Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken in Steel Cage Match on C-SPAN

The BBQ Pit
101

Oh, bullshit. The only content-free aspect of this discussion is the hand-waving assertion that the Bush campaign had a covert plan to prey on voters’ racial antipathies. When you look at the facts, that assertion just doesn’t hold water.

If looking at the facts makes me overly “narrow and technical,” then I humbly suggest the world would be better off if everyone was narrow and technical. **

I didn’t concede any such thing. I never said I endorsed the view that the Horton ad was racist; I said that was the claim made by people offended by the ad.

And even if I stipulate that the Horton ad was in fact racist, you’ve still got the problem of linking it to the Bush campaign. Your hand-waving assertion notwithstanding, it’s more than a bit silly to suggest that the Bush campaign created this ad and then yanked it after its sole airing. It kind of defeats the purpose of race-baiting if no one sees the racist ad, y’know? **

Fuck you, Sparky. I stand by my posting record. If you’re going to accuse me of something, come right out and say it.

102

I’m not getting the leap of logic that makes Stern biased in favor of Oreilly the same way another fox show might be.

Stern doesn’t share Oreilly’s politics. His are certainly closer to Franken’s than Oreilly’s. They aren’t “owned” by the same network, that I know of. They aren’t friends that I am aware of.

It’s a minor point, but what “other reasons” are you referring to?

103

What’s your point, kid?

104

Dewey, your belief in the purity and innocence of Bush I is charming, really. But it isn’t reflective of the facts you’re dismissing, either. To list a few of the statements from your last post alone that show you still don’t get it, or don’t want to:

“…the hand-waving assertion that the Bush campaign had a covert plan to prey on voters’ racial antipathies.”
Nothing “covert” about it. Your insistence that the lack of a formal institutional connection with the campaign means lack of any connection is an argument only a lawyer arguing a case could make. In the realm of politics, you know better.

“it’s more than a bit silly to suggest that the Bush campaign created this ad and then yanked it after its sole airing.” The Bush campaign itself didn’t create it, as even you stated. As to yanking it, is it silly to think they realized it was going to backfire on them as soon as the commentators got hold of it?

“I never said I endorsed the view that the Horton ad was racist; I said that was the claim made by people offended by the ad.”
Weaseling.

"I humbly suggest the world would be better off if everyone was narrow and technical. " That’s truly scary, pal. You not only don’t know what ethics, human relations, and society are all about, you don’t even care. Your interest is clearly only in what the law says, not why it says it, or about anything outside the law. That irresponsible, amoral attitude has no place in a nontotalitarian society.

“If you’re going to accuse me of something, come right out and say it.”
Not accusing you of anything, just requesting that you clarify your own position and how you reached it. If it’s simply more of your empty word-chopping, that’s fine, just say so - but that isn’t how the real world reaches judgments about people, ya know.

Now, if you’d like to continue for another 5 pages parsing dictionary definitions of words instead of grasping their meaning and implication, as is your demonstrated habit here, you just go right ahead, Pettifog.

105

Allow me to be cynical. Your tolerance or lack thereof of O’Reilly or Franken is directly affected by the prism of your ideology. Most of you people who think that Franken is witty and “kicked O’Rielly’s ass” think that Bill Clinton was a great guy and that GWB “stole the election”. If you thought O’Reilly put Franken in his place, then you bat from the right side of the plate instead of the left. I happen to think Franken is a boorish idiot who is looking for the spotlight. I also think that he is demonstrably futher left than O’Reilly is to the right. Try to watch O’Reilly without bringing ideological bias to the table. Does he espouse conservative viewpoints? Quite often, yes. Does he toe the Republican line each and every time? No. For those of you who will demand specific examples of what he said on which show that isn’t to the right politically, I cannot provide that. I watch his show two times a week on average, and I consider myself fairly well educated politically. I think that some of you who are slamming O’Reilly haven’t taken the time to watch and analyze his program. For you, the fact that Al Franken says that he is bad is quite good enough.

106

So are you saying he’s fair and balanced?

