OReilly Trounces Krugman [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

TenPercenter

08-08-2004, 07:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Winning two Peabody Awards.

[/ QUOTE ]

O'Reilly had thought that the show Inside Edition had won Peobody Awards until pointed out to him by Al Franken. Franken told him to call Peobody and O'Reilly did. Then O'Reilly called Franken back and made a correction, that he thougt it was a Peobody awards and it was a Polk award.

Now cardcounter or nothumb, you can go ahead and list the three occasion in four years that O'Reilly mentioned the Peobody Awards. He said basically the same thing each time. But he corrected himself once it was brought to his attention.

I asked for not "mistated, mistaken, or jokingly stated," but truly lied about? What you have mentioned was a mistaken fact, not an intentional lie. You have to admit that O'Reilly is a smart man. Would he intentionally lie about such an easily provable fact? Come on...

Ten

cardcounter0

08-08-2004, 07:46 PM

Yeah, Come on.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

The Peabody Award is one of the most prestigious awards a TV journalist could possibly win.

I went around and told people I had one two Nobel Peace Prizes in High School. In fact, I had just won one Bobel Perfect Attendace Award, while that's not quite true either, another guy won the award the year after I had left class.

But I really wasn't lying about winning the Nobel Peace Prize (or two), it was just a big misunderstanding. I mean Bobel, Nobel, just a big mistake.

I think the fact that the lie was repeated many times, and went for so long without being detected says something about how 'easily' provable it was.
/images/graemlins/wink.gif

TenPercenter

08-08-2004, 07:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
went for so long without being detected says something about how 'easily' provable it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that it was NOT easily provable?

Ten

cardcounter0

08-08-2004, 08:02 PM

I'm saying it was such a big bold faced LIE, no one thought to question it. I guess no one thought O'Reilly would have balls big enought to try to pull that one off.

Just goes to show how much 'fact checking' the media does. FOX only had the lead-in "Bill OReilly winner of two peabody awards" as the introduction to his show for months.

Don't you get a trophy or certificate or something for winning a Peabody? Didn't Bill wonder what happened to it, since he was so proud of winning?

TenPercenter

08-08-2004, 08:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you get a trophy or certificate or something for winning a Peabody? Didn't Bill wonder what happened to it, since he was so proud of winning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never won one so I can't say who actually gets to put it on their mantel. But O'Reilly never said HE won it, he said that the Show won it. In that case, I guess the producer would get it?

Ten

Boris

08-08-2004, 08:08 PM

blow hard zone (http://www.patroush.com/children/blowhard_zone.htm)

O'Reilly clearly lied in this instance.

here is the transcript if the McGurn Interview.

transcript (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002239)

cardcounter0

08-08-2004, 08:10 PM

Actually, he said he won two. Which also brings to question why FOX news would run "Bill OReilly - Peabody Award Winner" for his show he had after Inside Edition. You think FOX just made that up without Bill knowing about it?

TenPercenter

08-08-2004, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, he said he won two. Which also brings to question why FOX news would run "Bill OReilly - Peabody Award Winner" for his show he had after Inside Edition. You think FOX just made that up without Bill knowing about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't comment on Fox using that as a lead-in, I've never heard it. Show me proof and I'll take a look.

Ten

cardcounter0

08-08-2004, 08:16 PM

Would proof matter? It was all a big mistake, right?
FOX didn't even realize that had got out on the air every friggin day. It was all a big mix up. Swarms of locusts ....

TenPercenter

08-08-2004, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Would proof matter? It was all a big mistake, right?
FOX didn't even realize that had got out on the air every friggin day. It was all a big mix up. Swarms of locusts ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm being nice. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Seriously, I've never heard of that Fox lead-in, and I'd like to see more proof than this post on a poker website. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ten

cardcounter0

08-08-2004, 08:35 PM

I don't know how you post the lead-in announcer that Fox used to run to the OReilly Factor or whatever the show was.

Really isn't part of my tape library /images/graemlins/grin.gif

TenPercenter

08-08-2004, 08:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how you post the lead-in announcer that Fox used to run to the OReilly Factor or whatever the show was.

Really isn't part of my tape library /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Trust me... if it HAPPENED, then it IS in someone's tape library. I assumed that you read it somewhere, not just heard it. I was hoping you could show me a website.

But you're asking me to just trust you now, is that it? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Ten

Utah

08-08-2004, 08:51 PM

I know nothing of this case. However, let me see if I can understand this from your post.

1) OReilly worked out some deal with Saudi Arabia that some we highly critical
2) It was brought to the producer's attention and she said to discuss it on the air
3) OReilly openly discussed in on his show and gave time to his critics (as opposed to burying it which he easily could have)

hmmm.....not knowing anything else, it seems he operated with great integrity and he gave voice to his critics.

nothumb

08-08-2004, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You have to admit that O'Reilly is a smart man.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. I think he's very loud. Is that anything like smart?

Seriously, the man has some great talking points that are so purposefully slanted and disingenuous that he either doesn't understand them or he's wildly dishonest.

[ QUOTE ]
Would he intentionally lie about such an easily provable fact? Come on...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he lies almost unintentionally. I think it's like a reflex sometimes- he gets attacked, and he says something that will sound good.

NT

nicky g

08-09-2004, 05:31 AM

"Krugman called him a liar, OReilly told him to back it up with facts, Krugman quoted some left wing nut group and that is when OReilly told him to do his own research. Krugman told OReilly he does the same and OReilly said he never got his facts from Right Wing Hate Groups."

What was the group? If the material he quoted was accurate I don't see any problem in quoting it. If it wasn;t then I do. But the idea you should personally research every piece of material you rely on is absurd.

nicky g

08-09-2004, 06:18 AM

I found a copy of a transcript for the debate on the unoffical krugman website: see here (http://pkarchive.org/economy/TimRussert080704.html) .

Frankly I can't believe that Utah thinks that O'Reilly "trounced" Krugman. To start with the "do your own research" business. Krugman quotes something O'Reilly said. O'Reilly asks him where he heard it. Krugman says he downloaded it from the mediamatters website. O'Reilly starts jabbering about Krugman doing his own research, and compares mediamatters to the Ku Klux Klan and Fidel Castro. Where to start? First of all, where the audio file came from is completely irrelevant - Krugman was quoting O'Reilly, not something mediamatters aid about him. Secondly, how can you possibly think it reasonable to copmpare a liberal media monitoring organisation to "right-wing hate group" or the KKK? That's completely insane. Also Krugman does not accuse O'|Reilly of doing the same thing - he makes the point about guilt by association saying that right-wing hate groups quote O'Reilly but that doesn't taint him (in response to O'Reilly saying that Castro showed F911) - not that O'Reilly quotes right-wing hate groups. O'Reilly goes on to say that Krugamn feels the same way about the US as Hezbollah, and blabbers about "doing your own research" - presumably Krugman should spend his entire life listening to Bill O'Reilly's radio show if he's ever going to say anything about something O'Reilly has said. What a crock.

Elsewhere in the debate, O'Reilly comes off as a major jerk. Whenever Krugman scores a point he basically responds with "Yeah, right, whatever." He accuses Krugman of having said that the Bush tax cuts would cause a massive recession. Krugman responds that he in fact said they would lead to poor job creation. O'Reilly starts yelling at Krugman about "semantics", as if the two are the same thing, when they patently are not; the phrase "jobless recovery" tells you as much. Even if Krugman did say the tax cuts would cause a major recession, O'Reilly is a plain moron to start yelling that saying something is bad for job creation is the same as saying it would cause a recession.

I can't possibly envisage how you could think O'Reilly came off as better than Krugman here. Maybe onscreen his shouting and talking over Krugman made him look like he won. If you look at their arguments on paper, O'Reilly comes across as rude, disingenuous and more than a little stupid.

elwoodblues

08-09-2004, 09:09 AM

Here's one. I listened to his radio show for the first time the other day. He was hyping his Moore interview/debate. When he referred to Moore he called him fat slob (using more flowery language). Then in his next segment, he said the following (near quote, though it is from memory) referring to a liberal. "He is the kind of guy who uses ad hominem attacks. We never do that at the O'Reilley factor."

That's a lie. You don't call someone a fat slob and then less than 5 minutes later say that you don't engage in ad hominem attacks.

riverflush

08-09-2004, 11:08 AM

nicky g...

Transcript or no transcript, if you watched this Krugman/O'Reilly exchange there would be no way for you to deny that O'Reilly made Krugman look really, really bad. Krugman was practically shaking in fear on the screen.

Also...the Peabody/Polk flap is such an obvious straw-man for the anti-O'Reilly crowd that it goes nowhere with most of America. Nobody hears that issue and goes, "Ahh, yes, so Fox News and O'Reilly must lie about everything." It's a really weak leap.

nicky g

08-09-2004, 11:13 AM

"Transcript or no transcript, if you watched this Krugman/O'Reilly exchange there would be no way for you to deny that O'Reilly made Krugman look really, really bad. Krugman was practically shaking in fear on the screen."

That's not much of an achievement; sounds like plain thuggishness to me. Regardless, Utah said he beat him on content. I don;t see that coming across at all in the transcript.

adios

08-09-2004, 11:22 AM

I'll give you my score card FWIW. BTW thanks for posting the link.

For the most part IMO the debate gets a C-. I only rate it that high because I believe that Krugman and O'Reilly each made IMO a FEW relevant and cogent points.

