-ideology that is in play on our competition. There is no question about it. And it is ideology that is driving those people, not which stories are worthy or an effective business plan.
So ignoring great stories like Lieutenant Murphy can't be based on news value or business. It is just stupid ideology.
Now, I don't want to hear CNN or NBC News say they support the troops. I don't ever want to hear that.
Lieutenant Murphy is the only person to receive the Medal of Honor for action in Afghanistan, a war zone that is directly dealing with Al Qaeda and they're Taliban enablers.
Don't insult the American people by saying you are behind the troops when you ignore their heroism. CNN and NBC News can't get enough of negative war zone stories. They run them all day long. And really, how many heroes are there these days? And you ignore, ignore a Medal of Honor winner? Awful.
"Talking Points" has said this before. There is no accountability for the media in America. No election, no oversights. Only you, the folks, can hold them responsible.
On their primetime broadcast last night, CNN and MSNBC just said no to Lieutenant Michael Murphy and his proud family.
There is no excuse.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/376884974_569b07d6c3.jpg)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304700,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304700,00.html)
-
Bullshit.
Every war produces "heroes." For every photogenic white guy who gets a medal slapped on his dead ass for the greater glory of Bush's war, there are probably dozens of less photogenic Hispanics, blacks and Asians who also die "heroic" deaths and never get a second's notice.
I'll believe that O'Reilly is truly interested in promoting "heroism" and not glorifying war when he devotes some airtime to dead Taliban and Iraqi Resistance heroes who sacrificed their lives to save their units. Partisan little prick. I can see through him like he was glass.
-
I'll believe that O'Reilly is truly interested in promoting "heroism" and not glorifying war when he devotes some airtime to dead Taliban and Iraqi Resistance heroes who sacrificed their lives to save their units. Partisan little prick. I can see through him like he was glass.
Should Air America (are they still around? ) sing the praises of conservatives?
-
"devotes some airtime to dead Taliban"
Oh yeah that is a great idea, to honor the Taliban killed in battle.
Maybe we could make the terror training camps they ran in Afghanistan before 9/11 places of High Honor.
I bet the American People would love to see Taliban Fighters getting the Medal Of Honor too.
Maybe start giving Taliban IslamoNazis full honor guard ceremonies and bury them in Arlington National Cemetary.
-
It seems that O'Reilly is interested in defaming his competition to me and not in the soldier's story. I mean, just look at the article.
Plus, what the hell does he care what CNN and MSNBC show? It is all a race for corporate sponsorship anyway, and does anyone really watch the 24/7 news anymore? (I guess people do, to be fair).
This smacks of typical O'Reilly holier-than-thou mudslinging to me. He does that a lot. Not that his competitions doesn't. I'm going to have to agree with Tee in that I doubt O'Reilly gives a rat's ass about this guy and his medal of honor when he's out dining at one of Manhattan's finest restaurants.
-
<<Should Air America (are they still around? ) sing the praises of conservatives?>>
If Air America were truly interested in doing a piece on heroism in battle (for what conceivable reason only God would know) I would expect them to sing the praises of ANYONE who was heroic in battle - - liberals, conservatives, whatever. They could show the people how Adolf Hitler won his Iron Cross and how Hermann Goering won his "Pour le merite." Some names you would NEVER see in that show would be Bush (Jr.) and Cheney. They would have to appear in a very different kind of show.
-
Some additional thoughts on the subject - - O'Reilly is truly despicable. He's USING the dead Murphy and his alleged heroism as a vehicle for bashing his competition. AND promoting Bush's war at the same time. Get this: BECAUSE of CNN's reluctance to use the dead chump as "news" (as if dozens of dumbass schmucks just like him weren't being struck down every month in Iraq and Aghanistan) this somehow invalidates their news stories about the course of the war. Believe in Bush's war because Lt. Murphy died for it. Wow, talk about never going broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
-
Some names you would NEVER see in that show would be Bush (Jr.) and Cheney.
And notably...Bill O'Reilly.
-
<<And notably...Bill O'Reilly.>>
LOL. THAT'S for God-damn sure!