107

I’m saying O’Reilly is concerned with factual accuracy, where Franken is not when it suits his purpose not to be. The only part of O’Reillys show that is pure opinion is the first couple of minutes. After that, it is interviews and other reports. His continued success and desire to avoid litigation depend on factual accuracy. The bigger his profile, the more someone who disagrees with him would love to get him. His only defense to that is to get his facts straight. Is he capable of bias? Sure, we all are. But at least he holds himself to a higher standard than Franken does.

108

Where’s your evidence? Really, where’s your evidence? I was horrifically shocked by that NAACP ad that basically accused Bush of complicit guilt in the James Byrd case, but I never in a million years would have accused the Gore camp of having a hand in crafting that ad (I would criticize them for not requesting that the ad be pulled, as Bush did with the Horton ad). There is exactly the same amount of evidence that the Horton ad came from the Bush camp as there is the NAACP ad came from the Gore camp: zero. **

You’re claiming de facto authorship of the ad by the Bush camp. And the ad was pulled immediately after it ran for the first time, at the request of the Bush camp – hardly enough time for the commentariat to really chew on it. **

Not weaseling, the truth. To be frank, I’m not all that offended by the Horton ad – that case was a legitimate political issue to hang on Dukakis’ neck, and the mere fact that Horton was black ought not preclude the creation of an ad accurately describing his case. Go back and read my post: I clearly delineated that I was referring to critics of the Horton ad. **

What’s scary is the amazing display of dishonesty you show by deleting the first part of the sentence you chose to quote. Here it is in full, with the deleted portion bolded: “If looking at the facts makes me overly “narrow and technical,” then I humbly suggest the world would be better off if everyone was narrow and technical.” A cheap tactic like that destroys what little credibility you have.

And I have a pretty good goddamned idea what ethics, human relations and society are all about. Anyone who things I have an irresponsible, amoral attitude is more than welcome to peruse my posts. I challenge anyone to make a halfway decent case against me on those grounds.

Finally, it is a bit odd that you would say I am “only interested in what the law says” in a thread where the law simply isn’t under discussion. Seriously. Point out somewhere in this thread where I’ve made any kind of reference to any kind of law. It just hasn’t happened.

You really are a grade-A asshole. You revel in ignorance and call it “taking the broad view.” When someone brings up pesky facts, you call it being “legalistic” or “overly technical” or even “irresponsible and amoral.” On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, you embrace it. You deserve every drop of scorn thrown in your direction.**

Yeah, sure. I admit it’s a cute tactic – accusation by interrogatory. It’s also cowardly. If you’re going to accuse me of something, at least be bold enough to make your accusation in the open.

109

I’ll say that he is.

Now, go ahead and make your attack.

110

Bwa-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah!!!

Good one. [wiping tears]

No, seriously, what do you think?

111

Dewey, the signal-to-noise ratio in that post says everything it needs to about the coherence of your “argument”, and, for that matter, about you.

If you’re really not defending Bush I’s campaign tactics, you could simply say so instead of resorting to invective. You do have sufficient grasp of the language.

I’ll check back in a few pages to see how you’re doing, okay?

112

The only concern that O’Reilly has with “factual accuracy”, is that it might interfere with selling whatever agenda he has that day.

He’s just another loud, opinionated dirigible peddling his product. There are plenty of them on either side of the fence.

113

OK guys. Now that you’ve shown which side of the idological fence you are on, tell me what O’Reilly’s agenda is and how he’s selling it. Additionally, I would be interested in how often you watch his program. Some of your responses strike me as “I disagree with him, therefore I don’t have to know if he’s accurate or not. He’s just wrong, by god.”

114

Um… what attack? I asked a simple question. Twice. Forgive me if you took two pages to answer it. I was curious if anyone thought he was fair and balanced, as he claims to be.

115

This from a guy who deliberately cut off the front part of a sentence to distort what I was saying. You’ve got chutzpah, pal. Maybe you can get a job at the Guardian.

My point is perfectly coherent. You just prefer hand-waving dismissals to actual engagement – a scathing indictment of the validity of your position. **

Apparently you don’t. My point from the beginning has been clear: the notion that “Revolving Door” was created to capitalize on the Horton ad is fallacious. I’ve expressed that argument, and the reasoning behind it, with perfectly reasonable clarity. Either you’re feigning confusion are you’re just really stupid.