Who Owes Income Taxes?

What else would you conclude when at the same time that majority re-elected the incumbent who ran on a platform of "more of what he did in the first term", a majority expressed disapproval with the decisions he had made during the first term? Combine that with the fact that, in polls that did not mention specific political candidates, a majority of Americans supported the policy goals set forth by Kerry?The polls are clear:
1) A majority of Americans disapproved of Bush's first term.
2) A majority of Americans approved the policies and positions set forth by Kerry.
3) A majority of Americans voted for Bush.Any way you slice it, that's Americans knowingly voting against their own interests. Either that, or its a massive election fraud. But there's no evidence of the latter.

That is interesting because I would not have placed O'Reilly in the "moderate" camp. Can you indicate one position that he holds which is moderate? And by contrast can you explain what would be required for that position to be extremely conservative?

I look forward to answering this question, even though I can't say I fully know what the prevailing wisdom is on what's conservative and what's liberal.To me, the extreme conservatives and the extreme liberals are the ones who don't think. An extreme conservative will agree with the Swift Boat veterans' accusations against Kerry because they're conservative and Kerry's liberal, not because of any evidence. An extreme liberal will agree with the accusations about Bush's National Guard experience because they're liberal and Bush is conservative, not because of any evidence. Extreme conservatives know that Anita Hill was lying, because they wanted Clarence Thomas on the supreme court. Extreme liberals know Thomas harrassed her, because they didn't want him on the supreme court. Etc., etc., etc.I only hear O'Reilly if he's on while I'm driving home, so I don't know a lot of his views. I know he may be the staunchest supporter of the war on terror on the planet, which would be extremely conservative. On the other hand, he blew off the Swift Boat Veterans, is uninterested in a political candidate's morals, and thinks Clinton's fiscal policies were pretty good. I'm pretty sure those last two would be considered at least moderate.I call him moderate, because he thinks. Whatever you think of his opinions, he has real reasons for every one of them, and he's the only radio personality I've heard that I'd be willing to say that about.

quote:

---

To me, the extreme conservatives and the extreme liberals are the ones who don't think. An extreme conservative will agree with the Swift Boat veterans' accusations against Kerry because they're conservative and Kerry's liberal, not because of any evidence.

---

I'm afraid that a useless criterion. While the pack-mentality you describe is a real phenomenon (Michael Goldfarb recently described US politics as being like that of a middle eastern bazaar - you believe your friends and disbelieve your enemies) it makes a mockery of the word "extreme". None of these are extreme positions - they are merely PARTISAN positions.Extreme is a qualitative statement comparing two referents. It would be valid to say that in a given political climate, the right wing supports, say, privatisation, and the left wing supports nationalisation. The extreme positions here would be "... of everything"; the moderate positions here would be "... of certain things".It is invalid to attribute extremism to someone just because they hold a partisan position you do not share - that in fact is an ad hominem slander. And it arises only because of the modern doctrine that ineffective "moderates" are some sort of pinnacle of uselessness to aspire to."Extremist" has become a political insult rather than a description of a position precisely in order to dismiss certain positions without analysis.

I was not aware that he thought Clinton's fiscal policies were good. I see where you could put him in the "moderate" camp. I think that with this one example I would put him in the "not completely wacked-out" conservative column but still an extremist. I remember one discussion about illegal drugs and he pretty much stopped just short of advocating shooting anyone who uses illegal drugs in the street. (I'm sure I can't find a reference for that particular radio show so don't even ask. )I think that Contra may have a point about what is "extreme" and what is "partisan". I expect that much of what I think about him is probably partisan and not necessarily extreme.

I appreciate Contra defining terms. More later, when I have time. I'll try to stick to his terms.I disagree wholeheartedly, however, about O'Reilly being partisan, not extreme. I would say extreme, not partisan. It would not surprise me at all to hear him come just short of advocating shooting anyone who uses illegal drugs in the street. I would be surprised to hear he advocated Republican over Democrat or Conservative over Liberal just because of designation.

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

To me, the extreme conservatives and the extreme liberals are the ones who don't think. An extreme conservative will agree with the Swift Boat veterans' accusations against Kerry because they're conservative and Kerry's liberal, not because of any evidence.

---

And since O'Reilly had the ringleader of the SBVs on his program and proceeded to kiss his ass for the entire time, what would that make O'Reilly?

quote:

---

Extreme conservatives know that Anita Hill was lying, because they wanted Clarence Thomas on the supreme court.

