Bill O'Reilly

[mrbaracuda]

Hey guys, I see you're still at him. Maybe I should sift through the 10 pages I've missed so far?

 

[m_huber]

I was wondering why O' Reilly is a hot topic. I hadn't heard anything on the news or radio and then it came to me. It's on Media-matters. Your Mecca. You need them to tell you what to think and what to be indignant about.

Did you read the OP? It came up as a dinner conversation, then migrated here. Why do you open your comments with an attack on the intellect of the posters here?

I don't know about everyone else, but for me, I pick and choose what to be indignant about. I am indignant about soil loss in developed countries. I am indignant about churches teaching "abstinence only" sex education. I am indignant about high-level media figures intentionally deceiving large numbers of people. This includes (but is not limited to) Bill O'Reilly.

 

[articulett]

Actually, you are only pretending to be curious. I strongly doubt that there are any creationists posting in the politics forum.

So you are not a proponent of "intelligent design" and you accept evolution?

I strongly suspect that everyone supporting O'Reilley on this thread is a creationist. I notice none of actually said they are not. I just notice some trend in the type of thinking, that's all. I truly am curious. And given your oblique answer, my suspicions are confirmed. For some people, the truth matters more than what they want to be true... others would prefer to believe they "know the truth" rather than find out they were wrong.

 

[pomeroo]

Are you serious? Do you understand that the Department of Veterans Affairs is a Federal Government agency and not some political action group?



I'd love to see you prove that, but you aren't going to.

Well, inasmuch as I've already told you that no independent researchers, to my knowledge, have attempted to figure out the number of homeless vets, we can assume that I don't know the real number. I would, to repeat, bet that it turns out to be lower than 200,000.

And, yes, I don't trust stats announced by Federal Agencies. They can be very, very wrong sometimes.

 

[m_huber]

In 2006, approximately 195,827 veterans were homeless on a given night—an increase of 0.8 percent from 194,254 in 2005. More veterans experience homeless over the course of the year. We estimate that 336,627 were homeless in 2006.

Source.

With link to the study, including methodology.

 

[Cicero]

I'm curious to know if there are O'Reilly supporters here who are not creationists.

The 911 "truth" grunions would say you are creating , no pun intended, a straw man, which seems to be their favorite Frank Baum character. What does Darwinism or Creationism have to do with this thread?

The Factor is a TV show. I do not support O'Reilly any more than I do "House," "Law & Order," or "The McLaughlin Group." Do you support the shows that you watch? How does this support manifest itself?

 

[pomeroo]

So you are not a proponent of "intelligent design" and you accept evolution?

I strongly suspect that everyone supporting O'Reilley on this thread is a creationist. I notice none of actually said they are not. I just notice some trend in the type of thinking, that's all. I truly am curious. And given your oblique answer, my suspicions are confirmed. For some people, the truth matters more than what they want to be true... others would prefer to believe they "know the truth" rather than find out they were wrong.

Perhaps I've overestimated your intelligence. I find liberals to be less bright than conservatives, and there is a good reason for my impression. Liberals can coast through high school and college parroting the proganda dished out by their teachers. Conservatives have to be sharp to survive. While conservatives are adept at supporting their arguments, liberals and particularly far-leftists content themselves with flabby thinking and name-calling.

My "oblique" answer? Let me repeat: I doubt that there are any creationists posting on this forum. I personally accept evolution as a scientific theory that represents the best explanation of the development of life on this planet that the current state of our knowledge permits. As someone who holds no religious beliefs, I would not expect the creationist side to produce anything that overturns that judgment.

 

[pomeroo]

Source.

With link to the study, including methodology.

From the study:

"Veterans make up a disproportionate share of homeless people. They represent roughly 26 percent of homeless people, "


That means there are over one million homeless persons. There ain't--not even close. As I suspected, the "study," like others back in the late eighties before serious researchers got interested, is tendentious rubbish.

 

[JoeEllison]

Source.

With link to the study, including methodology.

Yes, but studies are done by the intellectuals, who we know are all part of the evil liberal conspiracy...


Sweet Satan, these people are so completely full of crap! Whenever anything disagrees with their cultish political beliefs, it is because of some conspiracy or other. When Bill O'Reilly is caught making things up, they can't just admit that he made something up, so they accuse the rest of the world of lying instead. That's more than a difference of opinion between political viewpoints... it seems to be a serious mental defect on their part.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess the study I cited in post 640 was just over people's heads?

 

[JoeEllison]

I guess the study I cited in post 640 was just over people's heads?

Well, it came from a university, and we all know, blah blah blah liberal educational system blah blah conspiracy blah blah media bias blah blah blah.

 

[articulett]

It's a hypothesis I'm developing after a Bill Maher Riff... but also supported by other studies. I just think there are a percentage of people that have an impervious faith based view of the world that you can detect by their cheer leading for the likes of O'Reilley and Bush.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ben-stein-on-oreilly-factor-tonight-102207/
http://fearofignorance.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/most-republicans-do-not-accept-evolution-are-morons/
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070612/27915_Poll:_Most_Republicans_Doubt_Evolution.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642_pf.html
http://poligazette.com/2007/06/11/majority-of-republicans-dont-believe-in-abortion/
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20061202money2.pdf
http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

I think the point is obvious. If you decide your truth and ideals based on dogma, spin, feelings, and faith you really don't have the tools to participate in a rational dialogue based on facts and evidence.

I like to know with whom dialogue is possible... and the roughly 25% that Maher refers to are not those people in my estimation... but they appear to make up the O'Reilley fan base. Birds of a feather...

