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!

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!

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!

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!

Ben responds to me:

quote:

---

I simply tried to say that I don't know you. Of course, that makes me doubt as to whether or not you carry out your philosophy. Rather than assume, I ask a question.

---

And that's the problem. You shouldn't have asked the question. Whether or not you make the assumption is up to you, but your question is irrelevant. And given your reasons for asking it, the act of asking it is offensive.So not only was it immaterial to the discussion at hand, it was rude to do so.So why on earth did you do it?

quote:

---

Actually, it's your "calling me on it" that I find slightly annoying. I STILL haven't judged you; I don't have enough information to do it. All I've determined is that, since I don't know about your actions, that your words about ethics don't mean much to me. So I'll choose to ignore them.

---

Which is precisely the problem and is indicative of intellectuall dishonesty.You want to evaluate something based upon completely irrelevant criteria. Whether or not I follow an ethical program has nothing to do with the validity of that ethical program.What would change if I said yes? What would change if I said no? Why does it matter if I follow?

quote:

---

If you read the previous post again, maybe you'll see that I was trying to show respect.

---

No, you weren't. You were talking up a good game, but if you were really trying to show respect, you wouldn't have asked it in the first place.The fact that you are trying to justify yourself despite the fact that I've told you that your question is rude is indicative that you don't have any respect. You asked a question. I told you to get lost. Why are you still harping on it?

quote:

---

Ethics is not a logical enterprise.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Of course ethics is a logical enterprise. That's why they teach it in philosophy.

quote:

---

Ethics is a practical enterprise.

---

And how does that preclude rational, logical thinking? Just because something involves the gut doesn't mean you abandon the brain.

quote:

---

And that's why I don't feel bad in offending you.

---

What was that you said about trying to show respect? And now you say you don't care about offending me?

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

​

No, I want to judge you based on my idea of morality in order to decide whether or not your ideas on ethics are worthwhile to me.

---

That's what I said. Thank you for agreeing with me. That you find the truth worthwhile doesn't change it from being the truth.

quote:

---

You choose not to tell me what I was interested in hearing, and so I'm not so interested in hearing your ideas on ethics.

---

Your perogative, of course, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you have made a rational, logical choice. You have made an illogical, prejudiced one.So let it go. You are in control of your posts. You asked a question you shouldn't have, I told you that you're not going to get an answer, stop trying to justify it.Let it go.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

You have a bit of a history of unreliable statistics

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Oh, that's rich. That's just absolutely precious. Truthlover lecturing me about statistics and being unreliable?Here's the actual quote, truthlover. Did you bother to look it up? From his February 26, 2001 broadcast, to State Senator Kendrick Meek: Meek tried to correct him but O'Reilly cut him off shouting, "I got the numbers and they're dead on."Well no, they're not.And you tell me. When O'Reilly said "black," did he really mean "not white"?

quote:

---

perhaps you could reference the other claims in your OP?

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Oh, you are just so cute when you're silly, truthlover? Did you bother to read your own source? What does that tell you about blacks in Florida universities? Does it sound like the number of blacks in Florida universities is going up or does it sound like the number of blacks in Florida universities is going down?What do you think the word "decreased" means?Regarding welfare, from his February 5, 2002 broadcast, O'Reilly said: Except it isn't. According to the federal census, in 2000 there were about 12.7 million female householder families (13.6 in 2003) of which 7.6 were with own children (8.1 in 2003)In 2002, there were about 2.1 million families receiving assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF...formerly called Aid to Families with Dependent Children until the welfare reform bill, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996).Even if we were to assume that every single family receiving TANF assistance were a single mother family, that's less than 30% of all single mother households.Now you tell me. How does one get 58% of single mother households are on welfare when at maximum it can only be 30%?I'll leave you to determine the actual percentage of single mother households who are on welfare. I'm not here to do your homework for you.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

​

This isn't true, either.

---

(*sigh*)Why are you only looking at once source of foreign aid? But I digress.Here's the quote from O'Reilly's May 8, 2001 broadcast, to Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for National Policy: When Bennis pointed out that this was wrong and tried to point out that the US gives less of its GNP than any other developed country, O'Reilly shouted at her, "That's not true." But it is.When O'Reilly said it, it wasn't true. According to your own source, Japan gave about 36% more than the US. In raw dollars. When O'Reilly said it, it wasn't true. According to your own source, the US was last on the list in percentage of GNP.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is not a question of "interpretation." This is not a question of "reasonable people can disagree."

---

​

You see a lot of topics this way. You'd be much more pleasant to talk to if you had less confidence in this.

---

(*chuckle*)That's because I feel that an uncomfortable truth is better than a pleasant lie.I don't care if you find me "pleasant," truthlover. You do not love the truth and thus, I will continue to be an unpleasant thorn in your side.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

Shoot, I thought O'Reilly handled that great, and I don't know what crash means by "storms out." He said, "That's the end of the interview," and then he hung up. He wasn't even in the room with her, and she didn't know he was gone after he made the statement. There was no storming out.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?He storms out! He went on a rant about himself. "Review the book, not me!" He started yelling at her about a columnist who had reviewed O'Reilly's book and then pointed out that O'Reilly then called her names on his own show. Gross tries to say something, but O'Reilly shouts her down: But Gross gets in: O'Reilly starts shouting her down, getting extremely defensive: The interview disintegrates with O'Reilly lambasting Gross: When Gross pauses, O'Reilly then raises his voice...again: And then O'Reilly throws a temper tantrum: Are you seriously telling me that he is calm in that rant?Here's the paragraph she was trying to read: Let us not forget that according to O'Reilly's own words: Is that something a calm, rational person who isn't about to storm off does?

quote:

---

At one point, Terry reads the last paragraph of a review that O'Reilly had just asked her about. The paragraph really backed up Terry against O'Reilly. O'Reilly didn't give a great apology or anything, but he did back up and say "maybe I'm wrong."