Krugman had some good things to say about threats in the world and questioning what the "War on Terror" should be and what it is.

O'Reilly basically bad some good points in defense of FoxNews and was blunt about Iraq being a mistake. O'Reilly's defense of FoxNews is relevant because I believe it's says something about the news media and people's perceptions in general.

About the economy - pointless, silly debate IMO.

Taxes - I posted a question about what should the distribution of income be after federal taxes. It's a straightforward question and not a lot of straightforward answers are forthcoming on that one from any source. To me that's the question that needs to be answered regarding taxes. Krugman and O'Reilly basically echoed the Democratic and Republicam party lines respectively which are hype and hyperbole for the most part IMO.

Deficit - very weak discussion.

Entitlements - Extremely weak discussion.

I didn't read the whole interview word for word but I didn't see a lot of discussion about the environment or civil liberties.

nicky g

08-09-2004, 11:26 AM

Hey Tom. I'd agree with you that the discussion was pretty weak as a whole. I've not responded to your question about what a fair distribution of income is because I think although it's a straightforward question, and a very itneresting one, I think it's also very hard to answer. I'm not entirely sure what measurement I'd even begin with. I'll have a look at the thread and maybe it will inspire some further thinking.

adios

08-09-2004, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think although it's a straightforward question, and a very itneresting one, I think it's also very hard to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I agree, it is a difficult question to answer. Not one that you'll hear very many politicians answer straight forwardly.

nothumb

08-09-2004, 11:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also...the Peabody/Polk flap is such an obvious straw-man for the anti-O'Reilly crowd that it goes nowhere with most of America.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying is, most Americans don't care if their favorite TV news personality lies about receiving honors for his work? Just because people who don't like him are fond of pointing it out? This confirms my rather low opinion of most Americans and their intellectual rigor.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody hears that issue and goes, "Ahh, yes, so Fox News and O'Reilly must lie about everything." It's a really weak leap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no, nor should they. But it should give one pause. Here's another good one: O'Reilly has repeatedly lied about his party affiliation (or supposed lack thereof) and where he grew up. He wants us to think he's all tough and blue-collared to the core, so he says he grew up in Westbury, Long Island, not Levittown, the rather tonier area in his county. When it was pointed out that this was not true - and when his mother told the world his family was well off enough to take regular vacations - O'Reilly started claiming he grew up in the "Westbury section of Levittown." This was also pointed out to be plain silly (by the likes of Al Franken, but still) and yet his Fox News bio still says he's a blue-collar kid from the Westbury section of Levittown.

If you're really determined to support O'Reilly because he usually validates your views, and in spite of what all those cranky left-wingers say about his honesty and integrity, that's fine. But since we know where you stand, your posts can just go as follows: "I'm with Bill on this one."

NT

riverflush

08-09-2004, 12:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This confirms my rather low opinion of most Americans and their intellectual rigor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh yes, the "Americans are mostly stupid" line of thinking. That's the easy way to explain away the Fox News Channel's ratings dominance over CNN and MSNBC, et. al. People must be dumb to believe the "lies" of FNC, or listen to Rush Limbaugh, or whatever. They're all dumb, that's it. Conservatives/Libertarians are all dumb, simple-minded folks who just don't understand the nuances of life. A bunch of simpletons, really.

Spare me.

Also...I'm not sure you understand the meaning of straw-man, from your really smart response to my Peabody/Polk comment. So here we go...

The straw-man rhetorical technique (sometimes called straw person) is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than your opponents actually offer. It is not a logical fallacy to disprove a weak argument. Rather, this fallacy lies in declaring one argument's conclusion to be wrong because of flaws in another argument.

One can set up a straw man in several different ways:

1. Present only a portion of your opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that you have refuted all of their arguments.

2. Present your opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted the original.

3. Present a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position.

4. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that you've refuted every argument for that position.

5. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that that person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

See, what you're doing (nothumb and others) is holding up one example of a mistake (or deception, however you see fit to label it) that O'Reilly made and using it to draw an illogical connection to other views that O'Reilly may have - views that don't fit your worldview - and attempting to foist on us the idea that "if he's capable of lying about some (stupid) award that Inside Edition received, then how can you believe anything he says?"

The problem is, the 2-3 million (presumably stupid, in your view) Americans who watch O'Reilly every night could care less about who got what award and when, they don't live in a "Peabody Award Vacuum". They're too smart to let some obscure mistake that Al Franken chose to make a big deal out of color their opinion of the particular The O'Reilly Factor that is on that night.

A straw-man is very popular on these message boards, because it allows someone who disagrees with another's opinions to make simple-minded leaps of argument to attempt to "prove" that they (and only those that agree with them) have the situation down to its essence. But to us non-liberal thinkers, we're so non-nuanced that we usually don't fall for these leaps.

And therein lies the problem...

cardcounter0

08-09-2004, 12:15 PM

"See, what you're doing (nothumb and others) is holding up one example of a mistake (or deception, however you see fit to label it) that O'Reilly made ..."

How about if we label it as a LIE? L I E - Lie.
The poster asked for an example (just one) of OReilly lying.

I gave him an example. Now, was it a really big huge lie? Do most Americians care about this lie? Are the majority of people even aware of the lie?

No. The poster didn't ask for a really big huge lie that the majority of Americans know and care about that OReilly has told.

He simply asked for one example of OReilly telling a lie.
That example was given. How can you call that a straw-man?

As I've pointed out, to call this LIE a mistake, or a misunderstanding, is BULL! It's like finding a guy all dressed up in drag and he claims he put on woman's clothes and makeup by mistake. Yeah. Right.

nicky g

08-09-2004, 12:23 PM

Tangentially: At least in Britain, the trashier, more sensationalist, and downright dumb news tends to be, the more popular it is. The Sun, a tits, gossip and right-wing propaganda rag, is the most popular "newspaper", while Channel 4 news, by far and away the most in-depth intelligent of the main news shows, is the least watched by a very long way. The US doesn;t quite have the tabloid phenomenon but the popularity of Fox would make me think the same probably holds true there. So arguing that it must be the best because it's the most popular doesn;t wash it with me; it's like arguing that Jackie Collins is a better novelist than Herman Melville.

MaxPower

08-09-2004, 12:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]

1. Present only a portion of your opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that you have refuted all of their arguments.

2. Present your opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted the original.

3. Present a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position.

4. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that you've refuted every argument for that position.

5. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that that person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

[/ QUOTE ]

O'Reilly is the master of these very techniques. In fact he does this in the interview with Tim Russert - where he misrepresents Krugman's position on the tax cuts and when Krugman calls him on it, he waves it off as semantics.

riverflush

08-09-2004, 12:52 PM

Again, missed the point. WE DON'T CARE!

Levittown, Peabody, Polk, et. al. has NOTHING to do with whether or not people agree/disagree with O'Reilly on today's show . Whether or not I agree with an argument that O'Reilly makes on a given show has nothing to do with this crap. None of the straw-man arguments that the anti-O'Reilly's make go anywhere...his ratings continue to climb. Do you know why? Because America is smarter than that . Like it or not, many people don't care whether O'Reilly's family had enough jack to go on regular vacations or not. If they did, good for them. If they had a nice house, good for them. If they didn't, hats off to O'Reilly for becoming successful from modest upbringings.

The class game doesn't have footing with most Americans. The U.S., in general, roots for people to succeed, not against. We're not a socialist country, although we have a decent chunk of people who participate in class envy and warfare. For the rest of us, we hope many, many, many people get rich (and many do). It's not an issue. We are too busy tending to our own lives to play the class warfare card.

All these attempts to label O'Reilly are indicative of the political times we live in. People want to put others in a box, so that they can more simply understand the world. It doesn't work. O'Reilly is a friend of John Kerry, blasts the Bush administration often, is a moderate environmentalist, supports gun control and yet...because he's NOT friendly to redistributionist liberals - he's labelled a "right-winger".

Same thing has happened to me, I'm pro-environment, for the legalization of marijuana, steroids, etc. (staunchly anti-"drug war"), pro-social freedom, etc....yet because I'm so anti-tax and pro capitalism...I'm automatically a "right-winger" and that's apparently a bad thing.

But the labels don't work for me, and for many people - including O'Reilly. But he takes the risk of being pro-economic freedom, and that chaps a lot of asses here in the U.S., and especially on the 2+2 Forums.

In short: 2+2=4 It's not: 2+2-PeabodyXLevittown = 9

adios

08-09-2004, 12:58 PM

.....

cardcounter0

08-09-2004, 01:06 PM

The poster asked for an example of him telling a lie.

He didn't ask how you label him.
He didn't ask how popular he is.
He didn't ask what his upbringing was (although he lies about that too.)
He didn't ask who he supports.
He didn't ask what he stands for.

He asked for an example of something he has lied about.

He didn't ask for a really big lie.
He didn't ask for a lie that most Americans care about.
He didn't ask for a lie that only he has told.
He didn't ask for a lie that effects life as we know it.

He simply asked for an example of a lie.

Now, you can really like OReilly.
You can stand up and shout for every word he says.
You can love Him.
You can want to have his children.

But it doesn't change the fact that he lied about getting an award.

riverflush

08-09-2004, 01:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1. Present only a portion of your opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that you have refuted all of their arguments.

2. Present your opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted the original.

3. Present a misrepresentation of your opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position.

4. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that you've refuted every argument for that position.

5. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that that person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

[/ QUOTE ]

O'Reilly is the master of these very techniques. In fact he does this in the interview with Tim Russert - where he misrepresents Krugman's position on the tax cuts and when Krugman calls him on it, he waves it off as semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to surprise you right here and say that I actually agree with you on this . O'Reilly does, at times, fall back on the straw-man approach - like many in today's "talking heads" shows. What I appreciate about O'Reilly is his willingness to be disliked by the "important people". He's willing to ask really tough follow-up questions to politicians, and most TV and newspaper staff are too concerned about being invited to the Washington power social events to piss anyone off.

O'Reilly doesn't care, and he's one of the only people on tv who will ask tough questions, and that's why many power players avoid him like the plague.

But, yes, he does resort to straw-man at times. He'll call out the "bomb throwers" on their ridiculous accusations (often quoting out of context), all while throwing his own similar bombs.

Taxman

08-09-2004, 01:08 PM

Speaking of beligerant (and disgraceful) behavior, did nobody here see the transcript from his interview with the child of a 9/11 victim? O'Reilly continually brow-beat him and told him to "sut up" and also reportedly told him to "get out of the studio before I tear your [censored] head off" (or something close along those lines). All of this because the man had simply opposed the war in Iraq. Oh yeah, and he also grossly misrepresented some of the man's comments during his tirade. After the incident he repeatedly made negative comments about the man's integrity. Being a PhD candidate and freelance writer, he found the constant character attacks to be quite a career obstacle. When called on this horrible behavior in an interview with Terry Gross, O'Reilly continued with his lie claiming that Glick (the son) had claimed Bush knew about the 9/11 attack before it happened (which he had not). He may be quite fair the majority of the time but that doesn't matter if he can't do it all the time.

riverflush

08-09-2004, 01:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The poster asked for an example of him telling a lie.

He didn't ask how you label him.
He didn't ask how popular he is.
He didn't ask what his upbringing was (although he lies about that too.)
He didn't ask who he supports.
He didn't ask what he stands for.

He asked for an example of something he has lied about.

He didn't ask for a really big lie.
He didn't ask for a lie that most Americans care about.
He didn't ask for a lie that only he has told.
He didn't ask for a lie that effects life as we know it.

He simply asked for an example of a lie.

Now, you can really like OReilly.
You can stand up and shout for every word he says.
You can love Him.
You can want to have his children.

But it doesn't change the fact that he lied about getting an award.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not involved in the lie vs. lie post. That's the whole point, my man.

The "lies" were brought into this thread by someone else, it was supposed to be about Krugman vs. O'Reilly on CNBC...but (as usual) is spiralled into an "O'Reilly" is a ___________ post. THAT is what I'm responding to.

cardcounter0

08-09-2004, 01:15 PM

Actually, it was worse than that. Glick was in a seperate location, they were hooked via satelitte remotely. When Glick tried to defend his position, ORielly cut his microphone off. Then he continued to insult Glick, who was unable to respond, in about a 5 minute tirade. Finally, realizing that his microphone wasn't working, and that ORielly wasn't going to turn it back on, Glick just walked off. I think ORielly had a few choice remarks about that too. Too bad they weren't in the same room, Glick stuck me as someone who could bitch slap him into place (And probably a majority of people would think he won the debate at that point).

riverflush

08-09-2004, 01:32 PM

Ok, so now we get to the O'Reilly/Glick interview:

Watch It (http://www.bushpresident2004.com/images/oreilly-video.wmv)

That's the whole clip. Everyone acts like Jeremy Glick was some poor ol' kid who got attacked by O'Reilly. This story has a life of its own, with the whole "Get out of this studio before I tear your ______ head off" stuff. Never happened. That line is simply made up.

During this interview, Glick made the following claims:

The Florida election was a "coup"

September 11 was an "alleged" assasination and murder

GHWB "trained 100,000 mujahadeen while head of CIA"

"You (O'Reilly) evoke 9/11 to rationalize imperialist aggression worldwide."

Glick comes on and throws bombs...he should expect O'Reilly to come back at those allegations. Just because his father died in 9/11 doesn't mean he shouldn't be challenged on these statements.

The interview ends with..."Cut his mic. I’m not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of the Factor."

A couple of "shut ups." No F-bombs.

riverflush

08-09-2004, 01:33 PM

Cardcounter....you're totally wrong. Watch the clip.

They ARE in the same room. No 5 minute tirade. Nothing like you explain.

Learn the facts. Watch the truth.

riverflush

08-09-2004, 01:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it was worse than that. Glick was in a seperate location, they were hooked via satelitte remotely. When Glick tried to defend his position, ORielly cut his microphone off. Then he continued to insult Glick, who was unable to respond, in about a 5 minute tirade. Finally, realizing that his microphone wasn't working, and that ORielly wasn't going to turn it back on, Glick just walked off. I think ORielly had a few choice remarks about that too. Too bad they weren't in the same room, Glick stuck me as someone who could bitch slap him into place (And probably a majority of people would think he won the debate at that point).

[/ QUOTE ]

I invite everyone to watch the actual interview...and then reread cardcounter0's above post. If you're going to distort information like that, how can we believe anything you ever write?

See... that's a straw-man.

cardcounter0

08-09-2004, 01:48 PM

It wasn't Glick. The interview I saw was with a Father who had lost a son on 9/11. I had never seen the Glick interview until directed to it by the post.

>>> as an aside, in an 'interview' don't you ask the subject some questions, and then listen to the answers, and then ask more questions when the answers start to peter out?
It seems OReilly spends more time interrupting and cutting off his guest, then he does listening to answers to questions. <<<<<

The scene I saw was a remote interview with a Father, who eventually just took his earpiece out and left the camera view.

nothumb

08-09-2004, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ahh yes, the "Americans are mostly stupid" line of thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I get tired of saying it, too, but among industrialized nations we are doing pretty poorly in terms of education and political participation.

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatives/Libertarians are all dumb, simple-minded folks who just don't understand the nuances of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never said it. Absolutely not. While I thought that uncritical support of O'Reilly would be one example of poor thinking in American politics, I did not associate this deficiency with either side, and you won't hear me do it.

[ QUOTE ]
The straw-man rhetorical technique (sometimes called straw person) is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than your opponents actually offer. It is not a logical fallacy to disprove a weak argument. Rather, this fallacy lies in declaring one argument's conclusion to be wrong because of flaws in another argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, good definition, thank you.

I never said anything about any other argument that O'Reilly made being wrong because he lied about a Peabody. I called into question his trustworthiness in general. I never said, "O'Reilly doesn't understand the concept of a marginal tax rate because he lied about receiving some journalistic award."

[ QUOTE ]
They're too smart to let some obscure mistake that Al Franken chose to make a big deal out of color their opinion of the particular The O'Reilly Factor that is on that night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, again, I don't think 'forgetting' something about what would be one of your biggest achievements as a journalist - particularly in regards to an award that recognizes accuracy and excellence in reporting - is an 'obscure mistake.' But that's your opinion, fine.

And, again, I didn't say the Peabody flap should make you think O'Reilly is a habitual liar. I think the recurring instances of him telling lies should do that. If you want more examples than have already been given, I will find some more. I felt I was very clear on that. Maybe you should read my last post again.

[ QUOTE ]
A straw-man is very popular on these message boards, because it allows someone who disagrees with another's opinions to make simple-minded leaps of argument to attempt to "prove" that they (and only those that agree with them) have the situation down to its essence. But to us non-liberal thinkers, we're so non-nuanced that we usually don't fall for these leaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a non-liberal thinker, I must say that I am as nuanced as anyone else. I don't think there's anything wrong with being attuned to the subtleties of a debate. But I try to avoid making fallacious arguments, so let me restate mine and you can see what you think:

1. Bill O'Reilly tells lies on his show pretty often. This means that, taking one of his statements at random, the likelihood of its veracity is lower than that of someone who does not lie.
2. (This is part is 'nuanced' - I assumed you would pick up on it without my having to say it, but...) Because his lies usually serve his own position, O'Reilly's arguments are often false as well.
3. Bill O'Reilly is also a bully in most of his televised debates, cutting off his guests, (as you have acknowledged) using the straw-man technique, shouting, and telling lies in the process.
4. This type of behavior tends to stifle reasonable debate. Therefore, one is less likely to see a good debate when watching O'Reilly's show.

I'm glad to hear from your other post that you take positions based on your own opinion rather than a party line. Good.

But if my argument is sound, and one cannot trust the veracity of O'Reilly's statements, the soundness of his arguments, or the quality of debate on his show, what does that leave as a reason to like him? His cuddly demeanor? Hence my earlier post.

NT

nothumb

08-09-2004, 02:09 PM

Ok, I watched the tape, and there are some interesting things in it.

One thing that really makes me angry is O'Reilly telling the kid that he doesn't think his father would approve of what he's saying. If someone who never met my father tried to tell me what he would think after he died, I would probably kick him in the teeth.

When Glick accuses him of using 9/11 on his show to rationalize imperialism, O'Reilly responds by telling him that he's done 'more for the 9/11 families than you could ever hope to do' so 'keep your mouth shut.' He doesn't respond to the basic argument that 9/11 has become a rallying cry for all sorts of aggression on the part of the US - does he mean to imply that visiting bereaved families and donating money to the Red Cross means he can say whatever he wants about 9/11? (I don't think he would say this exactly, but he is making a wildly illogical leap here.)

