Why do I get upset about O'Reilly, anyway?

Azure said:
If you guys think that bad of Bill, what about Hannity, or Savage?
Click to expand...

I think BO is the worst of them all. Did you follow the Malmedy fiasco? Even when confronted with a mountain of proof that he's wrong, he still refuses to admit it. He just does his usual "Go back and look carefully at what I said," which is an attempt to make it look like people just misunderstood him.

I'm no fan of Hannity, but if he'd screwed up that badly, I think he would have said "Oops, sorry, I got that backwards."

Steve S.
 
steve s said:
I think BO is the worst of them all. Did you follow the Malmedy fiasco? Even when confronted with a mountain of proof that he's wrong, he still refuses to admit it. He just does his usual "Go back and look carefully at what I said," which is an attempt to make it look like people just misunderstood him.

I'm no fan of Hannity, but if he'd screwed up that badly, I think he would have said "Oops, sorry, I got that backwards."

Steve S.
Click to expand...

I haven't been listening/watching BO for that long. Hannity is definitely more of a straight-shooter, so I would imagine he would admit his mistakes.

At least they're better then 90% of the idiots on Air America. Does that program even exist anymore?
 
Skeptic said:
Frankly, I don't see how "I wish voting was restricted to intelligent people" whine is different than the "I wish voting was restricted to good Christian people" whine. In both cases what it really means is, "I wish voting was restricted to people who agree with me."
Click to expand...
ree

I disagree. I believe intelligent, well-informed people can have very differing viewpoints on whether the U.S. should have gone into Iraq, on what should be done in Iraq now now, on what the minimum wage should be, on what the tax structure should be, and on a number of other divisive issue.

I also believe that people who say "I heard that a school in Michigan banned red and green clothing as part of the War on Christmas" (as Mr. O'Reilly recently did) have excluded themselves from the set of people that can be defined as well-read, well-informed, critically-thinking people.
 
Ladewig said:
ree

I disagree. I believe intelligent, well-informed people can have very differing viewpoints on whether the U.S. should have gone into Iraq, on what should be done in Iraq now now, on what the minimum wage should be, on what the tax structure should be, and on a number of other divisive issue.

I also believe that people who say "I heard that a school in Michigan banned red and green clothing as part of the War on Christmas" (as Mr. O'Reilly recently did) have excluded themselves from the set of people that can be defined as well-read, well-informed, critically-thinking people.
Click to expand...
You can't start picking and chosing who gets to participate in a democracy based on a subjective assessment. Right off, you run into the problem of defining "good thinkers" and weeding out the "bad" ones. That's not a terribly democratic practice.
 
shemp said:
And the problem is that these people vote. I wish there were some sort of intelligence test that people would have to pass before they could vote. And not just a multiple-choice test: a potential voter would have to be able to read a few paragraphs and answer a few questions; then write an 100-word essay on a chosen subject; and finally, be able to voice a political opinion in an intelligent manner. This would probably prevent 70-80% of Americans, from all directions on the political spectrum, from voting.
Click to expand...

I do like the idea of some kind of test. How about some reading and comprehension skills, some history questions, geography, science, and basic math skills. The politicians would almost certainly oppose it. When people actually think, it becomes harder for them to distort and lie. All that money spent on advertising and badmouthing your opponents is lost if the people doing the voting can readily see your BS. Poor Rove would be out of a job.

I'm afraid that here in the South, there would be very few voters if such a test was in effect. We could have a different test here. Maybe a test developed and run by The Southern Baptist Convention; I'm sure they could come up with a nice little voter test!
 
shemp said:
And the problem is that these people vote. I wish there were some sort of intelligence test that people would have to pass before they could vote. And not just a multiple-choice test: a potential voter would have to be able to read a few paragraphs and answer a few questions; then write an 100-word essay on a chosen subject; and finally, be able to voice a political opinion in an intelligent manner. This would probably prevent 70-80% of Americans, from all directions on the political spectrum, from voting.
Click to expand...


Stupid people have rights too. This “test” smacks of liberal elitism.
 
Hey, maybe you could base the test on skin color and sex too, other factors people have no control over. If they ain't like us, they don't deserve to vote!

Or maybe we could have an, i dunno, democracy.
 
Skeptic said:
Frankly, I don't see how "I wish voting was restricted to intelligent people" whine is different than the "I wish voting was restricted to good Christian people" whine. In both cases what it really means is, "I wish voting was restricted to people who agree with me."
Click to expand...
Ehhmm. So could you tell me if people who have high IQ are all right wing or all left wing? Inquisitive minds want to know. For the record I think even a test without a political bias would be a terrible idea, but that doesn't change the fact that wanting only intelligent people to vote, is different form wanting only people who oppose/support gay marriage to vote.
 
shemp said:
And the problem is that these people vote. I wish there were some sort of intelligence test that people would have to pass before they could vote....
Click to expand...

Me, too (however I'm suspicious about your word "intelligence".)

Not only does that work "both" ways, it works in every other was as well.

And not just a multiple-choice test: a potential voter would have to be able to read a few paragraphs and answer a few questions; then write an 100-word essay on a chosen subject; and finally, be able to voice a political opinion in an intelligent manner. This would probably prevent 70-80% of Americans, from all directions on the political spectrum, from voting.
Click to expand...

Who grades the "test"? Who chooses the questions?

You?

No, thanks. I'd rather let the idiots on all sides vote.
 
Kerberos said:
Ehhmm. So could you tell me if people who have high IQ are all right wing or all left wing? Inquisitive minds want to know. For the record I think even a test without a political bias would be a terrible idea, but that doesn't change the fact that wanting only intelligent people to vote, is different form wanting only people who oppose/support gay marriage to vote.
Click to expand...
It's unimportant whether "smart" people do or do not breakdown into one category or political ideologies. Asian people don't all break down into one category either. In fact, they have a plurality of differeing views, but that's certainly not an argument to restrict voting rights only to asian people, is it?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
It's unimportant whether "smart" people do or do not breakdown into one category or political ideologies. Asian people don't all break down into one category either. In fact, they have a plurality of differeing views, but that's certainly not an argument to restrict voting rights only to asian people, is it?
Click to expand...
"For the record I think even a test without a political bias would be a terrible idea". Your anology sucks though.
 
Last edited:
The Painter said:
Better yet, maybe we can euthanize them.
Click to expand...
God no, that a horrible idea! If we euthanized the retards, who would carry out the trash and sweeb the streets? We can't kill of the morrons before we develop some decent robots for menial labour.
 
Huntster said:
Me, too (however I'm suspicious about your word "intelligence".)

Not only does that work "both" ways, it works in every other was as well.



Who grades the "test"? Who chooses the questions?

You?

No, thanks. I'd rather let the idiots on all sides vote.
Click to expand...

I don't have specifics. I wish that people would use their heads before voting. I don't want to weed out people, I want them to understand what they are voting for (or against), instead of just voting for someone for no good reason, or indeed no reason at all. I honestly believe that about 70-80% of Americans know little or nothing about politics, are incapable of understanding important issues, and are lead around like sheep.
 
Kerberos said:
"For the record I think even a test without a political bias would be a terrible idea". Your anology sucks though.
Click to expand...
Why? Please explain the democratic justification for claiming that only smart people should vote, and them compare that to the claim that only Asian people should vote.
 
Forty-Two said:
So, why do I still feel as though I need to point out the flaws in his arguments? Why do I feel that, if I don't stand up for real debate, that I'm condoning his methods?
Click to expand...

Maybe on some level you are threatened by his logical arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom