O'Reilly evidence

Monk responds to me:

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Bull. Republicans and Democrats ARE the same in tactic and scope.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

(*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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

What made the Clinton situation so startling was that he was not only caught lying, but caught in such a public way.

---

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:

---

Pointing straight into the camera and flat out lying through his teeth in such a convincing fashion was why many found the situation repugnant.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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!

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

37% is exactly the right figure for minorities.

---

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% white
FSU: 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% whiteNotice 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 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

In the current year, it's 33%

---

​

I gave you the source for the 37% in the other thread.

---

And I showed you that it was wrong.

quote:

---

Finding a new percentage for the current year is irrelevant.

---

Incorrect. The current year is the highest percentage of non-white students in Florida universities. If it is significantly lower than O'Reilly's stat, then the number he cited cannot possibly be correct.

quote:

---

37% did not come from nowhere, just as I said it didn't.

---

Yes, it did. O'Reilly pulled it, just like most all of his other stats, out of his ass.

quote:

---

Worse, not only is your last post irrelevant

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Was or was not O'Reilly's point that there is some sort of discrimination going on against whites in the Florida University system? I remind you that the topic was Jeb Bush's "One Florida" program regarding the state of affirmative action in Florida universities. As J. Bush said in introducing the program: Now, O'Reilly's comment was defending the program to Florida State Senator Kendrick Meek: Therefore, shouldn't we be looking at the racial population of the state of Florida, which the Florida university system is supposed to serve, in order to see if the admissions policies of the university system are biased against whites?And if we should find that whites are overrepresented in the population of students compared to the population of Floridians, doesn't that make us question the claim that there is a barrier to the Florida university system for white students? Especially in light of the fact that the vast majority of non-white students are going to only two of the ten schools in question and that those two schools have historically had tiny populations of white students?Hint: Before you answer, do not assume that I am in favor of affirmative action.

quote:

---

(and thus inaccurate, no matter how accurate any of the individual figures might be)

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Because something is accurate but irrelevant, that makes it inaccurate? That makes no sense.In a discussion about the conjugation of the verb "tener" in the preterit in Spanish, the statement "2 + 2 = 4" suddenly becomes inaccurate simply because it is irrelevant? That makes no sense.

quote:

---

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

---

Incorrect.This has nothing to do with Franken's book. It has to do with your gullibility into believing anything that comes out of O'Reilly's mouth.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry responds to me:

quote:

---

Why can't you be civil?

---

Excuse me? Civility demands that those who lie be called out. Outrageous behaviour requires an outrageous response. Have you not read your Miss Manners? When faced with someone who has failed to maintain a standard of honesty and integrity, the proper response is to point it out.You are entitled to your opinion, yes. You are not entitled to your facts. When someone says something that is factually and substantively incorrect and has been shown the evidence that the claim is factually and substantively incorrect, then it is dishonest to play into that dishonesty by refusing to step up and declare the statement a lie.Would you prefer that I refer to him as insane? That is the only other reason to continue to state something that you know to be untrue and he knows that it is untrue because he has been shown the direct evidence that belies his claim. It's called "cognitive dissonance" and we've all seen it. It's one of the mind's adaptive reactions to information that challenges core beliefs. When you are shown that the fundamental basis for your worldview is naught but a lie, it is not uncommon to simply refuse to believe it despite the fact that it happened right in front of your eyes.But to say that would require me to psychoanalyze people over the Internet and I am incapable of that. And in the end, I don't care why people tell lies. But when they tell them, I call them out.It's the polite and civil thing to do. I give them the chance to correct their statements.Why are you asking me to be rude to everybody else here and coddle him?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

AdminJar responds to me:

quote:

---

Present evidence for your belief

---

I did.Truthlover claimed that O'Reilly's stat was actually about the entire minority population in Florida schools and that O'Reilly misspoke himself by applying it to blacks.The problem, as I pointed out when he originally brought it up by giving references, is that O'Reilly's number doesn't even represent the entire minority population in Florida schools.Therefore, for him to repeat the claim that the minority population in Florida schools was 37% when he has been shown that it was never that high means that he is lying. That's the definition of a lie, is it not? Stating something that you know to be false?He is entitled to his opinion.He is not entitled to his facts. He does not get to hide behind a claim of "I don't believe it." Facts are not subject to belief.Civility and polite behaviour demands that lies be pointed out. You do not coddle people who refuse to behave with honesty and integrity.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Monk responds to me:

quote:

---

I realize there is nothing that would convince you that your cherished democrats are not as power hungry and corrupt as Republicans.

---

(*chuckle*)Where did I say I cherished the Democrats? You seem to have confused the fact that I despise the Republicans with the idea that I like the Democrats.

quote:

---

You are wrong to think democrats are above republicans and do not stoop to the same level of false propaganda.

