|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: O'Reilly evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
quote: Poor old Al has already taken a beating on this forum for his create the internet comment which is why your comment caught my attention. I wanted to give Al the benefit of the doubt on this one. I looked it up and it seems his comment came from his book Earth in the Balance where he recommended the phase out of the internal combustion engine over the next 25 years. He didn’t say he hated it, just that he wants newer technology to replace it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
quote: Ok, fair enough
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
truthlover writes:
quote: No, it isn't! We went through this, truthlover. That number is in no way accurate. I provided you the specific statistical numbers. Why do you persist in this lie? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Monk writes:
quote: No, it doesn't. I am hardly saying that the Democrats are all sweetness and light. I am saying that the actions of the Republicans are different both in kind and in scope compared to those of the Democrats.
quote: Indeed. But there is a big difference: It wouldn't be true of the Democrats. Let's not forget that for a time, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency and yet they had nowhere near the amount of control that the Republicans have been enjoying. Take the biggest "scandal" of the Clinton era: Lewinsky. Not a single Democrat ever said that Clinton's behaviour was justifiable. They simply said it didn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Compare this to the comments of the Republicans as they try to claim that the myriad witnesses who have testified that Bolton has tried to get people fired don't exist. McClellan got up in front of the press and said that the allegations were "unsubstantiated" when the people who Bolton tried to get fired, the bosses of those people Bolton tried to get fired, and even Bolton, himself, all admitted that he did try it. There is a fundamental difference between what the Republicans are doing and what the Democrats did.
quote: Ahem. Bush I. He followed two-term Ronnie. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Hi Rrhain,
Monk writes: ...the EXACT same thing happens on the other side.
Rrhain writes: No, it doesn't. I am hardly saying that the Democrats are all sweetness and light. I am saying that the actions of the Republicans are different both in kind and in scope compared to those of the Democrats. Bull. Republicans and Democrats ARE the same in tactic and scope. Different ideologies that’s all. Democrats are just as extreme in their views, just as likely to spew propaganda, just as ready to ignore evidence contrary to their positions as are the Republicans. In short, politics is the same on both sides.
Monk writes: I can take your post and substitute the words republicans for democrats, and Bush and Co. for Clinton and Co., and you would have the exact same mantra espoused by the republicans during the Clinton years.
Rrhain writes: Indeed. But there is a big difference: It wouldn't be true of the Democrats. Let's not forget that for a time, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency and yet they had nowhere near the amount of control that the Republicans have been enjoying. When the Democrats controlled both houses, they did indeed have similar control that the Republicans now enjoy. They did lose some measure of control in Clinton's second term, but if you take a longer view of history, 1994 was the first time in 40 years that Republicans were able to wrestle control of congress from the Democrats. Beginning with Roosevelts new deal in 1936, Democrats have controlled the government for most of the 20th century.
Rrhain writes: Take the biggest "scandal" of the Clinton era: Lewinsky.Not a single Democrat ever said that Clinton's behaviour was justifiable. They simply said it didn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. I would agree with this. Many republicans felt the same way. What made the Clinton situation so startling was that he was not only caught lying, but caught in such a public way. Pointing straight into the camera and flat out lying through his teeth in such a convincing fashion was why many found the situation repugnant. I know, I know, you don’t need show proof of Republican lying because there is plenty of that and a lot is also repugnant. Its just that Clinton’s lie was more of a spectacle.
Rrhain writes: Compare this to the comments of the Republicans as they try to claim that the myriad witnesses who have testified that Bolton has tried to get people fired don't exist. McClellan got up in front of the press and said that the allegations were "unsubstantiated" when the people who Bolton tried to get fired, the bosses of those people Bolton tried to get fired, and even Bolton, himself, all admitted that he did try it. Clinton/Lewinsky verses Bolton do not compare. On the one hand you have the President of the US caught in a bald faced lie on national TV. On the other hand, you have partisans supporting their candidate through lies and propaganda. If the tables were turned, the democrats would have raked a republican president over the coals and democratic partisans would be just as visceral in support of their nominee. There is no difference, it’s all US politics. Bush followed two-term Ronnie. Yes, I already posted a correction in Message 68
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
truthlover writes: that O'Reilly's 37% figure on blacks in Florida universities came from nowhere truthlover writes: it is indeed the correct figure for minorities. Rrhain writes: No, it isn't! Yes, it is. 37% is exactly the right figure for minorities. O'Reilly applied it to blacks. In that he was wrong. Franken suggests the number is simply pulled from nowhere. It is not pulled from nowhere. It is the number for minorities.
