O'Reilly evidence

Since the previous topic was closed Who Owes Income Taxes?, and crashfrog made an interesting request Message 79, here's some evidence: Terry Gross: 'All I Did Was Ask'The above is an interview of Terry Gross which includes her reaction to her interview with Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'ReillyThe above is the actual interview.And since O'Reilly was a registered Republican, one has to wonder why he seems to think he has any claim to being "independent." He even lied about it. His quote was, "When I registered in Nassau to vote in 1994, there was no box for an independent. I left all the boxes empty."And yet if you look at the registration form, the checkbox for "Republican" is clearly checked and there is also a checkbox that clearly states, "I do not wish to enroll in party."Why would O'Reilly rail about the evils of welfare and make a claim that 58% of households headed by a single mother are on welfare when the actual number at the time he made his claim was only 14%?Why would O'Reilly rail about the evils of affirmative action and claim that of the 10 universities in Floriday, 37% of the student population was black when, at the time, it was only 18%?And why would he insist that he got those numbers from the government?Remember the tsunami? Remember how Bush's first statement of aid to be given was only going to amount to about $35 million? Remember how a UN official essentially called the US stingy for such a paltry amount? Why would O'Reilly then rail about how generous the US is in foreign aid, repeating his claim that he made back in 2001 that the US gives "far and away more tax money to foreign countries than anyone...nobody else even comes close," when that isn't true. Japan gives more. No, not on a per capita basis but on a dollar-for-dollar basis. Japan gives more money in foreign aid than the US.Why would O'Reilly then shout at his guest in 2001, Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies, that her refutation of him wasn't true? That she wasn't accurate in her claim that Japan gives a greater percentage of its GNP than any other developed country?Why would O'Reilly threaten a representative from Canada that if they were to provide asylum to the soldiers that are trying to defect to Canada rather than go back to Iraq with a boycott? Why would he claim that his call to boycott France was effective when actually France has had an increase in exports to the US?This is not a question of "interpretation." This is not a question of "reasonable people can disagree."O'Reilly is a right-wing blowhard and anybody who says otherwise has some serious 'splaining to do.Apologies for not referencing the previous, closed thread.This message has been edited by Rrhain, 03-27-2005 03:29 AM

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

A link back to the closed topic would be nice.AM

Yep, O'Reilly is a blowhard! But the U.S. is not stingy. Why in the heck should we bail out anybody? Big deal. Its about time that another country took up some of the slack.The big lie of America is that we all can become upper middle class. The rest of the world wants to raise up also, but the rich have cut us loose and are dancing a tune by themselves. So why give foreign aid on a personal level?
Three reasons.
1) National defense. If you are mean, they wanna kill ya.
2) Morality...do we have any?
3) some of us have families "over there".Counterpoint: We are going broke. The rich guys have 90% of the loot, and the illegals are pressuring us to get better educated or lose our inflated wages. I have worked hard at a grocery store for fifteen years.I make $15.00 an hour which I think I deserve. Market economics dictate that the store should strive to cut wages so as to keep prices in line. They want to give more people a job at $8-9.00 an hour. So what happens to me? Why should a bunch of snotty educated consumers who themselves are being dumped on by the wealthy put pressure on me?
Its all about greed. The U.S. is greedy.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-27-2005 04:43 AMThis message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-27-2005 04:44 AM

I agree whole heartedly, Phatboy.The big lie IS that everyone can get to the top. Fact is, there just isn't enough room up there. And anyone who knows a bit about economics will tell you that the US (or any other country for that matter) rides on the back of the poor.Think about it this way. I read somewhere that Bill Gates had so much money, if he gave everyone in Canada a Million bucks he would still come out a rich man. But could you imagine the economic chaos?I mean, no one in lower wage jobs would bother coming to work. Massive devaluation of the dollar would ensue. Poor people are necessitated in our capitalist system.The least we could do is adopt some socialist policies like France or Germany. But here in the US, saying socialism is close to saying Satanism.As far as Bill O'Reilly goes, he's a right wing nut-job. I once read an article in the New Yorker about him, he’s full of lies. His entire back-story is a sham, the guy is not to be trusted.But then again, he's one of the most popular disinformation distributors in the country. Go figure. sp by PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-27-2005 06:50 AM

Politically, I would say that I am a moderate. Conservatives lean towards Fascism while Liberals lean towards communism/socialism. All told, I would rather be a commie than a nazi. Idealistically, that is, for the fact remains that I was raised in a capitalist free market country which has pampered me and teased me.Only now am I realizing that I am nothing more than the equivalent of a well paid domestic helper. I work for the wealthy. Everyone else in the world wants my job even while I complain about it. This is the plight of the American middle class. Squeezed from both sides.Critics would tell me to quit whining because I still have a higher standard of living than the majority.The problem is, so much more has been promised to me that will never occur. Bush is lying to us this minute about social security.Why can't they just tell the American middle class that our days of ease are waning?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-27-2005 07:02 AM