-
Some additional thoughts on the subject - - O'Reilly is truly despicable. He's USING the dead Murphy and his alleged heroism as a vehicle for bashing his competition. AND promoting Bush's war at the same time.
Now, let's provide a couple of substitutions and watch the equivalent amount of condemnation:
Some additional thoughts on the subject - - Sheehan is truly despicable. She's USING her dead son and his alleged heroism as a vehicle for bashing her competition. AND promoting MoveOn's Anti-war movement at the same time.
Did anyone see any yet? Or did we actually see same 'ol rationalization tap dancing, that gives Sheehan's version of using the dead a pass, since of course, ends justify the means here
-
Paying honor to Taliban or Al Quieda that behave in an honorable way might be a good idea.
Haveing someone on the other side that you can talk to later, when the fighting is over , is a good thing and encourageing honor might encourage honorable treatment of captives and innocents.
As it is, Al Queda is about to die for lack of honor so it behaves as if it had no honor to loose.
If our aim is the utter destruction of their movement ,then it is moot to honor them , if, rather we want peace and peace can be made with the likes of them , it is meet that we honor what of them is worthy of it.
-
sirs: <<Now, let's provide a couple of substitutions and watch the equivalent amount of condemnation:
<<Some additional thoughts on the subject - - Sheehan is truly despicable. She's USING her dead son and his alleged heroism as a vehicle for bashing her competition. AND promoting MoveOn's Anti-war movement at the same time. >>
============================================
WOW. I am completely blown away by the post. THANK YOU once again, sirs, for your textbook illustration of the utter divorce between real life and real feelings on the one hand and whatever passes for "thought" in the reptilian brain of a fascist like you on the other.
You obviously have no clue of the difference between Cindy Sheehan and Bill O'Reilly. I'll bet 99 people in a hundred would know the difference without thinking, but a fascist - - totally divorced from any kind of human feeling - - of course would be utterly clueless about it.
Let me help you out. And boy do you need it!
Cindy Sheehan is a MOTHER. She is a mother who has lost her son. (Ahhh, he still doesn't get it.) OK, sirs: in real life . . . ahhh, forget it. REAL LIFE? and sirs? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I give up. You're right, sirs. Bill O'Reilly feels the loss of Lt. Murphy every bit as deeply as Cindy Sheehan feels the loss of her son. After all, they're both Americans and the deceased are each dead Americans, so what's the difference? The loss of Lt. Murphy was every bit as painful to O'Reilly as the loss of Casey was to Cindy Sheehan, so of course if Bill O'Reilly chooses to exploit Lt. Murphy cynically for his own political ends, it follows that that must also be the explanation for Cindy Sheehan's performance. Why on earth think that she would be any more sincere than O'Reilly? Didn't each of them suffer the same horrific loss?
Guys, if anyone wonders how fascists like sirs or anyone else can back war and torture (ooops, sorry, sirs doesn't BACK torture, he just attempts to minimize it; I forgot, he's against the use of blow-torches in the interrogation rooms, what a fucking humanitarian!) anyway, wonder no further. For a guy who apparently can live out his whole life in total ignorance of the mother-child bond to comment on any aspect of human life seems about as absurd as a robot writing an advice-to-the-lovelorn column.
Thanks again, sirs. Your contribution was priceless.
-
<<As it is, Al Queda is about to die for lack of honor so it behaves as if it had no honor to loose.>>
Let's cut the crap, plane. They're about to die for getting between Bush and a whole shitload of oil.
-
sirs: <<Now, let's provide a couple of substitutions and watch the equivalent amount of condemnation:
<<Some additional thoughts on the subject - - Sheehan is truly despicable. She's USING her dead son and his alleged heroism as a vehicle for bashing her competition. AND promoting MoveOn's Anti-war movement at the same time. >>
============================================
You obviously have no clue of the difference between Cindy Sheehan and Bill O'Reilly. I'll bet 99 people in a hundred would know the difference without thinking
I guess I'm part of the 99, since I do. Outside of the emotional involvement, 1 is supportive of the war 1 is inflicted with BDS. It's a pretty safe assumption which camp you fall in line with
I'll bet 99 people in a hundred would know the difference without thinking, but a fascist
[/qiuote]
Not too far in the future, that term will have lost all meaning as to what true fascism & evil is, when it's thrown around so often at ANYTHING that doesn't fit the predisposed Tee template of what is is
But there, for all to see, Tee's famous hypocritic rationalization efforts. Condemning acts of torture, except of course when it's his communist friends in Cuba doing it, and here condemning O'Reily for his apparent use of using a military death to push a pro-war position, but when it's done to push an anti-war position, hell, nothing wrong with that
-
I don't know Sirs, that's a bit of a stretch.