Why do you persist in this lie? It's not a lie. It's a very simple little fact, not hard to figure out. Why do you persist in being both obnoxious and stupid? That would be an ad hominem attack, but since you don't actually debate anything, I can't see why that matters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Monk responds to me:
quote:quote: When the Democrats were in power, did they suggest removing the filibuster? And then with the ludicrousness of just on judicial appointments? When the Democrats were in power, did they suggest that all programming put forward by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting be scanned for "balance"? When the Democrats were in power, did they shut down the Ethics committee, replace three members of it, and then insist that the rules for how ethics investigations were carried out be changed? When the Democrats were in power, did they revoke rules such as anybody convicted of a crime could not be Majority Leader? Do you really see no difference in the kinds of things the Republicans have been doing with what the Democrats did?
quote: I never said there wasn't politics involved. What I said was that the actions of the Republicans are distinctly different both in scope as well as in kind compared to the Democrats. Question: How many press conferences did Clinton have? How many has Bush had? Why did Bush completely reverse the FOIA rules? Why did he place his records from when he was governor into his father's library and then declare his father's papers off limits to release as required by the Presidential Papers act?
quote:quote: Then why did they not get rid of the filibuster when they had the chance? They were already having trouble getting Clinton's appointments pushed through. So why did it never occur to them to do away with the filibuster?
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Do you seriously not recall that the Senate was a Republican majority body for most of Reagan's administration? Since 1995, the Senate has been Repbulican controlled (save for a brief moment when Jeffords left the party). Since WWII, there have been 11 presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Five Democrats and six Republicans. There has been more time under Republican presidents than Democratic ones. And in all that time, even when Democrats were in charge of Congress and the Presidency, never were there attempts to consolidate power as we have seen.
quote:quote: And yet, Clinton was impeached. And now we have Republicans calling for the heads of judges (both figuratively and literally) who didn't vote the way they wanted them to.
quote: Indeed. He was a fool to have lied. The fact that he should never have been asked such questions in the first place is immaterial. But to claim, as Republicans did, that lying about having an affair rises to the level of an impeachable offense was even more foolish. It was quite clear that the various Republicans in the country were out to get Clinton on something and it didn't matter what. Despite all the investigations into his administration, only one conviction ever made it. Compare this to Reagan's dozens of convictions. And nobody seemed to think that defying a direct order of Congress was a problem.
quote: So why wasn't Reagan impeached for lying about Iran-Contra? Why wasn't Bush? They both lied about their involvement. Why is everybody so quick to let them off the hook but somehow Clinton's lie was so much worse? Isn't lying about a war more repugnant than lying about an affair?
quote: Only because it involved sex. Reagan's and Bush's lies were about the actual running of the country. Isn't that more of a spectacle?
quote:quote: That's the point. They go directly to the claim that the actions of the Republicans are of a completely different scope and kind than the actions of the Democrats. When Clinton lied, he lied about a personal issue that had no effect upon governmental policy. When the Republicans lied, it put people like Rice, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rumsfeld, and Negroponte into positions of governmental power. Is that not indicative that the actions of the Republicans are of a completely different scope and kind than the actions of the Democrats?