While I agree with your first staetement, I dont agree with saying that the left is closer to communism/socialism, it implies that the two are closely related. Infact, socialisim has evolved much since the days of marx.I like the philosophy in the sense of Democratic Socialism.Democratic socialism - Wikipedia It could be argued that the reason you are paid well is do to socialist principals. If you read about the Labor movement in the early 1900's up to the 1930's you will see what workers like yourself had to go thrugh just to earn minimum wage and have a 40hr work week!There was litterely fighting in the streets. People lost their lives just to make a fraction of what you make now. The quality of life you, and many of us today, enjoy is due to the struggles of labour in this country.Basicaly the idea of democratic socialism is "ya your rich, and Im poor, but my society will make sure that neither of us are treated like dogs by guaranteeing the both of us a good quality of life."I don't see Democratic Socialisim as a rejection of capitalisim but rather an upgrade to it enugh of that... This is easy, they want to quietly sneak us back to the Charles Dickens era. Basicaly undo all the socialy progressive achivemnts of the last 100 years.After all, if they do that, the rich can get richer and the poor can get screwd.This message has been edited by Yaro, 03-27-2005 09:20 AM

You two are heading into a great discussion, but it's way OT here. What your discussing is very important though. Would the two of you consider moving it to a new thread please?

---

Rrhain: Why ask why about O'Reilly, or for that matter, any other of the same ilk of talking baboons who somehow have garnered a time slot in primetime during which their only intent is to supply self-agrandizing horseshit answers to their own set-up questions while attempting to make baffoons out of any guest ignorant enough to expose him or herself to such obviously manufactured self-worship? This includes that fool of a post-liberal, asskissing, "I'm a Boston Catholic choirboy" Chris Matthews.

This fits in so well with the topic I had to post it...Taken from Maddox...you can read the whole rant here.

quote:

---

Everything about this guy is obsessive. He speaks with an obnoxious cadence and rhythm, careful to chant the same handful of phrases over and over again. His entire repertoire of insults range from the versatile "ideologue" (oh no, don't call me an advocate of a particular ideology, anything but that! Dumbass), to "demonizer," and "ridiculous." In fact, he repeats these phrases on his show, "The O'Reilly Factor," so many times, you could play a game of Bingo while tuned in. Simply print out the following sheet and mark a square each time he does or says anything listed. You win when you get 5 in a row (horizontal, vertical or diagonal):

---

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

But the U.S. is not stingy.

---

That very much depends upon how you define "stingy."Does "stingy" refer to the raw amount given or does "stingy" refer to the amount given with respect to the amount available to give?That is, who is more "stingy"? Someone who has $100 and gives you $50 or someone who has $1,000 and gives you $50?

quote:

---

Why in the heck should we bail out anybody?

---

You really have to ask that? That was the sin of Sodom! They were a rich, prosperous country that refused to help the poor and needy.We bail out people because it's the right thing to do. We are all in this world together. When so many in the world are failing, we have a human duty to do what we can to assist.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Abshalom responds to me:

quote:

---

Why ask why about O'Reilly

---

Because a poster here claimed that he had listened to O'Reilly and didn't think he was right-wing. I wanted to investigate just why he would make such a claim since it is quite apparent that he is not.In a sense, this isn't about O'Reilly. This is about the ability to analyze and sythesize.In some sense, this is the foundational problem of creationists in their fight against evolution: They have been sold a bill of goods. They make these outrageous claims that are so trivially refuted.How does one respond to someone who stares you right in the eye and says 2 + 2 = 5?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

From reading some of Phatboy's posts, it's clear he's a caring, giving individual. I think he does exactly what you suggest.I don't do much of anything for others. I try to avoid criticizing others about things like this, unless I truly believe I back up my criticism with actions, i.e. I literally do what I criticize them for not doing. There's intellectual discussion, and then there's true action. I don't think you should be saying this unless you're "doing what you can to assist." I listen to Phat because he's no blowhard; he puts his money where his mouth is.Without knowing what you, Rrhain, do to assist those in need around the world, I have no idea how much credibility to put into what you said here. I'd much appreciate (and I think it's the right thing to do) to tell us a bit about how you yourself put your words into action.I hope you can understand and honor this request. I've done my best to describe my motives and intentions respectfully.Ben

Ben responds to me:

quote:

---

There's intellectual discussion, and then there's true action. I don't think you should be saying this unless you're "doing what you can to assist." I listen to Phat because he's no blowhard; he puts his money where his mouth is.

---

And what do you know of me and what I've done? I am very careful about what aspects of my life I reveal here because I want people to respond to the argument and not their value judgements of how I live my life.No, I am not going to tell you.

quote:

---

Without knowing what you, Rrhain, do to assist those in need around the world, I have no idea how much credibility to put into what you said here.

---

Why not? What does the veracity of my statement have to do with whether or not I live up to it? There are people who pinch every single penny they can get their hands on. Does that change the veracity of my statement? There are people who will give you everything they have and still try to find more if you ask. Does that change the veracity of my statement? Why does it matter where I fall on that scale?No, I am not going to tell you.

quote:

---

I hope you can understand and honor this request.

---

To quote a much better author than myself, "Get used to disappointment."Your request is rude in the extreme.

quote:

---

I've done my best to describe my motives and intentions respectfully.