On one hand we have a guy who makes $9 million a year working for Fox News and he certainly makes no qualms about using the death of this soldier as a way to malign his competition.
On the other hand we have a mother who lost her son, who was killed in the Iraq War.
You make this a case of equivalence and I'm not seeing it. There are certainly parents, siblings, etc of dead soldiers who support the war effort and those who do not. Hell, there are Iraq vets who support the war effort and those who do not.
But to say that their cases are equivalent to O'Reilly's position...not only don't they seem to be in the same ballpark - they seem to be playing different sports.
-
<<As it is, Al Queda is about to die for lack of honor so it behaves as if it had no honor to loose.>>
Let's cut the crap, plane. They're about to die for getting between Bush and a whole shitload of oil.
Al Queda has a bad use for that oil , it would be better for us to destroy it in place than to allow Al Queda to profit from it. AnAl Queda run government that could finance the worlds fourth largest army is a nightmare revisited with improved monsters.
But while Al Queda might possibly come into possession of the oil , we do not intend to , if we win we are still customers that buy the stuff.
-
<<I guess I'm part of the 99, since I do. Outside of the emotional involvement, 1 is supportive of the war 1 is inflicted with BDS. It's a pretty safe assumption which camp you fall in line with>>
One who has close to zero emotional investment in the life and death of Lt. Murphy, one who has 110% emotional investment in the death of Casey Sheehan - - but it's the one with the 110% percent emotional investment, and not the one with near-zero emotional investment who's likelier to be cynically using the death for her own political ends. nee-nee-nee-nee, nee-nee-nee-nee (ineptly intended to be the Twilght Zone theme music)
Thanks for the laugh, sirs. Always appreciated, as usual.
-
On one hand we have a guy who makes $9 million a year
Why is it important what O'Reilly makes?
-
<<Al Queda has a bad use for that oil , it would be better for us to destroy it in place than to allow Al Queda to profit from it. AnAl Queda run government that could finance the worlds fourth largest army is a nightmare revisited with improved monsters.
<<But while Al Queda might possibly come into possession of the oil , we do not intend to , if we win we are still customers that buy the stuff.>>
Well, at least you cut the crap and admitted what they're REALLY gonna die for.
(BTW, if all you wanted was to be "customers" for that oil, you already were that before the war began. You wanna be "customers" with guns - - pointing right at the proprietor's head.)
-
Sirs,
you wont see this Mom of a fallen soldier on CNN
but obviously Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for the Mothers of fallen soldiers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqlBhtduVM8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqlBhtduVM8)
(http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/commentary/cartoon_20050814.jpg)
-
On one hand we have a guy who makes $9 million a year
Why is it important what O'Reilly makes?
It tends to give him a vested interest in protecting his job and the people who pay him, wouldn't you think? He certainly seems more than willing to attack his competetion.
Also, I imagine the Iraq War might be a little more distant when your big decision is deciding whether to dine at Chef Ramsey's or Chef Flay's restaurants tonight. It makes the whole "protecting my freedoms" argument a little less salient.
-
<<. . . but obviously Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for the Mothers of fallen soldiers>>
Did she ever claim to? Far as I could see, she spoke for Cindy Sheehan. And Cindy Sheehan was damned mad. (as in madder than hell and not gonna take it any more, not as in mad-crazy)
-
<<I guess I'm part of the 99, since I do. Outside of the emotional involvement, 1 is supportive of the war 1 is inflicted with BDS. It's a pretty safe assumption which camp you fall in line with>>
One who has close to zero emotional investment in the life and death of Lt. Murphy, one who has 110% emotional investment in the death of Casey Sheehan - - but it's the one with the 110% percent emotional investment, and not the one with near-zero emotional investment who's likelier to be cynically using the death for her own political ends.