When Glick goes into the stuff about Bush I training mujahideen, O'Reilly refuses to discuss it and later tells him he has a warped view of the world. Again, doesn't respond to the substance of his argument. Later, when Glick brings up CIA training of mujahideen again, O'Reilly tells him Bush had 'nothing to do with it' and says, 'I hope your mom isn't watching this.'

Then he cuts the kid off 'out of respect for your father.' Again, if someone tells me he's treating me like crap out of respect for my dead father, I'd probably slug him.

So, throughout the interview O'Reilly stuck to his talking points and refused to engage the kid on the substance of his arguments. When the kid doesn't cave, he tells him to shut up, cuts his mic, and goes to commercial. I'd be proud of it too.

NT

Boris

08-09-2004, 02:33 PM

O'Reilly was used by the Saudi government to spread Saudi propoganda. That makes Fox News kind of like Al-Jazeera doesn't it?

riverflush

08-09-2004, 02:34 PM

I agree, O'Reilly got frustrated pretty quickly during the interview and resorted to the "your father wouldn't approve" line of attack, which just reminds me of some cranky grandfather yelling about how things 'used to be better' blah blah.

BUT - and it's a big BUT...

The problem with all this sympathy for Glick is that he's not some innocent kid who just happened to be verbally attacked by O'R. Jeremy Glick is a prominent anti-globalization, anti-corporate, WTO-protesting activist. It's not as if he was just some guy off the street who didn't know any better. He went on the O'Reilly Factor with an ax to grind, and I don't think O'Reilly knew that at the outset. He was caught off guard.

Glick is an activist and professor of "social justice" - that's what he does.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0222227

http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/2002/02/27/News/Sept-11.Victims.Son.Discusses.Causes-192529.shtml

Glick is a left-communist activist, not just some kid pulled off his couch to be on O'Reilly.

cardcounter0

08-09-2004, 02:48 PM

So when OReilly isn't being 'mistaken' about the biggest prize a TV Journalist can possibly win, or isn't having 'misunderstandings' about where he grew up, he is getting caught 'off-guard' by guests he invites on his show.

Do you think he and Rush Limbuagh might go to the same presciption writing doctor?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

riverflush

08-09-2004, 03:25 PM

I'm not nuanced enough to understand what you're getting at there...

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

As Vince Vaughn would say, "I'm not a talker."

ThaSaltCracka

08-09-2004, 04:07 PM

All you people who hate O'Reilly crack me up. You all huff and puff about him supposedly lying and attacking people, but the truth here is that you guys hate him just because he's not on your side. If he was "lying" about topics and stances you agreed with you would love him. So quit all your fuckin bitchin, and if you hate him so much, then stop being so infatuated with him.

nothumb

08-09-2004, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All you people who hate O'Reilly crack me up. You all huff and puff about him supposedly lying and attacking people, but the truth here is that you guys hate him just because he's not on your side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. I have also attacked Michael Moore and criticized him at length.

And suppose people did hate him because he wasn't on their side? Would that make his lies true? Would that all of a sudden make his show good?

Your argument makes no sense.

NT

nothumb

08-09-2004, 04:46 PM

The fact that Glick is a prominent activist doesn't change the fact that O'Reilly acted like a buffoon. I described him as a 'kid' several times, but was doing so out of convenience. It doesn't matter who he is; O'Reilly bullied and abused him and violated good taste almost every time he opened his mouth.

Do you really think Fox News doesn't know anything about its guests? They all knew who this kid was. O'Reilly begins the interview by talking about the positions the kid has taken. If you think they were all caught off-guard by the guy's remarks you have an even lower opinion of him than I do.

I'm sorry, I think you're really reaching here. There is no defending O'Reilly's conduct in this instance.

NT

ThaSaltCracka

08-09-2004, 04:49 PM

my whole argument is that there is no argument here. You and everyone else are making mountains out of mole hills.

Unimportant lie: I won some award
IMPORTANT LIE: THERE ARE WMD'S IN IRAQ. There does that put things in context for you?

nothumb

08-09-2004, 04:54 PM

Perfectly. The awards lie is just an example of O'Reilly's wanton indifference to the truth. There are plenty of other lies that are far more substantive. I was discussing it because it was brought up and defended by the guy's apologists.

Yes, the WMD lie is far more important in the larger political sense. But placing stock in commentators who lie repeatedly is one of the root causes of being susceptible to the big lies. O'Reilly is clearly important because he has the most popular political talk show in America and millions of people believe his day-to-day statements, some of which are patently false and serve only to reinforce his own ideas. See why I think it's important?

NT

Cyrus

08-09-2004, 05:02 PM

"Many people don't care whether O'Reilly's family had enough jack to go on regular vacations or not. If they did, good for them. If they had a nice house, good for them. If they didn't, hats off to O'Reilly for becoming successful from modest upbringings."

I agree that family background is irrelevant and that coming up from modest upbringings is more admirable than otherwise. But what kind of attitude are you sugesting we adopt towards success? Do you really approve of success as its own justification? Preposterous!

O'Reilly is a documented liar, a serial bully and an ignoramus. He is also unrepentant in both his ignorance and his ways. The man is, naturally, wildly successful, as his TV ratings prove.

So forget the red herring about upbringings or whatever! If we salute or approve of that kind of success, then why not the gangstas'?

MMMMMM

08-09-2004, 05:15 PM

"O'Reilly is clearly important because he has the most popular political talk show in America and millions of people believe his day-to-day statements, some of which are patently false and serve only to reinforce his own ideas. See why I think it's important?"

I'm just curious how many people actually take everything O'Reilly says at face value. Just because his show is popular doesn't mean a high percentage of people believe all his rhetoric.

I've sometimes watched shows just because they are interesting. I suspect most Americans who watch/listen to Moore, Hannity or Limbaugh don't believe everything they say either.

So I don't think it's all that big a deal that O'Reilly is so popular; it certainly doesn't imply there are vast brainwashed masses listening to him or anything like that.

ThaSaltCracka

08-09-2004, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of other lies that are far more substantive.

[/ QUOTE ] You seriously think "lying" about an award and where he gre up as being substantive than you clearly have no life and are looking for something to hate about him. Again, none of that is important, bottomline.

[ QUOTE ]
But placing stock in commentators who lie repeatedly

[/ QUOTE ] repeatedly???? you gave like 3 examples.... repeatedly my ass.

[ QUOTE ]
of people believe his day-to-day statements, some of which are patently false and serve only to reinforce his own ideas. See why I think it's important?

[/ QUOTE ] his own ideas???? please point out a couple times in which O'Reilly has blatantly lied about a political or social issue to reinforce his own ideas, and don't try pasting the same bs over again.

riverflush

08-09-2004, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
O'Reilly is a documented liar

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. But I'm not so sure anybody cares about this. All this talk about lying is so tough to pin down. It's easy to trot out the "he's lying" line when things get tough, but all it's really meant to do is shut the argument down . He lied about the Peabody! He lied about Levittown! Ok. Even given those two things (which I won't give you), what does that have to do with an interview with Ben Affleck about politics? What does that have to do with an interview of Secretary of Education Rod Paige on the topic of school vouchers? How does that affect someone's ability to debate Bill on his show? Does Levittown have anything to do with how well Alec Baldwin spars with O'Reilly on tonight's show? Does Bill O'Reilly make policy in the United States, or is he a talk show commentator?

[ QUOTE ]
a serial bully

[/ QUOTE ]

No argument from me here. O'Reilly is a bully, a blowhard, a loud-mouth, etc. It makes for fun tv when you get to see a bully vs. a corrupt politician who otherwise would be asked questions like "So do you think John Edwards has cute hair?" by Katie Couric. You can have Katie and Matt.

[ QUOTE ]
and an ignoramus

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that would mean that Bill would have to be lacking education or knowledge, unaware or uninformed . Being that he hosts a nightly, topical/political news commentary show on the nation's highest-rated news network , I'd put all my bank roll on a prop bet that he is more in tune with today's news and society than 95% (I'll allow 5% here) of us on 2+2. But, since that might be going out on a limb, then we'll have to resort to reminding you that Mr. O'Reilly attended Marist College for undergrad (with 1 year at the University of London, England) where he played football and baseball. After teaching history and English at a high school in Florida, he got his Masters in Broadcast Journalism at Boston University. He later decided to follow that up with a Masters in Public Administration from the JFK School of Government at Harvard University. Oh, and in between he covered wars in the Falklands and El Salvador for CBS, and won a few Emmys at ABC News.

But that does sound like someone who has little experience or knowledge to bring to the table now that I think of it.

He runs a successful, topical debate show - it's political entertainment....RELAX! The right-wing conspiracy doesn't need O'Reilly to run roughshod over your lives.... we would be doing that anyway - with or without O'Reilly. (Cue X-Files music)

Zeno

08-09-2004, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If we salute or approve of that kind of success, then why not the gangstas'?

[/ QUOTE ]

A blowhard TV charlatan is a far cry from people (‘gangstas’) that make a living by robbery, stealing, or killing. Your comparison is somewhat unfair. I would be more inclined to call him a con man and he 'cons', not in the world of material things, but in the world of 'ideas'. Such as they are.

-Zeno: A right-wing fascist and TV repairman.

cardcounter0

08-09-2004, 05:53 PM

Hmmmm....

"He lied about the Peabody! He lied about Levittown! Ok. Even given those two things (which I won't give you) ..."