quote: Huh? Are you saying when the President is caught in a bald-faced lie about the potential ambassador to the UN, it is simply "propaganda"? When he is caught in a bald-faced lie about the Secretary of State, it is simply "propaganda"? And most importantly, when the President is caught in multiple bald-faced lies about the reason to go to war, it is simply "propaganda"? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
truthlover responds to me:
quote: No, it isn't. In the current year, it's 33% (15% black, 14% Hispanic, 4% Asian, not even 1% Native American). And I should point this out since O'Reilly is misleading with his complaint about the racial makup of the schools: In 2002, nearly half of the black students that entered Florida universities all went to a single school: Florida A&M which is historically a black school (96% in 2004) A third of the Hispanic schools went to Florida International University (59% Hispanic). It isn't like there is a problem for white students to get into Florida colleges: UF: 68% whiteFSU: 73% white FAMU: 3% white USF: 66% white FAU: 60% white UWF: 78% white UCF: 69% white FIU: 20% white UNF: 77% white FGCU: 82% white NCF: 81% white Notice that the only Florida universities that have anywhere near a dearth of white students are the two traditionally non-white schools: FAMU and FIU. I should point out that Florida is 41% black or Hispanic. Therefore, the Florida system in general, favors whites. So even if we were to accept O'Reilly's number, it still makes no sense for him to say it. He's complaining that 37% is too high. But, it should be more. Why do you persist in your lie? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
In the current year, it's 33% I gave you the source for the 37% in the other thread. Finding a new percentage for the current year is irrelevant. 37% did not come from nowhere, just as I said it didn't. Worse, not only is your last post irrelevant (and thus inaccurate, no matter how accurate any of the individual figures might be), but the only possible effect any of this could have is to take the focus off what ought to have been a pretty rousing recommendation for a book that slams Bill O'Reilly pretty thoroughly (which I mention, because O'Reilly is still in the title of this thread). If that's your purpose, fine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes truthlover:
quote: I'm curious as to why you persist in hurling personal attacks and insults at other people, and further why the admins continue to allow you to make these unprovoked personal attacks at your whim. You have no evidence whatsoever that truthlover is a liar, yet you continue to badger him with that label ad nauseum. Why can't you be civil? Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Saying someone is lying will not be tolerated. Present evidence for your belief, say the other person is wrong, but quit attacking posters.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1269 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
"You flatten Baghdad, you flatten the troops, we flatten all the troops. And you know as well as I do the war would have been over in two days. It's just frustrating for everybody to know that we have been fighting this war with one hand behind our back."
-O'reilly http://www.findarticles.com/...mi_m1316/is_9_35/ai_108314348 I thought I'd share that with you all. You can't believe he's on tv right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
quote: That's right, there is NO difference. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE "Blink, I just said that".... have another one for good measure.... "Blink". You really enjoy that little phrase don't you. I've seen you post it many times. Others have asked if you have something in your eye. It's getting a bit stale though. Back to the topic. I realize there is nothing that would convince you that your cherished democrats are not as power hungry and corrupt as Republicans. As such there is no point engaging you in a mud slinging contest. If I were to go back and start digging up dirt to show that democrats are just as bad as republicans, we would extend this thread far beyond the 300 post limit. So I'll keep this brief. You are wrong to think democrats are above republicans and do not stoop to the same level of false propaganda. They both crave power in the same extreme.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
quote: I generally agree with the gist of your post, but I think there is a difference in what's happening now and what's happened in the past, irrespective of the republican vs. democrat distinction. Every time either party has been in power they have abused that power, especially at times when that party controls not only both houses of Congress but also the White House. The difference now is that the stakes are much higher than I think they've ever been. It is not just one party that currently controls the presidency, the House and the Senate but one specific, radical group within that party. The republican party is under the complete control of the religious right-wing. The most powerful republicans in the country have said openly that they do not respect a separation of church and state, they do not respect equal rights for women and gays and that they believe the judiciary must enforce god's law over man's law. This group of Republicans which now controls two branches of government has made it known that it wants nothing less that complete control of all branches of the federal government and that it intends to use that control to roll back civil rights protections and to openly mix religion with basic government functions. We can see that this group has long been at work to do just this; Rrhain pointed out a number of unprecedented actions these radicals have taken in pursuit of power. The filibuster may well be the last major obstacle to complete control of the federal government by a radical faction of republicans. So while I would agree with you that neither party can claim any moral superiority on the surface questions of Senate control and filibusters, I think the deeper issues this time round are so serious and so fundamental that our very system of government is at stake. This time, things are very much different. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I disagree vehemently. It has been shown, time and time again, that Republicans in recent years are willing to lie and cheat to remain in power. They lied about WMD and a connection to 9/11 with Iraq They perpetrated large amounts of various sorts of voter fraud in battleground states, including fliers circulated in poor black communities telling people they couldn't vote if they had outstanding parking tickets or child support payments, and listing election day as the day after the real day. They lied about using napalm in Iraq. They lied when they secretly paid journalists to promote Republican policies without disclosing they had done so. They lied about Kerry's record and used the swiftboat veterans to smear him. They lied when they utterly misrepresented most of Kerry's proposals and positions. (I am specifically thinking of his healthcare plan and the tax rollback for the rich) Bush has lied about his military service. ...and those are just off the top of my head. Granted, not every Democrat has been lie-free, but I really don't see a parallel between actions of the Democrats compared to the viciousness and amorality and disregard for the truth that the NeoCons have blatantly displayed over the last 5 years. Unfortunately, the fact that Democrats are, by and large, not extremists or radicals and are not willing to take a "the ends justifies the means" sort of tactic the way the NeoCons do means that they will have a harder time. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-25-2005 10:13 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024