OR, the one with the less emotional involvement can actually be more OBJECTIVE in their assessment, vs the one who's so saturated with so much emotion, that rational thought & objectivity is next to impossible. See?, I can play the same Tee-rationalization game also. Not as well, since your imagination is so much more impressive, but at least the technique is not too difficult to attempt
-
<<. . . but obviously Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for the Mothers of fallen soldiers>>
Did she ever claim to? Far as I could see, she spoke for Cindy Sheehan. And Cindy Sheehan was damned mad. (as in madder than hell and not gonna take it any more, not as in mad-crazy)
She is also a poor spoksman for her child .
She is speaking her mind as she has a right.
But her son can't .
-
<<OR, the one with the less emotional involvement can actually be more OBJECTIVE in their assessment, vs the one who's saturated sith so much emotion, that rational thought & objectivity is next to impossible.>>
BWAHAHAHAHA! O'Reilly!! Objective in his assessment!! YESSSS, absolutely. Stop it, sirs, you're killing me. LMAO.
Actually, it was O'Reilly who sounded angry and emotional to me:
<<Now, I don't want to hear CNN or NBC News say they support the troops. I don't ever want to hear that.>> (sound of O'Reilly's little foot stamping)
I think the original thought I expressed was that O'Reilly was the more likely to be CYNICALLY MISUSING Murphy's death than Cindy Sheehan was to be cynically misusing Casey's. I don't really expect Cindy to be perfectly rational over losing a son in Bush's totally fake and bogus war, but (and here's where folks who live in the real world really have the edge over guys like you, sirs) I DO expect her to feel an unimaginable amount of genuine grief. Lots more than Bill O'Reilly did over Murphy's loss.
-
<<OR, the one with the less emotional involvement can actually be more OBJECTIVE in their assessment, vs the one who's saturated sith so much emotion, that rational thought & objectivity is next to impossible.>>
BWAHAHAHAHA! O'Reilly!! Objective in his assessment!! YESSSS, absolutely. Stop it, sirs, you're killing me. LMAO.
And thank you for that completely subjective opinion.
-
Did she ever claim to?
she didnt have to
the liberal media made her a hero
and basically kept her on the front pages
while other fallen soldier's mothers that support the war are basically not reported
once again
one side presented
agree or disgree
reporting only one side
is not reality
(http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.08.14.ShowofGrief-X.gif)
-
<<And thank you for that completely subjective opinion. >>
Oooops! I forgot! O'Reilly, of course, is fair and balanced. HAS to be. After all, he works for Fox News doesn't he?
-
<<she didnt have to [claim to represent all bereaved mothers of soldiers]
the liberal media made her a hero
and basically kept her on the front pages
while other fallen soldier's mothers that support the war are basically not reported
once again
one side presented
agree or disgree
reporting only one side
is not reality>>
Well, that's just the "man bites dog" principle in action. Historically, "Gold Star Mothers" sold war bonds and supported the war effort. Mothers NOT supporting war as usual, THAT's news.
-
It tends to give him a vested interest in protecting his job and the people who pay him, wouldn't you think?
I would think that a universal attribute. Don't see what the amount of money he makes has to do with it.
Nor does where he dines have anything to do with his thought patterns.
For a guy who emphasizes a desire for a classless society you sure do emphasize class.
-
<<And thank you for that completely subjective opinion. >>
Oooops! I forgot! O'Reilly, of course, is fair and balanced. HAS to be. After all, he works for Fox News doesn't he?
Ooo, I can play this one as well......and of course Sheehan is "fair and balanced", HAS to be, as she's given her cues by Move'On. Can't possibly be allowing her emotion to trump rational thought ;D
-
<<and of course Sheehan is "fair and balanced", HAS to be, as she's given her cues by Move'On. Can't possibly be allowing her emotion to trump rational thought >>
Really? MoveOn pays her and gives her a regular cable network audience? I had no idea!! Gee, sirs, you sure seem to know a lot about the news business. What, if I may ask, is your source for that little tidbit?
-
<<and of course Sheehan is "fair and balanced", HAS to be, as she's given her cues by Move'On. Can't possibly be allowing her emotion to trump rational thought >>
Really? MoveOn pays her and gives her a regular cable network audience?
Did I say "pay". Funny how the above sentence of mine specifically said "cues". Need some more work on those reading comprehension skills, Tee. (and theTee desperation hole just keeps getting deeper)
-
<<Did I say "pay". Funny how the above sentence of mine specifically said "cues". Need some more work on those reading comprehension skills, Tee. (and theTee desperation hole just keeps getting deeper)>>
No, you didn't say "pay." I was the one who said "pay." Like most of your lies and bullshit, what you leave out is more significant than what you put in - - in this case, the $9 million that Fox pays O'Reilly is a little more of an incentive than whatever imaginary "cues" you claim are being given by MoveOn to Cindy Sheehan. One thing MoveOn doesn't give Cindy Sheehan (despite all the imaginary "cues" that only you can see) is money, specifically nine million dollars worth.
-
Tee, with that ever famous clown talent of trying to read minds, instead of just reading what someone types. At least it's entertaining ;D
-
sirs,
here is MoveOn.org supporting their girl
http://pol.moveon.org/cindyvigils/pics.html (http://pol.moveon.org/cindyvigils/pics.html)
-
<<Tee, with that ever famous clown talent of trying to read minds, instead of just reading what someone types. >>
Oh, I read what you type alright, sirs, but since you're such a BS artist, and love to spin half-truths, it's much more entertaining to point out what you DON'T write, as for example in your comparison of the sincerity of Bill O'Reilly to that of Cindy Sheehan, where you conveniently "forget" to point out the little detail of the $9 million that Fox pays O'Reilly (and that MoveOn doesn't pay Cindy Sheehan.) But that's more than made up for by your loony assertion that Cindy "gets her cues" (whatever the hell THAT'S supposed to mean) from MoveOn.
-
<<here is MoveOn.org supporting their girl>>
Gee, I'm shocked - - SHOCKED, I tell you - - that an anti-war movement supports anti-war mothers. What's the world coming to? As if the pro-war Swiftboat Liars for Fascism didn't support pro-war liars and con artists like Bush and Cheney.
-
<<here is MoveOn.org supporting their girl>>
Gee, I'm shocked - - SHOCKED, I tell you - - that an anti-war movement supports anti-war mothers. What's the world coming to? As if the pro-war Swiftboat Liars for Fascism didn't support pro-war liars and con artists like Bush and Cheney.
Are you really putting Move on and swift boat n the same category for comparason?
Lie for lie which comes out on top?
-
<<Are you really putting Move on and swift boat n the same category for comparason?>>
Pay a little more attention and you'll see that what was being compared was partisanship, not methods.
<<Lie for lie which comes out on top?>>
Let's see - - Swiftboat Liars for Fascism's message was that Kerry wasn't really wounded in action, that he was a self-seeking coward and that in at least one of the engagements in which he claimed to have been wounded, there was no hostile fire directed at him or his boat. (Contradicted by all but one of his crew.)
MoveOn.org's message is that Bush and Cheney are cowardly, lying, draft dodgers and combat avoiders who make up phony reasons for wars in which other men will fight and die.
So as liars, which comes out on top? Hehehehehe - - I'm gonna just say, I've already figured that one out before the question was asked. But you go ahead and come to your own conclusions, plane. I know you're not gonna accept mine. We'll just hafta let history be the judge of that.
-
<<Are you really putting Move on and swift boat n the same category for comparason?>>
Pay a little more attention and you'll see that what was being compared was partisanship, not methods.
<<Lie for lie which comes out on top?>>
Let's see - - Swiftboat Liars for Fascism's message was that Kerry wasn't really wounded in action, that he was a self-seeking coward and that in at least one of the engagements in which he claimed to have been wounded, there was no hostile fire directed at him or his boat. (Contradicted by all but one of his crew.)
MoveOn.org's message is that Bush and Cheney are cowardly, lying, draft dodgers and combat avoiders who make up phony reasons for wars in which other men will fight and die.
So as liars, which comes out on top? Hehehehehe - - I'm gonna just say, I've already figured that one out before the question was asked. But you go ahead and come to your own conclusions, plane. I know you're not gonna accept mine. We'll just hafta let history be the judge of that.
Their methods are not all that diffrent either, the Swift boat veterans for truth were most effective with the accusations that turned out to be true , suh as imply replaying John Kerrs senate testimony unedited.
Moveon.org is lest effective with charges that turn out to be untrue , of which there are plenty. Or when they seem mean which is often.
A complete one for one comparison is a bigger project than I am up for right now , suffice it to say that Move on is not a carefull fact checker.
-
<<Their methods are not all that diffrent either, the Swift boat veterans for truth were most effective with the accusations that turned out to be true , suh as imply replaying John Kerrs senate testimony unedited.>>
You lost me there, plane, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
<<Moveon.org is lest effective with charges that turn out to be untrue , of which there are plenty. Or when they seem mean which is often.>>
I'm not a big fan of MoveOn.org, I don't get my information from them anyway, so I'm not really qualified to debate you on this one. Bottom line is I don't know what you're talking about, and if I tried to contradict you, I wouldn't know what I was talking about.
<<A complete one for one comparison is a bigger project than I am up for right now , suffice it to say that Move on is not a carefull fact checker.>>
I take it from that last remark that MoveOn.org has been caught in more than one false statement. If that's true, it's not going to shake the foundations of my world. As long as they acknowledge their errors when exposed, can plausibly explain them on some basis other than sheer mendacity, apologize for misleading their readers and take effective steps to see that the problem does not recur, I would say that they are still doing good work in exposing the lies and crimes of the G.W. Bush "Presidency."
-
<<Their methods are not all that diffrent either, the Swift boat veterans for truth were most effective with the accusations that turned out to be true , suh as imply replaying John Kerrs senate testimony unedited.>>
You lost me there, plane, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
<<Moveon.org is lest effective with charges that turn out to be untrue , of which there are plenty. Or when they seem mean which is often.>>
I'm not a big fan of MoveOn.org, I don't get my information from them anyway, so I'm not really qualified to debate you on this one. Bottom line is I don't know what you're talking about, and if I tried to contradict you, I wouldn't know what I was talking about.
<<A complete one for one comparison is a bigger project than I am up for right now , suffice it to say that Move on is not a carefull fact checker.>>
I take it from that last remark that MoveOn.org has been caught in more than one false statement. If that's true, it's not going to shake the foundations of my world. As long as they acknowledge their errors when exposed, can plausibly explain them on some basis other than sheer mendacity, apologize for misleading their readers and take effective steps to see that the problem does not recur, I would say that they are still doing good work in exposing the lies and crimes of the G.W. Bush "Presidency."
Sheer mendacity is the explanation I lean twards , of course for move on .com
But for the Swift boat veterans for truth even though Swift boat veterans for truth has been caught in more than one false statement. If that's true, it's not going to shake the foundations of my world. As long as they acknowledge their errors when exposed, can plausibly explain them on some basis other than sheer mendacity, apologize for misleading their readers and take effective steps to see that the problem does not recur, I would say that they are still doing good work in exposing the lies and crimes of the John Kerry Candidacy.
-
<<Tee, with that ever famous clown talent of trying to read minds, instead of just reading what someone types. >>
Oh, I read what you type alright, sirs, but since you're such a BS artist, and love to spin half-truths, it's much more entertaining to point out what you DON'T write
Because of course, you know what I was thinking ::)
-
<<Because of course, you know what I was thinking >>
Don't flatter yourself, sirs. All you fascist fruitbats think pretty much along the same lines, and your bullshit follows a pattern that hasn't changed much from the time of Josef Goebbels. I can read you like a book.
-
When a judge orders a jury to disregard the previous testimony, odds are pretty good the jury doesn't follow the edict.
Move-on is well aware of this. So are all the other members of the great noise machine who poison the well and move on to the next big lie once the refutations come in.