So if you can't even admit he lied on such easily provable and documented little facts, how would you ever admit to his lying on a larger subject? Where the facts weren't so easily black/white, and the documentation a little harder to get, and the lie a little less obvious?

I mean, once you have your nose rubbed in it, and still don't admit to the smell, is sending you out to inspect the outhouse going to yield any different results?

No, ORielly is a Saint. A man among men. A true statesmen and always a gentleman. Rose petals are cast where ever he walks. The melody of harps play when ever he opens his mouth. He gives poor children dimes, and tips his hat to all the ladies. Old woman want him, and young girls chase him where ever he goes. Young boys grow up wanting to be just like him. Every soul wakes worried that some day they will have to do with out him. School Children sing songs about him, and old men weep when ever his name is mentioned.

nothumb

08-09-2004, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You seriously think "lying" about an award and where he gre up as being substantive than you clearly have no life and are looking for something to hate about him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said there are clearly far more substantive issues to discuss. Perhaps you misread my post.

I will add on that the reason I think this is important is because O'Reilly himself thinks it's important. It is featured prominently in his biography and his description of himself.

Here are some other lies O'Reilly has told:

He claimed he was an independent, not a registered Republican. When it was pointed out that he had been registered as a Republican since 1994, he claimed there was some confusion and he had been automatically enrolled in the Republican party, because there was no space to check "no affiliation." New York State registration forms have a box you can check that says "I do not wish to enroll in a party."

Again, this is a bit more substantial, but it's still about O'Reilly's personal life. So you won't be satisfied. But it's evidence that he lies about inconsequential things to build up his image.

Here are a few others:

O'Reilly once claimed - on the spot, in the course of an interview - that 58% of single moms are on welfare. (Most recent statistics are 14%). (This one is from memory, I'll post a link later if you don't believe me. I'm at work).

O'Reilly also said on his show that child rape and molestation is legal in Denmark (it's not).
<http://www.denmarkemb.org/oreilly.html>

On a Fresh Air interview with Terry Gross, O'Reilly says that Jeremy Glick accused Bush I of 'orchestrating' attacks on the US, which of course he didn't. He merely pointed out that Bush's CIA had funded and trained members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, which is true. (This kind of distortion, by the way, is the most common O'Reilly lie - he misprepresents someone's views in a subtle way that one could later call a mistake or a nitpicky detail. But these molehills add up. There's a big difference between aiding foreign fighters who turn against you and planning an attack on your own country.)

<http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/10/con03005.html>

O'Reilly also claimed the New York Times had never done an article on 'The Factor,' attempting to prove it had a liberal bias:

http://www.the-hamster.com/mtype/archives/000828.html

By the way, O'Reilly has also claimed that the Levittown/Westbury thing is a false accusation. The deed to his house is supposedly posted on his website but I'm unable to access it. If anyone else can get it to load they could let us know.

If you really want more I can find some.

NT

riverflush

08-09-2004, 06:01 PM

Are you even reading my posts, cardcounter?

For the record, I don't think he lied about Levittown (even though I could care less, I put more thought into my condiment choice for my Ballpark hotdog just now). The Peabody/Polk award is less clear, but (to me) still doesn't rise to any level of importance. I don't know if he lied, or really just mixed up his "P" journalism awards...the guy has Emmy awards from his ABC days, so who knows?

But, I'm just really starting to have some fun with it now. The level of partisan, blind hatred towards the man is comical at times. That should be obvious from my posts. He does a friggin' 1 hour topical entertainment show on FNC and people are making him out to be a Prime Minister or something. It's the same crowd who believes in the "vast right-wing conspiracy"...the folks who believe Rush Limbaugh secretly controls Dennis Hastert via remote robot controls from some bunker in Palm Beach, FL.

riverflush

08-09-2004, 06:05 PM

Here's the Levittown deed:

http://www.billoreilly.com/images/PDF/deed.pdf

Hopefully, by posting that, I've been able to stave off a crisis. The whole world was hanging in the balance of O'Reilly's Levittown lie...

nothumb

08-09-2004, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The level of partisan, blind hatred towards the man is comical at times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not represent or vote for either Democrats or Republicans. I have perfectly good eyesight as well.

[ QUOTE ]
He does a friggin' 1 hour topical entertainment show on FNC and people are making him out to be a Prime Minister or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly never did this. I have pointed out why I think he's damaging to American politics. A lot of people get the majority of their news from television and form opinions based on this stuff. I agree that he shouldn't be important enough for me to devote any amount of energy to him, but the fact is that political discourse in this country is dominated by this kind of 'infotainment.'

[ QUOTE ]
It's the same crowd who believes in the "vast right-wing conspiracy"...the folks who believe Rush Limbaugh secretly controls Dennis Hastert via remote robot controls from some bunker in Palm Beach, FL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard of this idea, but it is intriguing.

NT

Taxman

08-09-2004, 06:08 PM

I agree. Glick's political stances do not excuse O'Reilly's behavior. I may have had the exact proceedings slightly wrong, but watching the tape does not change my opinion on the matter. The "F bomb" incident obviously would have occured off camera or at the least been censored from the show, so you can't say it didn't happen, but frankly it doesn't matter whether or not it did. Personally, I kinda like the O'Reilly factor at times. I am not a conservative by any stretch, but O'Reilly can be quite adept at taking apart some particularly loony left-winger. Nevertheless, he has a history of browbeating into submission, anyone who can offer an argument that seriously challenges his own views. I have heard him admit that he was wrong, but almost always it was when the admission was not especially embarassing. When he makes a real ass out of himself, he refuses to back down no matter what (at least in everything I personally have witnessed or read about). JMHO.

riverflush

08-09-2004, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the same crowd who believes in the "vast right-wing conspiracy"...the folks who believe Rush Limbaugh secretly controls Dennis Hastert via remote robot controls from some bunker in Palm Beach, FL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard of this idea, but it is intriguing.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I only joined the vast right-wing conspiracy (you know, because I'm a Libertarian - they count us as well) recently, they only let me control state representatives at this time. After I've given enough $$$ to Bush/Cheney (I believe it's $40,000,000), they'll give me the controls to the Orrin Hatch robot.

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

nothumb

08-09-2004, 06:30 PM

You realize, of course, that they've got a $2000 cap on those donations to individual candidates, right?

There must be some way around that. You guys are good.

Seriously, I think a principled person has to oppose O'Reilly, whether or not you believe in right-wing conspiracies or anything else. Accusing me of believing in nutty conspiracies and knee-jerk, tax-and-spend programs doesn't change any of that.

NT

Patrick del Poker Grande

08-09-2004, 06:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You realize, of course, that they've got a $2000 cap on those donations to individual candidates, right?

There must be some way around that. You guys are good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's the left that has become quite deft in this area. See: Moore and Soros.

nothumb

08-09-2004, 06:40 PM

Every time you respond to one of my posts its to change the topic and ignore what I was talking about. So don't bother.

NT

Patrick del Poker Grande

08-09-2004, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Every time you respond to one of my posts its to change the topic and ignore what I was talking about. So don't bother.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]
I usually don't bother and I can't really say why I did bother this time - must've been bored. I'll just let you keep sneaking in your little nonsense attacks in uncontested, then, on your way to saying such well-supported statements as "a principled person has to oppose O'Reilly" (presumably because you think this way and therefore, it's the only reasonable way to think). Feel free, however, to condescend on me again if it makes you feel better. I don't mind.

For the record, I am not the one who changed the topic, as I only called you out on something silly you said on your conitinuation of a topic change.

nothumb

08-09-2004, 07:01 PM

I felt it was clear that I was joking. For the record I think both parties are beholden to big money as I have said in the past. I am not an expert on either party's financial obligations but I have the basics.

I was trying to bring the topic back to O'Reilly and the fact that he lies, bullies, and distorts. I think most principled people agree that all three of these things are wrong. Do you disagree?

NT

Patrick del Poker Grande

08-09-2004, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I felt it was clear that I was joking. For the record I think both parties are beholden to big money as I have said in the past. I am not an expert on either party's financial obligations but I have the basics.

I was trying to bring the topic back to O'Reilly and the fact that he lies, bullies, and distorts. I think most principled people agree that all three of these things are wrong. Do you disagree?

NT

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you were joking, but even jokes have an edge and are actually quite an easy way to get a shot in that you don't have to support.

Back to the original topic (let's forget all this other crap), I do agree that these three things are wrong (lying, bullying, and distortion). Where I differ from you is in my opinion of O'Reilly. His is the only show I watch on FNC. I personally don't give two shts about whether he said Polk or Peabody or what side of Levittown he grew up on. I understand the problem people do have with these things, but I think it's blown greatly out of proportion and I believe a lot of people are just grabbing for whatever they can get on the guy.

He is a bit loud on occasion and I can see where someone might think he's bullying. However, these things happen on occasions where I frankly don't blame him and where he just needs to keep control of the show. Not everyone on his show is there to have a nice chat and a cup of tea with him. He does need to keep control of the interview/debate and I believe he does it quite fairly with respect to the fact that he's got to keep it TV-worthy and within the alotted time.