---

And since O'Reilly has repeatedly come out in favor of Thomas and claimed that Hill was lying, what would that make O'Reilly?

quote:

---

On the other hand, he blew off the Swift Boat Veterans

---

No, he did not! He sucked up to them in every way possible! He even went so far as to say that the SBVs never accused Kerry of lying. From his August 23 radio broadcast: But did you see the ad run by the SBVs? On the October 19 edition of his TV broadcast, O'Reilly had SBV Retired Air Force Colonel Thomas M. McNish, M.D. on who repeated the lie that Kerry collaborated with the North Vietnamese on a trip in 1970 to Paris. O'Reilly did not call him on this.On the September 7 edition of this TV broadcast, O'Reilly had O'Neill on and O'Reilly stated, directly, that Kerry "was craven when he came back to the U.S. by besmirching all the fine soldiers in Vietnam. I think that's true." When O'Neill got to Kerry's testimony before the Senate in 1971, O'Reilly agreed with O'Neill's lie: O'Reilly agreed with O'Neill's claim that Kerry was lying when he said he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968. At no point did O'Reilly ever point out that O'Neill contradicted his own story regarding US presence in Cambodia. That is, O'Neill claims that Kerry couldn't have been in Cambodia because the US was not allowed to go into Cambodia and yet, O'Neill himself went to Cambodia talked about it with Nixon in 1971. If Kerry wasn't allowed there, why was O'Neill?Here's what O'Reilly had to say about it on the August 24 broadcast of the TV show: How the hell does O'Reilly know?Let's not forget that Tony Snow, fellow Fox personality, appeared on the September 15 broadcast of the TV program and said, "there has been no documentary contradiction of the swift boat stuff." O'Reilly never contradicted him.For you to say that O'Reilly is not an extremist indicates extreme disingenuousness on your part. And no, you can't chalk it up to "I don't know a lot of his views." He makes them crystal clear every single time he opens his yap.

quote:

---

is uninterested in a political candidate's morals

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Who do you think was at the forefront of the lynch mob to impeach Clinton?

quote:

---

thinks Clinton's fiscal policies were pretty good

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Who do you think is one the loudest voices in the echo chamber regarding Bush's destruction of the economy?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

I would say extreme, not partisan.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?The man LIED about being a Republican so he could claim to be "impartial." What is that if not both partisan and extreme?When he calls Senator Boxer a nut, what is that if not partisan politics?

quote:

---

I would be surprised to hear he advocated Republican over Democrat or Conservative over Liberal just because of designation.

---

Are you truly that naive? I only see a couple of possibilities. Either the definition of "center" in American politics has moved so far to the right that somebody as extremist as O'Reilly can be considered "moderate"......or you're simply lying.Tell us, truthlover...why would O'Reilly lie about being a Republican?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

There is no need to accuse another poster of lying. Debate the topic, not the person.

---

AdminJar responds to me:

quote:

---

There is no need to accuse another poster of lying.

---

Even if he could quite easily be lying?It really is one of only two possibilities. O'Reilly lies when he says he isn't partisan. He clearly is. Anybody who has ever listened to his broadcasts for more than a minute can see that he is clearly partisan.For that person to then say that O'Reilly is not partisan is either being extremely disingenuous...Or he's lying.Truthlover can easily respond by simply saying, "I must admit that I was exaggerating when I said I listened to O'Reilly. I've only heard him maybe once or twice, always at the tail end of the program, so I never actually get to hear him take any stand about anything. I am really in no position to make any claim about his political positions."And that would make him disingenuous for having said that O'Reilly wasn't partisan.[Of course, it would still cause us to question the ability to trust anything truthlover said if he thought he could determine the political positions of a person whom he doesn't listen to. It is not ad hominem to point out that somebody is in no position to make a claim and that he is lying when he indicates he is.]But if truthlover is going to insist upon saying that he has listened to O'Reilly in any depth at all, then the only conclusion left is that he is lying.How many quotes of O'Reilly's pandering to the right must I bring forth before it becomes apparent that he is a partisan hack and anybody who claims he isn't is stating a huge falsehood?

quote:

---

Debate the topic, not the person.

---

But the topic is lies and the lying liars who tell them. Truthlover is flacking for O'Reilly, claiming he isn't partisan. Does it not make sense to show that to be the lie that it is and then demand of him to explain why he said something so patently untrue?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Yes. Even if you believe he's lying.Unless you can prove it and show that he is knowingly lying, Drop it. Now!Debate the position, not the individual.

---

AdminJar responds to me:

quote:

---

Unless you can prove it and show that he is knowingly lying, Drop it. Now!

---

You mean I am not allowed to actually investigate him in order to show that he is, indeed, lying? I gave him an option. He might simply be incredibly naive and thus, his opinion still counts for nothing.Are you saying we are not allowed to point out that a poster's statements are not to be trusted dependent upon the reason why they are unreliable? We are pefectly allowed to point out that someone is being incredibly stupid? But if they turn out to have lied, we aren't allowed to mention it? We have to simply say, "Well, I disagree"?Take a look at what is happening with regard to Brit Hume's quotation of FDR regarding Social Security. Hume claimed that FDR was in favor of privitization. The problem is that he performed a hatchet job of a long speech, cutting out context left and right, finally saying that one part was talking about point A when in actuality, it was talking about point B and no amount of claims of "interpretation" could possibly lead any sane person to think it was talking about anything but B.Are you seriously saying that it is unfair to say that either Hume's reading skill is in extreme need of training (which is just a wordy way of saying that he's an idiot) or that Hume is a liar? We are allowed to proffer the idea that Hume is an idiot but that he is a liar is beyond the pale?

quote:

---

Debate the position, not the individual.