---

Huh? Why is it that the last Democratic administration was much more open about its activities than the current one? Why is it that the last Democratic administration, despite being the most investigated administration in history, couldn't find anything on anybody? Compare this to the Reagan administration that had literally dozens of convictions.To be more specific:Fourteen people were convicted regarding Iran-Contra.
Two were convicted over illegal lobbying.
Sixteen were convicted regarding HUD.Caspar Weinberger had been indicted on five counts but Bush pardoned him before they went to possible conviction.Regarding Whitewater, the travel office scandal, the FBI files, Lewinsky, Babbit, and Espy for Clinton, not a single conviction. Hubbell was convicted of embezzlement but for actions he did before he joined the Clinton administration.That you do not see a difference between the actions of the Republicans and the actions of the Democrats means you have a severely different definition of "crave power" than I do.Reminder: That I detest the Republicans does not mean I like the Democrats.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

To quote from a better author than myself: You need to get over yourself Jar. The Powers That Be decided to give you power, this is their forum, and you have the right to call the shots. But do you honestly believe that it is better to infantalize the readership lest they suffer the indignity of someone calling them on their bullshit?No, I'm not asking for your resignation as an administrator. I'm asking you to take a good, hard look at what you're doing to see if you truly understand the environment you are trying to create. Is it one where people maintain an atmosphere of honesty and integrity even if it hurts or is it one where nobody ever has to confront the possibility that they're wrong since that could hurt their feelings?And if it's the latter, fine. Just be honest about it...except that would require maintaining an environment of honesty and integrity which you don't seem to be interested in doing.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

berberry writes:

quote:

---

There's no excuse whatever for calling truthlover a liar.

---

Even if he lies?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Civility demands that those who lie be called out. Outrageous behaviour requires an outrageous response. Have you not read your Miss Manners?

---

​

What? Judith Martin says that when someone cites a disputed statistic you call them a liar?

---

Of course not. But then again, truthlover isn't "citing a disputed statistic." He is declaring something to be true that is factually and substantively false after being shown that it was so. Rather than saying, "Oops, I didn't know that," he tried to cover the ass of the person he was trying to defend. Minority representation at Florida state schools has never been as high as 37%. And yet, despite being shown this, he persists in claiming that O'Reilly was correct in the specific number of "37%" even though he erred in claiming that it was for black students rather than minority students as a whole.When someone says something that they know to be untrue, what is the word we most commonly use to describe that?

quote:

---

Judith Martin says that when confronted with outrageous behavior one should behave outrageously?

---

Yes. Have you not read her? I seem to recall that that is a direct quote. Outrageous behaviour demands an outrageous response.That doesn't mean you behave impolitely, but it does mean that you will engage in behaviour that you wouldn't normally do were the circumstances different. If you are at a party and you are trying to tell a companion of yours not to do something such as going into the back room which you know is off limits for this affair, you wouldn't do so by shouting at him to stop, grabbing him, and force marching him out of the room. To do so would be outrageous.But if you were to do so to someone whom you caught taking down his pants and pissing in the punch bowl, nobody would think you were out of place. Your response is outrageous, yes, but you are responding to outrageous behaviour. This does not give you license to do anything in the face of ridiculous behaviour, but politeness and civility does not mean suffering fools gladly.

quote:

---

Sounds to me like you're bearing false witness against Judith Martin!

---

I highly suggest you read some of her books. Might I suggest Miss Manners Rescues Civilization, Chapter Eleven, "The Good, the Bad, and the Vulgar": And another quote of hers: Debate may be heated, but it depends upon the standard of honesty and integrity. To fluff off violations of that standard with the piffle of, "Everyone is entitled to his opinion," insults the entire point of discussion and debate. When someone lies to your face, it is not "being civil" to ignore it. "Manners do permit defending one's dignity," to quote Miss Manners, and it is an assault to my dignity when someone lies to my face.Truthlover is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to his facts.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

AdminJar responds to me:

quote:

---

Call someone a liar and you are out of here.

​

Period!

---

So you are not interested in actually furthering discussion and debate. You just want to run a touchy-feely happy group where people can come here and lie to their hearts contents and nobody is allowed to call them on it.Strange...people get banned for that behaviour and here you are trying to promote it. The other admins seem to understand that the point of a discussion forum is to have people put forward arguments that are based upon factual analysis. It says so in the guidelines: And here's a big one: So when truthlover repeatedly puts forward a misrepresentation of the minority make up of Florida schools after being shown that it is, indeed, a misrepresentation, it is inappopriate to point it out?It is against the rules to point out someone going against the rules?Is that really conducive to maintaining a forum of honesty and integrity?Here's a legitimate request asked in all sincerity:Why?Please explain the justification for your attitude. You don't have to. After all, you are the admin, but I am asking for you to indulge me.Why do you find it inappropriate?This message has been edited by Rrhain, 05-08-2005 01:41 AM

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!