It's quite obvious that the guy is more "traditional" than most on the left. I do, however, think he is quite fair on his show and opposing statements and arguments are always heard. He's hardly been a shill for Bush and has actually criticized him on several occasions. He makes corrections on his mistakes and almost always has an 'opposing' guest on a few shows after he says something that stirs up opposition. Many of his stories aren't even directly related to Bush or any sort of Republican/Democratic agenda. He takes issue with people like Moore and Franken because they're 'smear merchants' and propagandists with obvious agendas who are willing to lie on the grandest scale to forward their position. Soros is a target because he's such a blatant exploiter of loopholes in the campaign finance laws it's ridiculous. He's equally against their equivalents on the right, but they just don't come up as strongly as Moore, Franken, Soros, etc because they're the ones in opposition to the current power and are therefore the loudest.

Overall, O'Reilly's positions are quite reasonable and his show is generally fair to all sides. His position as the top host on the top (rated) cable news network puts him in a position where it's incredibly tough to be 100% fair and even harder to appear as though you're completely fair. He is not the news - he's an analyst and what you get from him are analysis and opinions. This is 100% guaranteed to draw the ire of many people opposing you.

nothumb

08-09-2004, 07:43 PM

I disagree when you say he is fair to all sides, but that's a highly subjective opinion and you're welcome to keep your own.

You acknowledge that he has lied and does lie. Do you know that this is not just about awards and hometowns, but actual facts? This is important.

[ QUOTE ]
However, these things happen on occasions where I frankly don't blame him and where he just needs to keep control of the show.

[/ QUOTE ]

This about sums it up in my opinion. He needs to keep control of his show. God forbid someone should speak for 20 or 30 seconds, uninterrupted, about something he does not agree with. Next time you are watching his show, use a stopwatch. If you can send me a clip of O'Reilly allowing a guest to speak for 30 seconds or more from a point of view that O'Reilly disagrees with, I will be very impressed. I watch his show from time to time and I've never gotten past 10.

Do you really think any good debate can be made in 20 second increments, with crosstalk and shouting accounting for the rest of the time?

I think the only person who gets a fair shot at speaking his mind on the O'Reilly Factor is Bill O'Reilly. He cuts off everyone.

NT

sweetjazz

08-09-2004, 07:52 PM

I agree with a fair number of O'Reilly's opinions, but I am willing to admit that he makes a lot of bad arguments and often turns to shouting down an opponent or other such tactics in order to "win" a debate.

I think O'Reilly is better than a lot of other media pundits, but that's not an endorsement of him, but rather an indictment of the entire news analysis industry as a whole. He does better research than a lot of others, but his research is often shoddy and incomplete. His opinions are more independent and thought out than a lot of others, but they often amount to little more than nicely packaged talking points that attempt to misrepresent the opposing argument.

I thought he was at his best defending FoxNews during the interview. The arguments given by Krugman (and have been given by many others) were pretty weak. I thought he came out the worse when he compared Media Matters to the Ku Klux Klan -- that's O'Reilly at his worst in my opinion. He may well have come out looking good to a lot of people by being so aggressive and passionate, but he was flat out making an outrageous comparison. I can, and will, expect better from any pundit.

FWIW, I am a political independent, and I support neither Bush nor Kerry.

Patrick del Poker Grande

08-09-2004, 07:58 PM

First, I never "acknowledge[d] that he has lied and does lie", but thanks for putting that in there for me. If you're referring to me not caring about the Polk/Peabody or Levittown, he has come right out and corrected the Peabody statement and I haven't even cared to look into the Levittown one. Regardless, neither is worth me saying whether he 'lied' in the first place, so I can't even say I can be sure enough either way to say whether he lied or not. I don't just go around saying people lied when I don't know it to be fact. Others seem to have less scrupulous standards.

There is no regularly-aired show of this type that will let the guests come on an go on and on as they please. Regardless of whose show it is, they only have so much time and each segment is ridiculously short. No, you can't present an entire viewpoint in 20 seconds, nor can you really do it in 5 minutes. The whole format is flawed in that you can't really expect to fairly discuss a good portion of any topic worth talking about. I really wish he either had 90-120 minutes or would have only maybe two segments per show so that they could get deeper into the things they discuss.

This isn't a venue for people to come on and give speeches to forward their agenda. It's a place for quick discussion of a few key points of each person's agenda. Unfortunately, that's all there is time for and it's incredibly difficult to be 100% fair in this format and I really do think he does the best job he can. If you want to hear his guests (or those of any show) speak at length, you're going to have to go listen to them give a speech at some event.

nothumb

08-09-2004, 08:21 PM

Hi Patrick,

I posted a list of incidents in which statements made by Bill O'Reilly were demonstrably false. In every case these 'errors' or 'lies' were self-serving. Perhaps you'd care to inspect them.

I disagree that O'Reilly gives the guests as much time as necessary, or acts with even a modicum of consideration for them. Guests are almost always cut off mid-sentence, and the show is constructed in such a way - with two or three guests at once, or with O'Reilly trying to jump from topic to topic - as to preclude any reasonable chance of doing so. If you watch Larry King, you might see someone speak three or four sentences without interruption. Obviously these shows still have time constraints, but other hosts manage to deal with these in a far more civil manner.

I don't think O'Reilly takes a party line, or is a right wing attack dog per se. I think Bill O is in it for Bill O, and his dishonesty is usually for the purpose of defending himself from defeat or making himself seem better/more independent/enhancing his image.

What is most important to me, though, is the fact that he is demonstrably dishonest on a regular basis. You can have your own preferences over what makes for good TV. I personally think 'no TV' is good TV - I'd rather watch a good film - but that's clearly the minority viewpoint.

NT

Utah

08-09-2004, 09:22 PM

I rewatched parts of the debate. On second review OReilly came off far more overbearing than the first time. At one point it looked like Krugman flinched because he thought OReilly was going to punch him.

On a whole, there was less there than I thought.

Utah

08-09-2004, 09:24 PM

What propoganda was he spreading? And, how often do propagandists give time to those who disagree with them?

Utah

08-09-2004, 09:39 PM

Hi Nicky,

I change my mind. LOL. The transcript paints a different impression. I think neither of them say much of substance, but I would actually give a slight edge to Krugman (if anything).

Utah

08-09-2004, 09:46 PM

For those who think that OReilly carries water for the adminstration - tonight he gave both airtime to Krugman and Alec Baldwin and showed himself saying Iraq was a mess.

The Baldwin interview was very interesting. Baldwin came off extremely well I thought, even though I disagree with him. OReilly was oddly very calm. The only thing bad about the interview is that OReilly never shut up long enough for Baldwin to finish his thoughts.

riverflush

08-10-2004, 12:13 AM

O'Reilly/Krugman....

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200408090930.asp

WARNING: THIS LINK MAY TAKE YOU TO THE RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY! PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING WRITTEN AT THIS SITE! (EVEN IF IT IS CORRECT) THIS LINK IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.

nothumb

08-10-2004, 12:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing bad about the interview is that OReilly never shut up long enough for Baldwin to finish his thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not watch his show often?

I'm sorry I missed it... I don't have a TV in the house.

NT

Utah

08-10-2004, 12:48 AM

Had already read it.

High point - catching Krugman in a error/lie about his comment about the Bush tax cuts and jobs

Low point - talking about OReilly yelling "do your own research" without ever addressing Krugman's counter challenge to OReilly asking if what he said was untrue

Utah

08-10-2004, 12:50 AM

I watch it occassionally.

No TV in your house! My God. How do you live?

Boris

08-10-2004, 12:53 AM

At the time of the interview in London there was a contingent of US senators in Saudi Arabia trying to negotiate an agreement with the Saudi's whereby the girls could visit their mother in the United States. O'Reilly sabotaged the effort by agreeing to meet the girls in London at the same time. He then granted them an interview while the girls' minder was off camera indicating the "proper" responses to the questions. I don't know how you can argue that this is not being a pawn to spread Saudi propoganda. Here is specifically what happened:

{O'Reilly} Colluded with the Saudis. Mr. O'Reilly originally proposed to Rep. Dan Burton (R., Ind.) that the delegation meet the Roush sisters inside Saudi Arabia before a Fox camera; the Burton people responded that such a meeting was unwise. Burton staffers say they were stunned to learn, upon their arrival in Riyadh, that the Saudis had spirited Ms. Roush's daughters out of the country on the precise day the delegation was there to press demands the women be brought to America.

Mr. O'Reilly admits that he set the whole thing up with Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudis' point man. As he said, "We convinced the Saudis to fly the women, now ages 19 and 24, to London, where our producer interviewed them." In other words, the deal was: The Saudis supplied the women, he supplied the interview.

nothumb

08-10-2004, 12:55 AM

It gets worse. I just got cable internet like 4 weeks ago. Imagine me before then!

Seriously, I got rid of it in college and never regretted it. I go to my buddy's house to watch poker or Chapelle's Show; otherwise, I think I'm a better person.

NT

wacki

08-10-2004, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
For those who think that OReilly carries water for the adminstration - tonight he gave both airtime to Krugman and Alec Baldwin and showed himself saying Iraq was a mess.

The Baldwin interview was very interesting. Baldwin came off extremely well I thought, even though I disagree with him. OReilly was oddly very calm. The only thing bad about the interview is that OReilly never shut up long enough for Baldwin to finish his thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, he read a letter from somebody who is boycotting his show because he is "obviously for Kerry". Not to mention really cut into the Swiftboat Vet tonight, almost unfairly I think. I really can't tell if who he likes best. I guess that's what a good news person should be though.