---

I am.The position that O'Reilly is not partisan is false. I am asking what truthlover is using to justify the claim that he is not. Is it because truthlover is being disingenuous or is it because he lied? I am not allowed to ask probing questions to find out? Something about truthlover's story doesn't smell right because it is impossible to listen to O'Reilly for any length of time and come to the conclusion that he is not an extreme right-wing blowhard.So either truthlover hasn't listened to O'Reilly for any length of time (and thus wasn't exactly truthful when he said he has listened to him) or he is completely pulling this claim of O'Reilly's impartiality out of his ass (and is being a big, fat liar). OR, truthlover has drunk the right-wing Kool-Aid and doesn't understand what "extreme partisan" means.Now, note the important word in that statement. Does the word "or" mean nothing to you? It implies a choice. There is something that might be true. On the other hand, it might not be true and instead, something else might be true. We don't know which one it is at this point, so we'll have to investigate.I haven't called him a liar yet.I have simply challenged him to show that he wasn't lying.We can forgive him for exaggerating his familiarity with O'Reilly's body of work, depending on context. I'd like to know just how much truthlover has actually paid attention to the broadcasts. He admits that it's haphazard at best. He actually got a definitive factual claim of O'Reilly's treatment of the Swift Boat Veterans wrong. He claimed that O'Reilly "blew them off." But that isn't true. He had them on the show over and over and over again.We can dismiss him if he has simply become one of the sheeple who thinks that Alan Colmes is actually a liberal.But a significant possibility is that he wasn't being honest. So please, let truthlover explain how he came to the conclusion that O'Reilly isn't an extreme partisan.Is he really that naive? Was he stretching things a little when he said he's listened to O'Reilly? Is he a complete boob? Was he simply lying?Quite a number of options. Are we not allowed to consider the possibility that he's just making it up?Someone can say something absolutely outrageous here and it is beyond the pale to present the option that he pulled that statement out of his ass?If I were to come here and say that you invited me over to your home in order to have wild, passionate sex, it would be inappropriate for you to say that I'm lying?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

The position that O'Reilly is not partisan is false.

---

I couldn't agree more, but no matter how much evidence you can stack up to show that he is partisan you're still making a judgement call; your point can't ultimately be proved. Thus I would prefer to see you question truthlover's judgement, not his veracity.As I see it you've called truthlover's judgement into serious question, but you've in no way convinced me that he's a liar. I doubt you've convinced anyone else, either.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Yes!You are not to pursue this any further! Period!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't know anything about that. I don't study O'Reilly; I hear him occasionally. I heard him say twice that Bush said Kerry had a better record than Bush, and I heard him say at least three times that he wasn't interested in the Swift Boat Veterans' accusations. I heard him twice say that there's at least one person who says Kerry saved his life, and O'Reilly's reaction was "so that's that"...as in, "I don't want to hear anything more about Kerry having a negative Vietnam record from my callers."I never heard him say anything contrary to that, even once. I didn't see his SBV interview, so you'll have to ask him about it if you didn't like the way he acted. A person who believes Hill was lying? You can take that up with him. No, not any. This is in reference to O'Reilly saying Kerry "wasn't there."I have heard O'Reilly say that Kerry wasn't somewhere that Kerry said he was. I don't know where that is, Cambodia or something. O'Reilly is definitely convinced that Kerry wasn't there.I commented only on the fact that I think O'Reilly is more conservative than he claims to be. I also said that I think he gives reasons for what he thinks and doesn't just choose those opinions based on whether they are conservative or liberal opinions. I think that's true. Interesting, considering you're claiming he believes things completely to the contrary than he has stated repeatedly on his radio show. I already think you interpret wildly, so even with quotes, I don't attach a lot of stock to your interpretation of the SBV interview, especially since his clearly stated viewpoint on the issue contrasts completely with the view you attribute to him.For example, I said that I think an extreme conservative would believe that Anita Hill was lying just because they want Thomas on the Supreme court. You then tried to twist this to suggest that since O'Reilly believes Anita Hill was lying (if he really believes this, as you say), then we should conclude he's an extreme conservative. This is not accurate logic, but my entire history with you has been having to take time to fix all the subtle or not so subtle twisting you do. It doesn't make me want to pay much attention to your cranking on words you heard that I wasn't there to hear. Don't know anything about that. He said he didn't care about Clinton's morals or about Monica Lewinsky in the white house.Of course, assuming he was at the head of the lynch mob to impeach Clinton, maybe he thought Clinton's perjury or some other legal issue was significant enough for Clinton to be impeached. That's not the same as caring about a candidate's morals. Whatever. I'm just reporting what he said, which is that Clinton's economic record was positive. He says he's not a Republican. If you think he's lying, goodie for you. It's insight. Senator Boxer is a kook. I don't believe O'Reilly selects positions based on whether they are Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.