I think that scientists and skeptics tend to be among the smartest and they have a lot of negative things to say about this presidency and O'Reilley... the people from Jesus Camp have nothing but propagandistic praise, however. On this forum... the daftess such as tokie and the like... and the most scientifically ignorant are decidedly right of center. Randi himself is an independent and leans left as were the majority of speakers at TAM as I recall... Scientists tend to be particularly peeved at this presidents and O'Reilleys blatant scientific ignorance. I concur. O'Reilley, like Coulter is a creationist. I find that sort of ignorance, harmful.

 

[DavidJames]

Perhaps I've overestimated your intelligence. I find liberals to be less bright than conservatives, and there is a good reason for my impression. Liberals can coast through high school and college parroting the proganda dished out by their teachers. Conservatives have to be sharp to survive. While conservatives are adept at supporting their arguments, liberals and particularly far-leftists content themselves with flabby thinking and name-calling.

wow, just wow. I have a phrase I use to describe the 9/11 CTists, the perfect storm of arrogance and ignorance. Sometimes you make then look intelligent and humble by comparison.

 

[JoeEllison]

wow, just wow. I have a phrase I use to describe the 9/11 CTists, the perfect storm of arrogance and ignorance. Sometimes you make then look intelligent and humble by comparison.

I have pomeroo on ignore... and, yet somehow, magically, I knew someone was going to play the "liberal educational system" nonsense at some point in this thread.

 

[jimtron]

I find liberals to be less bright than conservatives, and there is a good reason for my impression. Liberals can coast through high school and college parroting the proganda dished out by their teachers. Conservatives have to be sharp to survive.

I don't think you can make accurate generalizations about either group. I've met very thoughtful, intelligent people belonging to both groups, and I know an even greater number of knee-jerk, less than thoughtful people from both camps.

Why is it so hard to discuss politics with people representing opposing views, without getting into gross generalizations, ad hominem attacks, etc? I wish we could just argue the facts and not insult each other.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think you can make accurate generalizations about either group. I've met very thoughtful, intelligent people belonging to both groups, and I know an even greater number of knee-jerk, less than thoughtful people from both camps.

Why is it so hard to discuss politics with people representing opposing views, without getting into gross generalizations, ad hominem attacks, etc? I wish we could just argue the facts and not insult each other.

I do argue facts. I support my posts with citations. I am happy to discuss opposing views, yet very little is ever forthcoming. And I'm sorry, but sources like Truthout and Media Matters and Common Dreams do present verifiable data. You just cannot say that about the majority of popular right wing web sites.

Now granted there are plenty of left wing sources that are unreliable. But where are the reliable right wing sources of current political events? The ones which sprung up to counter the left wing information sources are just full of propaganda like Faux Noise is. And there are very few people on this forum you can have a decent discussion with who actually present citations that support their positions.

The Pomys and Rand Fans and Gurdurs never have anything of substance to say.

Tell me who are the intellectual right wingers on the forum who will actually discuss real facts? Where are the right wing current event web sources that are not just lying mouthpieces?

 

[mrbaracuda]

Yawn, I think 7 pages is enough for now.

just returned from the ophthamologist--I have viral conjunctivitis and a floater in my right eye. Some fun!

Get well soon.

 

[m_huber]

From the study:

"Veterans make up a disproportionate share of homeless people. They represent roughly 26 percent of homeless people, "


That means there are over one million homeless persons. There ain't--not even close. As I suspected, the "study," like others back in the late eighties before serious researchers got interested, is tendentious rubbish.

While the definition of homelessness could be changed to include up to 3.8 million individuals, it currently stands at an estimated 744,313 on any given night (Source). If you take the numbers from that article, 195,827 veterans on any given night, divided by .26 to estimate the number of homeless people the figure is based on, you arrive at the figure 753,180. That is a difference of 8867, which is 1.2% of the actual figure. However, 1,000,000 minus 744,313 results in a difference of 255,687, which is 34% of the actual figure. I don't understand your problem. Perhaps your calculator needs new batteries?

 

[The Painter]

Did you read the OP? It came up as a dinner conversation

I would appreciate some links to clear demonstrations of O'Reilly's spinning, lying, and overt propaganda to send to my brother's fiance. She seemed open to consideration.

Alternately, if you think O'Reilly is a really great guy, I would be interested to see how he has done something positive for, well, anybody (besides himself and his agenda).

Well, did you get what you were looking for on your quest for information? Or was this just a ruse so you can (as you seem to be doing) bash O'Reilly?

I am indignant about soil loss in developed countries

What a strange thing to be indignant about. Concerned, yes indignant, odd.

 

[The Painter]

First of all, I'm pretty sure the parody came after O'Reilly cited it; I think Bill was the first person to come up with the idea of the fictional periodical (if someone can come up with a citation of it before he mentioned it; please do). .

Fooled by what? The parody websites didn't exist until after O'Reilly referred to it on his show. Please indicate what parody you think fooled him.

http://www.parisbusinessreview.net/

Paris Business Review was an April Fools parody. You know April 1st. O’Reilly mentions it on April 27th.

Now you tell me, which comes first, the 1st or the 27th?

During an April 27 debate with Toronto Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick, Mr. O'Reilly said, "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to The Paris Business Review." (See transcript excerpt below.)
Clearly, Mr. O'Reilly did not appreciate the humor in our "Poor Little France" column of April 1, 2004, which we believe to be his source for the information. We had assumed that all our readers would recognize that our special edition on April 1 contained only "April Fools" joke stories. The fact that the masthead of the April 1 edition was printed upside down was supposed to be a dead giveaway. Our annual April Fools edition is a long-standing tribute to the holiday, which originated in France and eventually spread across the world -- as have so many other pieces of culture.

Now you tell me, was he “fooled” by them, or did he make it all up?


Now I know why you think he “fabricated” it. Oh my look at the source for that story.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006