Utah

08-10-2004, 02:05 AM

And I thought I was impressive because I got rid of my 70 movie channels because I was watching too many movies in my office when I worked. lol

Of course, I signed up for Netflix instead because I couldnt go completely cold turkey on the movies.

nicky g

08-10-2004, 05:14 AM

Is that article some kind of twisted parody?

"I’m happy to report it was the former. Bill O’Reilly didn’t just win the debate. He cut out Paul Krugman’s heart and stomped on it. "

Exactly what O'Reilly fans think a debate should be about.
"And Krugman simply didn’t know how to handle it. At several points in the show Krugman was practically in shock, with hands visibly trembling."

Wow, that's really great. Intimidating your opponent. Several people have said that it looked at one point as if O'Reilly was going to punch Krugman. Krugman may be a weak-assed pansy for letting that intimidate him, but it doesn;t say much about the issue.

"Krugman’s the liar, not O’Reilly. It’s just too bad O’Reilly didn’t have a quotation at hand to prove it. Among dozens of possible examples, Krugman wrote in his April 22, 2003, New York Times column that

Aside from their cruelty and their adverse effect on the quality of life, these cuts will be a major drag on the national economy. … it’s clear that the administration’s tax-cut obsession isn’t just busting the budget; it’s also indirectly destroying jobs by preventing any rational response to a weak economy."

Where does Krugman say this will worsen the recession. It says exactly what he claims it would say, that it would have a negative impact on the defecit and on job creation.

"Faced with an opponent who was on the one hand so conciliatory, and on the other hand so aggressive, "

uh-huh

"Krugman could do little more than throw out feeble ripostes or roll over and change the subject. At one point O’Reilly faulted Krugman for appearing in public with the likes of Al Franken"

This is simply amazing. This arsehole faults Krugman for "changing the subject" (which he gices no instances of) and instantly, instantly , praises O'Reilly for an instance where he changed the subject to make an irrelevant ad hominem attack on Krugman having shared a platform with Al Franken, that had nothing to do with what they were discussing (the war).

"Whatever you may think of the film, all O’Reilly had done on his radio show was accurately quote Moore speaking of “this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.” That statement was first reported in a fawningly pro-Moore article in The New Yorker last February, and was repeated two days before O’Reilly’s show by conservative New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks.

Not exactly Watergate, is it? But it was the best the flustered Krugman could do, though it ended up leading him into an O’Reilly trap. "

OK. So why didn;t O'Reilly simply say, yeah, I said that. End of story. Instead he denied it in the orignial interview and he refused to admit to it here.

" The trap revealed what I consider to be Krugman’s worst vice — the way he recycles propaganda and rumors from leftist gossip sites, giving them the imprimatur of the New York Times. "

He didn;t recycle any propaganda. He directly quoted what O'Reilly had said. He said he heard the quote on the mediamatters website (whuich O'Reilly goes on to compare to Castro and the KKK); he didn;t repeat any mediamatters material and there's no suggestion that they distorted what O'Reilly said. What exactly did he do wrong here? He directly quoted O'Reilly.

I genuinely can't believe that you take this kind of garbage seriously.

riverflush

08-11-2004, 12:28 AM

That's a great post, nicky g.

We're gonna send you a signed copy of "Who's Looking Out for You?"

classic response (twisted parody comment)

The parallel worlds we live in go round and round...

nicky g

08-11-2004, 04:57 AM

"We're gonna send you a signed copy of "Who's Looking Out for You?" "

What's that?

"The parallel worlds we live in go round and round... "

Wellcome on, at least respond to some of my points. I;m genuinely interested to see how you can take the article seriously.

Cyrus

08-11-2004, 08:58 AM

"Maybe [O'Reilly is indeed a documented liar]. But I'm not so sure anybody cares about this."

You don’t care if the person on TV you’re listening to is a patent liar? This would be astonishing. A lie is a lie. No matter where it comes from, the Right, the Left, or Center Field. (For instance, O’Reilly as for years claiming that he had won the prestigious Peabody Award and was forced to retract when Al Franken outed the lie.)

"How [does O’Reilly’s lying] affect someone's ability to debate Bill on his show?"

When you are confronted, in a debate on TV with a person that you know is a serial liar and also a bully, you begin the "battle" from an already inferior position. It takes extraordinary guts and ability and preparation to face up to TV bullies like O'Reilly. And a familiarity with the "language" of TV (e.g. you should speak in soundbites).

I thought poker players were very familiar with this concept.

"Does Bill O'Reilly make policy in the United States, or is he a talk show commentator?”

He affects a lot of people in the shaping of their political convictions and general ideology. He is influential.

"O'Reilly is a bully, a blowhard, a loud-mouth, etc. [Better than] be asked questions like "So do you think John Edwards has cute hair?" by Katie Co uric."

You are going from one extreme of TV politics (=O'Reilly's behaviour as you accurately described it) to the other extreme (=fawning sycophants). There is a huge middle!

"I'd put all my bank roll on a prop bet that he is more in tune with today's news and society than 95% (I'll allow 5% here) of us on 2+2."

What's "being in tune" supposed to mean? That O'Reilly expresses the zeitgeist? I know he does! But since you fail to get my point, here it is, on a plate and chewed: We live in ignorant times. And O'Reilly, with his huge popularity, expresses our times most adequately.

Now, if you are satisfied with this state of affairs, that’s is another matter. I put it to you that not all people are satisfied. Nothing close to 95%.

"Mr. O'Reilly ... Masters in Broadcast Journalism at Boston University ... a Masters in Public Administration from the JFK School of Government at Harvard University.”

I don’t understand why that bio suggests that the man is educated! I mean, George W Bush + Yale = I Rest My Case! But this is not the point. Here’s the point:

During the 2000 election, O'Reilly suggested Al Gore was running "on a quasi-socialistic platform"!
After the Supreme Court ruled that public hospitals could not test pregnant women for drugs and send the results to the police without their consentt, O'Reilly said "Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court.”
After the September 11 attacks, he advocated devastating bombing against civilian targets in a number of countries, including Libya ("Let them eat sand.").

All this, and more, shows O’Reilly to be an uneducated yahoo who puts one over his audience big time. But maybe they deserve each other.

Zeno

08-11-2004, 01:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are going from one extreme of TV politics (=O'Reilly's behaviour as you accurately described it) to the other extreme (=fawning sycophants). There is a huge middle

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? You suprise me, Cyrus.

[ QUOTE ]
"Mr. O'Reilly ... Masters in Broadcast Journalism at Boston University ... a Masters in Public Administration from the JFK School of Government at Harvard University.”

I don’t understand why that bio suggests that the man is educated! I mean, George W Bush + Yale = I Rest My Case!

[/ QUOTE ]

And so do I.

Good post.

-Zeno

riverflush

08-11-2004, 03:01 PM

Cyrus...

I'm not sure you've read all my posts.

Your "We live in ignorant times" says everything I need to know about where you're coming from.

I get it: Middle America is dumb. Mix, stir, repeat.

Read my posts. You'll find my response to this kind of thinking all over this thread.

riverflush

08-11-2004, 03:43 PM

OK...here we go Cyrus, I'll lay it all out for you.

Nothing personal against you (or anyone else on here that disagrees with me), I respect your opinions and your right to have them.

But here's the deal: I'm an unabashed libertarian free-market capitalist (or "classical liberal" as it used to be called). If you tend to lean to the left, or feel that capitalism is a flawed system, then you're obviously not going to agree with me. That's cool. We go on our merry way...

Those are my cards, they are laid bare on the table. I'm not hiding that. The reason I find myself in a Krugman vs. O'Reilly war post is because when an "economist" like Krugman goes up against a blowhard political commentator, opinions tend to be expressed.

Since Krugman is an "economist" who says stuff like "tax cuts are cruel and have a adverse effect on quality of life (a patently ridiculous statement) - and O'Reilly is pro-capitalism, well...I obviously have a dog in that fight and it's not Krugman. That doesn't mean I look to O'Reilly as my cultural compass (like I said before, he's political entertainment ).

Krugman is an ironic figure to me (much like Moore). They are anti-capitalists who make boatloads of $$ selling their ideas on economics and society, making them in turn very successful capitalists.

See, what a lot of these people fail to realize is that a market is like gravity - it exists whether you deny it or not. People will never stop trading goods and services mutually within their rational self-interest. Those who struggle with capitalism and think that it is unfair often attempt to "reel it in" by taxes and sometimes outlawing particular goods and services, but doesn't work. Ban something - a black market pops up to serve that very market, and now at higher prices. (Drugs are outlawed, right - yet right now within 30 minutes I could buy whatever I want with a <10 mile drive. Steroids are freely available at many local gyms. Internet gambling is illegal, yet most of us have done it in the past week, etc. etc.).

Another move is higer taxes...but this just creates more avoidance strategies. You hit me with a higher tax rate, I just find more ways to avoid paying (possibly showing a "loss" on my return in a particular year). At some point, taxes are fair and will be paid by a society that respects police, roads, and defense, etc. That point may be 10% of income, but when you press people with close to a 50% tax (income + local sales, property tax, etc.) they will inevitably find ways to not pay.

My point is, we are most likely worlds apart in life philosophy...and I respect your outlook. If you side more with Krugman, that's cool. I'm just never going to live that way, I believe it's a fallacy.

MaxPower

08-11-2004, 04:02 PM

In your philisophy it seems that anyone who is not a libertarian is "anti-capitalist". That just isn't the case.

riverflush

08-11-2004, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

In your philisophy it seems that anyone who is not a libertarian is "anti-capitalist". That just isn't the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true at all. I was speaking of Krugman and Moore.

Read some of Krugman's work to see what I mean...In "Who Lost Iraq?" he laments Paul Bremer's decision to privatize Iraq's previously government-run factories, calling much of Bremer's ideas for reconstruction the result of "right-wing economic theorists". Problem is, privatization of factories isn't "right-wing," it's the only way to have a successful economy - period. He's also been attacking tax cuts for years, with his latest theory saying that tax cuts are "job destroying" because it will result in "fiscally strapped states having to cut back on spending, resulting in loss of jobs." Again, the loss of government jobs is exactly what many of us are rooting for, so this falls on deaf ears for a capitalist.

Krugman is a "government drives spending" and "social services" economist, and in my world - that is a serious strike against his support of free markets.

So NO I don't believe everyone who is not a Libertarian is anti-capitalist, but many, many people who call themselves "economists" are anathema to a truly free marketplace because of their acceptance of government spending as a driving force in the economy, instead of relying on the private sector as the catalyst.

To me, a staunch capitalist, any small steps toward socialist-style policies (the mixed economy) are steps towards disaster and recession. Our economy works, but I'm of the camp that believes it's seriously underperforming due to the constant vacuuming of tax dollars from your pockets.

The IRS is the ultimate rake...

MaxPower

08-12-2004, 10:29 AM

I hate to break this to you, but government spending does create jobs in the private sector. So in the short term it is possible that cutting back on government spending will result in loss of jobs in the private sector. I'm not saying that Krugman is correct, just that it is not only government jobs that are paid for through that spending.

Cyrus

08-12-2004, 11:28 PM

Thanks for the response.

"I'm not sure you've read all my posts."

I have not.

"Your "We live in ignorant times" says everything I need to know about where you're coming from.2

Well, I'm not posting from the Hereafter! I do live in these times. Which I find to be ignorant, yes. I believe we have more people today on Earth believing in certified nonsense (such as organised religion, creationism, etc) than at any other time. The numbers are with me.

"I get it: Middle America is dumb."

Well, the middle percentiles do tend to be less smart than the higher ups, by definition! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Unless you refer to dumb Middle America on an economic basis. I would not claim such a thing, no. I see more dumbness promoted by "richer" and supposedly "wiser" people than "Middle America".

Your views on capitalism noted and appreciated. I am all for economic freedom as well, but, as you might have guessed, I do not advocate your kind of turbocapitalism. As a matter of fact, the record of unfettered capitalism is not the unmitigated success you described -- and the reason has nothing to do with "high taxation". (Just correlate GNP growth in the US with periods of relatively high taxation and you will see.)

All in all, I may not be a "crass materialist" but I do respect science and logic. So far, the capitalist credo is mostly based on normative (as opposed to descriptive) rules of human behaviour, selective and anecdological evidence and philosophical generalities. As a believer in the superiority of the capitalist system over all alternatives so far offered, I would still like to have my beliefs justified by more than that. I would just as easily believe in creation, otherwise!

"Im a Libertarian."

I am not, I guess, by your description. But if I had to choose between a Totalitarian who offers a (seemingly) Best Economic System and a Libertarian who offers a (seemingly) Inferior Economic System, I would side with the Libertarian, without hesitation. Because, with liberty, one can always dissent and things can be reformed and improved.

Of course, I hope I don't have to make such a choice anytime soon -- although the current apocalyptic, fundamentalist, intolerant GOP mindset makes its opponents look like raging Libertarians!..

riverflush

08-13-2004, 03:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to break this to you, but government spending does create jobs in the private sector.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Obviously. Gov can spend to create jobs. That's the basis for a whole slew of economic theories and "economists" over the course of history.

I'm not challenging that government can create private sector employment, I would simply argue that over time, this is unequivically the wrong way of thinking. Governments have the (often) unfettered power to seize assets ($$) and then redistribute those assets in ways that it sees fit. The spending of that $$ will then create some sort of benefit to those who receive the $$, and those that receive the service or good in exchange; however, the original owner of said assets receive nothing in this transaction...merely having to go along with the idea that it's good for everyone and that they will (eventually) receive some tangental benefit from a similar transfer of assets.

There's only one problem with this: it's inherently flawed and inefficient. Private companies have to spend money efficiently - in ways that directly benefit the creation of new wealth (profits for service and goods). If these private companies do not spend money efficiently, or in ways that do not directly provide a benefit...they will eventually become insolvent and be forced to halt production (they go out of business). This, my friends, is called a market. Cause and effect, mutually beneficial exchange of assets.

The difference on the public side (government) is that there is no incentive to spend efficiently . When an entity (gov) has the power to simply seize more assets when it has a shortfall - the entire market is turned on its head, and subsequently fails to exist. Incentives to produce are removed from the process, because it is NOT an even, or even rational, exchange. Private sector jobs eventually shrink.

It was called the Soviet Union. Look it up.

Now, I'm not comparing the current U.S. "mixed economy" with the Soviet Union, but I'm certainly calling it inefficient...and enough steps away from capitalism as to be broken.

For this concept in action...see:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2004/aug/12/517328177.html

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=bondsNews&storyID=58 85765

nothumb

08-13-2004, 03:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Private companies have to spend money efficiently - in ways that directly benefit the creation of new wealth (profits for service and goods). If these private companies do not spend money efficiently, or in ways that do not directly provide a benefit...they will eventually become insolvent and be forced to halt production (they go out of business).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they do.

At least until they gain pervasive influence in national and international government, create effective monopolies in many regions and effectively squelch all regulatory efforts, they do.

There are many examples of corporations - or entire industries - that not only provide services in wildly inefficient/undesirable ways, but habitually break the law in the process of doing so because they cannot compete fairly. A great example of this is factory meat farms. In my home state of North Carolina, one or two companies have taken over some ridiculous percentage of pork production - like 95%. But they systematically pollute and refuse to clean it up, because cutting corners is what allows them to provide meat at such a cut rate. If they had to play by the rules that family farmers do, they would be run out of business.

There are other great examples as well - the insurance industry. I'm sure we don't even have to get started on that.

This is why I don't place the absolute faith in unregulated capitalism that you do.

[ QUOTE ]
This, my friends, is called a market. Cause and effect, mutually beneficial exchange of assets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe very strongly in mutual aid and free exchange. Trouble is, in a capitalist market, mutual aid is not the name of the game. People often are forced/coerced into trades that are not optimal for them. I'm sure you don't think every person in a market is out for 'mutual benefit' -they're out for their own. The idea - supposedly - is that each person protects his or her own interests and makes trades that help him/her as well. But there are a lot of lose-lose situations in today's market.

NT

riverflush

08-13-2004, 03:38 AM

Cyrus...

Well, I'm not really itching to get into a Creationism vs. Darwinism discussion, who/what created the "big bang", was Jesus the Son of God, yadda yadda yadda....we'll be here all night (and still won't know the answers).

But I'll say this...I don't believe we've ever seen "unfettered" capitalism in modern times. We've always had public hands in our markets in some form or the other - in ways that (I believe) have prevented us from 10-25% annual growth (or even higher). The problem is, if economies grow at 15%, many people get "left behind" so to speak...which causes a lot of angst in a society. Not everyone would grow their income (or their individual production) by 15% at the same time (even though the rising tide would eventually help everyone at some degree).

When economies grow this quickly, you see monetary manipulation in order to "reel in growth" by means of interest rate hikes, etc. (See China's current economy that is "growing too fast" with the removal of the chains)

I'm not a moderate on this issue. It's fundamental freedom to me and I do not separate economic freedom from social freedom (as many on 2+2 do). At the heart of this issue are societies that are afraid to attempt true capitalism for fear of angering a large chunk of orderly society that might not be guaranteed a good outcome should the reigns be lifted. In their minds, some control of the economy is necessary to keep society in line and free of revolt. I believe that this way of thinking couldn't be more wrong and actually leads to more problems.

Again, just my opinion. It's essentially the Milton Friedman position.

riverflush

08-13-2004, 03:52 AM

nothumb...

I absolutely agree with you on one thing, and totally disagree with you on the other.

The problems you touch on in the beginning of your post are legit...and I'd point again to the government as the problem. When government/business mixes... problems. It's a sick product of our mixed economy in the U.S. Too much regulation, too much taxation, and subsequently too much lobbying to gain tax and regulatory advantage due to that very regulation. It's a vicious circle of influence. The D.C. power players hold the keys and they're available for purchase. I think it sucks. A free market is not a part of this arrangement. It's more of a mixed market. I would not argue against this point.

BUT...that said. We still have unprecedented buying power in this culture. Consumers still drive the majority of the markets in the U.S. Most of the products in our daily lives are truly driven by your individual decisions - whether you're at Wal-Mart or Kroger, the Chevy dealership, KFC, Best Buy, Auto Zone, etc. etc. etc. I would disagree wholeheartedly on your statement that "mutual aid is not the name of the game." It most certainly is, we have an unprecedented array of choice in our lives...with millions and millions of individual buying decisions in our lifetimes...more than at any time in the history of man. We have cheap food, plentiful shelter, amazing communication devices, cheap clothing, 1000's of over-the-counter medicines under $5, etc. etc. etc.

I think many of us take all this for granted. We need more glass-half-full thinkers.