Bill O'Reilly and Hillary Clinton

The BBQ Pit
21

A) I never defended O’Reilly. I only attacked FAIR; Reading comprehension is your friend.

B) FAIR is not a credible news source. Would you blindly accept a cite from National Review or Little Green Footballs? No, and you shit your pants every time December did link to such a site. Take some of your own medicine, and either link to a reputable site that supports your claim, or shut the fuck up.

If it smells like crap, it looks like crap, well…it’s crap. So the Supreme Court rightly stopped Gore & Co. from counting invalid ballots. Whoopdeefuckingdoo, they did their job, and kept Gore from stealing the election.

Counting legitimate ballots, Bush won. How many times does that need to be repeated? Bush won. Bush won. Bush won. Bush won. Bush won. Bush won. A few more? Doubt it would matter. All the foot-stamping and sore-loser posts in the world will not change that.

22

Well, then it would just sound like I’m greeting someone named “Keebah”.

Dig the reference though. Getting married anytime soon? Want to?

23

Actually, that’s precisely what my cite (and their cite, that paragon of liberal bias, Newsweek) did not say.

First off, it said the Florida Supreme Court was going to order them to count a specific kind of overvote. The kind where the hole next to the name has been punched, and also the hole next to the write-in candidate, but only where the write-in didn’t say anything, or said the same name as previously punched. The kind where the voter intent is so obvious as to be undoubtable. The kind required to included in a recount by State Law. Being from the state’s rights side of the fence, I’m surprised that you’d find the Florida State Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law to be illegitimate.

Secondly, it said that if the entire state had been recounted, by the state laws already set in place, without any interference by either Supreme Court, Gore would have just barely won.

Indeed! In fact, I just spoke to him recently. He misses you. Or rather, you’re missing him.

More in a moment.

24

Brutus, we’re not asking you to accept a story told by a biased source. We’re asking you to accept the cited facts and quotations of a biased source.

For instance, if you were to give a link to a National Review story as a cite, eyebrows will raise, because they’re doing their own reporting, and they may very well report it in a biased way (don’t know, haven’t really read them much). However, if you were to give a link to FAIR as a cite, we would be obliged to either check their cites for the case they’re making, or shut up. Unless we want to a) try to prove that their citation doesn’t say what they think it says, b) try to prove that the source for the citation is biased/lying, or c) try to prove that no such citation exists.

Anything less than that is an intellectually dishonest attempt to undermine an argument without having to, oh, I don’t know, put forth some fucking EFFORT?!

(Did you know that when I couldn’t find the source article I was looking for, I was actually gonna download and format the very database program that the Media Consortium used, so I could tally the statewide recount myself? Good thing Desmo showed up, cuz I could not figure out how to make that program work.)

Honestly, I think that, in terms of citations and such, the whole “I won’t count that because it’s biased” argument rings a bit hollow. For the most part, whoever they are and however biased they might be in what they report, they’re probably not blatantly misrepresenting the facts. The bias and misinformation tends to come more in the form of reporting some facts and not others, a kind of bias which is almost impossible to prove without them coming right out and saying “I’m biased.” But, like Bill O’Reilly, they don’t say that, if they mention bias at all. Instead they say “I’m right. You’re biased.”
[ASIDE]Dio Mio, I think I might have a problem. I just… can’t… stop![ASIDE]

25

You (and others) don’t get it.

If you are going to quote from some quack activist cite, that has a stated agenda, then you better provide some raw material to go along with it. For the FAIR cite above, there should also be corresponding cites from the LA Times, and Bill O’Reilly. (If you expect the cite to be taken seriously. If you are just posting it for the sake of it, so be it.)

Example:

Holy shit! TIME TRAVEL!!!

It is on a website, citing stuff from ‘scientists’! You can’t argue with facts like that! There is also a warning to avoid the power of the crystal, but embrace the power of the black hole! Why would he say it, on his very own website, if it were not true?

Your method:
If you wish to discredit the site as a source, you are going to have to go through it and find refuting cites yourself. (Unless, of course, you believe it, in which case, I will meet you in 1921!) Don’t you dare disparage that cite without your own counter-cites!