-
When a judge orders a jury to disregard the previous testimony, odds are pretty good the jury doesn't follow the edict.
Move-on is well aware of this. So are all the other members of the great noise machine who poison the well and move on to the next big lie once the refutations come in.
Can there be a noise machine constructed that can fight fire with fire?
Perhaps takeing on the lies it can find from both sides and not just refuteing them but branding the sorce indellibly with plenty of noise in the process.
I expect not , there is not a side that always likes the truth.
-
<<When a judge orders a jury to disregard the previous testimony, odds are pretty good the jury doesn't follow the edict.
<<Move-on is well aware of this. So are all the other members of the great noise machine who poison the well and move on to the next big lie once the refutations come in.>>
Yes, that's very true, BT. For instance there are still citizens who believe the long-discredited lies of the Bush administration, that Iraq was hiding WMD, that the U.S. was "threatened" by them, and that Saddam had a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks.
-
Yes, that's very true, BT. For instance there are still citizens who believe the long-discredited lies of the Bush administration, that Iraq was hiding WMD, that the U.S. was "threatened" by them, and that Saddam had a hand in the Sept. 11 attacks.
You forgot a few. Long discredited lies like Bush stole the election, Congress never declared war on Iraq, black voters were disenfranchised in Florida, building 7 came down because of a controlled implosion, etc.
-
When a judge orders a jury to disregard the previous testimony, odds are pretty good the jury doesn't follow the edict.
<<You forgot a few. Long discredited lies like Bush stole the election, Congress never declared war on Iraq, black voters were disenfranchised in Florida, building 7 came down because of a controlled implosion, etc.>>
You can categorize them as long-discredited lies, that is your right. However, very few sane and normal people would agree with you on most of them. The average view of most sane and normal people on each of them is as follows:
Bush stole the election: true, except it was his handlers and backers who actually stole the election; Bush isn't smart enough.
Congress never declared war on Iraq: . . .? I don't THINK they did, but I'm open to persuasion otherwise.
Black voters were disenfranchised in Florida: proven beyond doubt
Building 7 came down because of controlled implosion: who the fuck knows? The only thing I'm sure about is Tower 1 and Tower 2 were hit by planes.
Glad we got THAT straightened out.
-
"that Iraq was hiding WMD"
no syria was/is
assad is on the way out
it may come out once assad, like Saddam, is dangling from a noose
(http://blackagendareport.com/010/images/1Saddam_Noose_Neck.jpg)
-
All you fascist fruitbats think pretty much along the same lines, and your bullshit follows a pattern that hasn't changed much from the time of Josef Goebbels. I can read you like a book.
LOL.....You go right ahead and stick with those comics Tee. That's about as credible as you can get when trying to "read someone else"
-
[snip]
As I said, there are still those who believe those long discredited lies.
-
It tends to give him a vested interest in protecting his job and the people who pay him, wouldn't you think?
I would think that a universal attribute. Don't see what the amount of money he makes has to do with it.
Nor does where he dines have anything to do with his thought patterns.
For a guy who emphasizes a desire for a classless society you sure do emphasize class.
Where he dines is a metaphor for his distance from the subject at hand. O'Reilly portrays himself as someone who grew up without means and struggled for what he has (I used to listen to his radio show on occasion ;) ). Of course none of that is remotely close to being true.
Annual income doesn't determine one's class, it is an effect, not a cause. And yes, I do emphasize class...often. Class struggle exists. So long as it does, I'll absolutely discuss it. But, hopefully we will have a classless society one day that emphasizes social equality.
-
<<LOL.....You go right ahead and stick with those comics Tee. >>
Who needs the comics when they can read your views on life and politics, sirs? Comics did help me escape from reality a little bit, but reading you is like escaping to a whole other planet.
-
<<Where he dines is a metaphor for his distance from the subject at hand. O'Reilly portrays himself as someone who grew up without means and struggled for what he has (I used to listen to his radio show on occasion Wink ). Of course none of that is remotely close to being true.>>
There was a chapter about this in Al Franken's Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar. It was hilarious.