---

Huh? Did you listen to the same interview? At no point did O'Reilly ask Gross about a review. While the words "could be wrong" did come out of his lips, he certainly wasn't of the opinion that he might be. When Gross brought it up, but before reading the final paragraph, here's what he said in his insistence that the review was positive: Except he wasn't in possession of a single fact. Here's what he said after hearing the last paragraph: Does that really sound like he's hedging? Give unto me a break.

quote:

---

It's hard to handle being wrong in a national forum, so although he could have handled that better, he was at least honest, as I have always found him to be, which is very, very refreshing.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Oh, you are just the sweetest thing in the world, aren't you? O'Reilly, honest? He had to be FORCED into admitting his mistake about calling Senator Boxer a "nut" regarding the confirmation of Rice.Here's what he said during the interview: According to O'Reilly's own words, he's never had to retract a story. That means he has never, ever said he was wrong.Others have put together a montage of clips of O'Reilly telling people to shut up. Here's a set of video clips of O'Reilly telling people to shut up: O'Reilly at his BestNote, O'Reilly is still lying about the Peabodies won by Inside Edition. During the interview, he said: Well, no. He said it at least three times within the space of nine months. In fact, the entire statement was wrong. O'Reilly claimed two Peabodies, attaching himself to the award by insisting "We won Peabody Awards."Well, no. Inside Edition won a Polk. One Polk. A year after O'Reilly left the show. He had nothing to do with it.Al Franken actually called O'Reilly up to ask him about it and the two had both agreed that it wasn't two Peabodies, it was a single Polk. The Washington Post picked it up and gave O'Reilly a chance to respond where he said: Two weeks later, O'Reilly said on his own program: Why would he say that when just two weeks previously he admitted that he did say "Peabody"?He said, "We won Peabodies." That entire statement is wrong. What does he mean "we," paleface? He wasn't involved in it at all. It wasn't a Peabody. It was a Polk. And it wasn't Peabodies. It was a single Polk.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You did not just say that, did you?

​

He storms out!

---

​

She didn't even know he had left. He wasn't in the same room.

---

And how does that mean he doesn't storm out? One can only storm out when in the actual physical presence of another person? The concept of "storming out" requires a grand physical sweep, preferably with some sort of flowing garment that can cause ruffling of the loose papers and fluttering of the candles in your wake?

quote:

---

Personally, I think the flavor of the response you gave to my entirely typical request for references does enough for what I was trying to get across for me to leave it there.

---

Yep. You claimed that X doesn't exist. Now that you have been shown that X does exist, you're going to whine and hope nobody notices.

quote:

---

I personally have heard him refer to people as morons on several occasions.

---

And yet, he constantly says he doesn't do that. He continually claims that he would never, ever do that because to do that would mean that he had no integrity.So what does that tell you when he does it?

quote:

---

I just said he was honest

---

The man has never said an honest word in his life.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator writes:

quote:

---

There was nothing else like it.

​

Anywhere.

​

In the whole country.

---

Well, there was Randi Rhodes in Florida who had the number one radio talk show in her market, including Rush Limbaugh, but she wasn't syndicated.That's why Air America picked her up. She had a very successful liberal talk show format.Picky, picky....

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

The fact is, there were pre-war links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

---

No, there weren't. That's one of the lies. There were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. How could there be? Bin Laden hated Hussein. Iraq was a secular country.No links. The administration makes a great deal of hay regarding a supposed meeting in Prague, but it never happened. Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani never met with Mohammed Atta in Prague.There was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

quote:

---

it's not really true that all three are clear misperceptions.

---

Incorrect.And the fact that you think one of them isn't a misperception should be telling you something. You, too, are holding onto a misperception.There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

truthlover responds to me:

quote:

---

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

---

Didn't you read your own source? You even quoted it: Does this sound like a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq to you? What do you think "no evidence" means?How interesting you only selectively quoted the report. Let's try looking at more of it, shall we? Hmmm..."stay clear of Bin Ladin." I wonder what that could mean.And, of course, this: Hmmm...I wonder what that means. How about this one: Now, are you going to be disingenuous and claim that "no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda" means that not a single Iraqi in the government ever met with any agent of Al Qaeda?

quote:

---

I don't know why we need news when we have you.

---

Well, since you apparently don't actually pay attention to the news, somebody has to pass along the information you have missed.

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

the only thing I could fault him on was his suggestion that O'Reilly's 37% figure on blacks in Florida universities came from nowhere, when it is indeed the correct figure for minorities.

---

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!

Monk writes:

quote:

---

the EXACT same thing happens on the other side.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

In every case since WWII, a two term president has been succeeded by a president from the opposition party.

---

Ahem.Bush I.He followed two-term Ronnie.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!