---

Not at all. The mere asking of your question betrays your lack of respect. You accuse me of being a hypocrite by your words when there is no logical justification to ask what you are asking in the first place and you have the gall to say that you are being "respectful"?No, I am not going to tell you.It is none of your business.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain, This is exactly what I tried to avoid. I tried to tell you that I know about me, I know about Phat, but I don't know about you. I can't judge. So I ask. I'm sorry I failed to communicate this fairly straightforward item. I don't know anything about you, I have no reason to call you a hypocrite. I tried to avoid implying that you're a hypocrite, but I found that (given the limited language ability I have) it depended more on reader interpretation than any modification I could make. And when it comes to intellectual discussion about math or science, that's fine. But when it comes to discussions on ethics and especially talking about how we should act, I think how people themselves act is just as important as what they say. For me, "veracity" is not the only important thing in ethics. Another important thing about having an ethic is to put it into action. I like to hear about people's ethics, IF I know they are doing what they can to put it into action. So I asked you. There's so many ways to "give." It's your ethic; it'd be great to hear of your living example of how you do it. Well, of course, if I've read enough to know Phat well enough, I pretty much know your approach too. Your response isn't at all disappointing. It's almost exactly what I expected. I'm sorry about that. I knew there was a good chance that you'd think so, but because I respect your posts intellectually, I went out on a limb, just to see if I would be more interested in your ethic.To be fair, I also posted because you (someone who I don't know how to think of your ethic, because I don't know you) were questioning the ethic of Phat (someeone whose ethic I already respect). I couldn't fairly understand your critique without knowing more about you. For me, it's important that every question is able to be asked. Of course it's fine to answer "I'm not going to tell you." I don't think asking is disrespectful, I think it's simply the manner in which the question is asked.I bent over backwards trying to ask in a polite way. I'm sorry I failed in your eyes. I outlined my "logical justification" above. This is how I judge whether or not to be interested in someone's ethic. Not that I want to involve somebody else in this, but one reason I'm interested in (for example) holmes' posts, especially those on ethics, is because I find him very consistent and feel that he genuinely follows the ethics that he writes about here.You may not judge ethics the same way as me, but in my eyes that's just a personal preference.If you want to see how I put my words into action, read this. It's the opening post to a thread I started simply based off emotion. Of course that's your right. That's all you had to say, brother.Ben[edited to more clearly state my purpose in initially responding, and to add a link to another post of mine]This message has been edited by Ben, Saturday, 2005/04/02 06:46 PM

Ben responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You accuse me of being a hypocrite by your words

---

​

This is exactly what I tried to avoid.

---

And you failed miserably. You made an equality definition between a philosophical statement and whether or not a person actually carries out that philosophy. You then indicated that you were in some doubt as to whether I did carry out that philosophy.What is that if not claiming I'm a hypocrite?

quote:

---

I tried to tell you that I know about me,

---

Did I ask? You are assuming that I care. You are assuming that it is relevant. That you want to judge my statements based upon how I live my life doesn't make you ethical or logical to do so.

quote:

---

but I don't know about you. I can't judge.

---

And yet, you did. And now you're upset for being called on it.

quote:

---

I don't know anything about you, I have no reason to call you a hypocrite. I tried to avoid implying that you're a hypocrite, but I found that (given the limited language ability I have) it depended more on reader interpretation than any modification I could make.

---

But here's the thing: It doesn't matter. What does the veracity of my statement have to do with whether or not I live up to it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am very careful about what aspects of my life I reveal here because I want people to respond to the argument and not their value judgements of how I live my life.

---

​

And when it comes to intellectual discussion about math or science, that's fine. But when it comes to discussions on ethics and especially talking about how we should act, I think how people themselves act is just as important as what they say.

---

Incorrect. EVERY discussion needs to remain focused on the actual claims being made and needs to avoid dismissing or elevating any point simply because of some character trait of the person making the claim.To do otherwise is to fall victim to the logical errors of ad hominem, argument from authority, and others.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What does the veracity of my statement have to do with whether or not I live up to it?

---

​

I don't think there's a veracity that applies to ethics.

---

Then there's no point in discussing it at all. If there is no such thing as a true statement, then how can there ever be any type of discussion? Anything is possible and everything is equivalent and thus it doesn't matter what you say.

quote:

---

But to me, the most important thing about having an ethic is to put it into action. I like to hear about people's ethics, IF I know they are doing what they can to put it into action. So I asked you.

---

But you only asked in order to make a judgement. That ain't gonna happen.

quote:

---

There's so many ways to "give." It's your ethic; it'd be great to hear of your living example of how you do it.

---

Why? What would change about the veracity of my statement if I did one thing instead of another?

quote:

---

For me, it's important that every question is able to be asked.

---

No. Not all questions are available to be asked. There are some things that are simply none of your business and it is inappropriate for you to inquire.

quote:

---

I outlined my "logical justification" above. This is how I judge whether or not to be interested in someone's ethic.

---

In other words, you want to judge somebody based on your definition of morality in order for you to decide whether or not what they said is true or not.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!