My method:
Laugh at it, because it is obvious quackery. Much like FAIR.
You’ll note that both sites do have some broad facts correct. One more than the other. But still, it is all about the details, and neither site gives many. A reasonable person may safely discount them, until better, more credible, evidence is presented.

26

Weird With Words, I think you’re being terribly unfair. You should never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

27

You’ll have to answer my question, my friend.

What source is there without an agenda? Do you believe that Fox doesn’t have an agenda?

28

Brutus, you dance quite well. Around the issue, that is.

The case is as such: O’Reilly claimed that the LA Times would never do an article on Clinton’s misdeeds with women, whereas they were keen on doing it about Arnie. As has been stated, this proved to be false: the LA Times did indeed publish an article on Clinton’s shenanigans.

All of these are facts. What the hell does it matter that the magazine connecting the dots happens to be a partisan one? They have the facts on their side - and that’s what matters. Whether the source be FAIR, New Nazi Weekly, The Daily Treehugger or the New York Post: it’s about facts.

Period. So, please stop dancing, already.

29

Of course FOX doesn’t have an agenda.

wibble wibble hatstand.

30

The Wall Street Journal is an excellent source. They keep their editorials to the editorial section, something that many of the major news outlets should consider doing. I am sure there are other sources that are equally unbiased, but I am happy with the WSJ. That’s all I ask from even the likes of the NYT or BBC: Keep the damned editorials to the editorial section (or show), and stop tainting their news pieces.

As for FNC, am I their annointed defender? Don’t watch much, and when I do, it’s Fox and Friends, their morning show, or Special Report. I certainly watch O’Reilly far less than do some lefties here, judging from the number of Pittings that Bill gets. FWIW, most of the shows on Fox are too Enquirer-esque for my tastes. I don’t care, at all, about Kobe. Or Scott Peterson. Crap like that, which makes it far too often onto FNC shows. Still, their morning babes are top notch, and they get some great guests.

31

But to actually answer the question: Sure, Fox has an agenda: Get as much advertising revenue as possible. Anything else wouldn’t make business sense.

32

So the LA Times, the NY Times, and the like, their agenda isn’t to sell as much advertising as possible?

33

Good Grief!!! It’s OKAY, Conservatives, to point out inconsitencies that other Conservatives are guilty of. It really is!

Everywhere I go around here, Conservatives blindy defend other Conservatives and then provide fodder to the likes of the Liberals.

Hillary has flaws, Bill’s got 'em and attacks come from all over. Haven’t you ever learned to admit mistakes/errors and move one…and learn from it?

Jesus H. Christ, GIVE IT UP. When a Conservative FUCKS UP, admit it and move on!

I’m a Conservative and I wouldn’t argue with anyone who was dead on right about an inconsistency as blatant and obvious as O’Reilly’s!

34

Folks, I need a clarification of the rules. Did Coldie Godwinize here? Is the merest mention of Nazis in a non-historical thread a Godwinization of said thread? And if so does that mean Brutus wins by default?

35

It’s not a Godwinization it’s just an extreme example to make a point. A Godwinization is basically an attempt to liken the other persons argument to Hitler or the Nazis. It would be a Godwinization if Coldie had said “Hey, Brutus, the kind of denial and lack of critical thought you’re showing in this thread is exactly the mentality that allowed Hitler to come to power,” that would be a Godwinization.

36

dropzone, I don’t think so. Coldfire was merely plucking from both ends of the spectrum (note the “Daily Treehugger”) in an effort to illustrate his point about partisan sources.

In order to truly invoke Godwin’s law, I believe one must characterize one’s opponent or his view point as comparable to that of Nazis/Hitler.

37

Damn, damn, damn, damn.

Doggy Knees, that kind of post sniping is exactly what allowed the Nazis to take over Europe.

38

I’d rank Brutus at about Mussolini level. Certainly no Hitler. :smiley:

[sub]Spot on, carrot - polarising examples was exactly my point.[/sub]

39

And it’s threads like this that allows the Treehuggers to …

…umm…

Oh look. A penny.

40

Fine, Brutus. You want an unbiased cite? Check it out for yourself: “Troopers Say Clinton Sought Silence on Personal Affairs,” from the LA Times December 21, 1993 issue. Front page coverage.

Booyah! How you gonna argue with that?

Daniel