Can we quote you on this?
Indeed, so do I, as I noticed a lot of conservatives have trouble with timelines and the march of time, even in the cite you make Clinton also admitted it was a mistake, so in reality we are left with the conclusion that by the time you mention here the bit of the sniper fire it was already admitted years ago that it was a mistake and it was grossly irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Just a red herring. And O’Reilly is a fink.
I’m personally far more interested in the thought process that can develop a dudgeon over that subject, but *not *about the pattern of lies that led us into a ruinous war with hundreds of thousands of deaths resulting, not to mention the loss of our stature in the world that lingers to this day.
Meh. I’ll probably be voting for Clinton in 2016 the same way I voted for her husband in 1992: with a clothespin on my nose.
As noted, she admitted it was a “mistake” after video surfaced disproving her claim. So her “admission” doesn’t do anything for her overall veracity.
But perhaps you can address the other question. Why did you rush to the conclusion that a statement by Hillary’s spokesman was the final word on the subject, such that you could dismiss other sources based on the spokesman’s assertion?
Well, although I don’t really value Clinton for her honesty, I do think there’s a massive difference between her and O’Reilly, such that we can’t use the latter to calibrate our response to the former.
When O’Reilly was caught lying, he responded by attacking his accusers and coming up with increasingly ludicrous justifications by which he could claim to have told the truth.
Clinton backed down.
Again, she’s not gonna win the Cherry Tree award any time soon. But she’s no O’Reilly.
Has Mrs. Clinton been the host of a news program on a national network, commented on Bill O’Reilly recently, or (at the very least) been mentioned in the title of this thread?
No?
Then wtf are you blathering about her here for?
Not what I was talking about, and your avoidance of the timeline issue is noted again.
Because I was aware that Clinton had already acknowledged that she was wrong years ago, I just linked to one of the news reports that showed that.
So, once again, your Clinton Red Herring was irrelevant to the O’Reilly issue, and your original statement implied that Clinton never admitted her mistakes, unless you can show that O’Reilly has done so with his reporting the issue remains, FOX is only discrediting more (as if that was possible) by leaving that festering falafel to continue in the network.
It’s hard to compare them and their reactions precisely - as is frequently the case - based on the evidence and their varying circumstances (talk show loudmouth versus political candidate) but I don’t think you can just brush away the comparison either, and to the extent that you’re going to take a hard line about veracity in one case it should impact the other.
That doesn’t mean you can’t vote for her with a clothspin over your nose - there are few perfect candidates out there - but it’s a part of the picture.
Can you specify what “timeline” you think I’m avoiding?
Again, you linked to a quote from her spokesman. (Which just happened to contain a false claim in her favor.)
My statement contained no such implication.
Like the Nixon spokesman once said, that statement of yours was no longer operative when you made it. It is a moot point for more than 6 years.
And your cite helps me more than you, Clinton already acknowledge her mistake, O’Reilly has not. Bottom line: you are only pushing a Red Herring.
Nowhere did you mentioned that Clinton had admitted her mistake years ago, the moment you claimed that we had to “think ahead” your statement then implied that Clinton still was doing like O’Reilly because him refusing to admit his misleading reporting is what we are talking about, if you insist now that no such thing was implied then your statement is an even bigger Red Herring (a distraction).
It would be relevant then only if Clinton had continued to deny her mistakes, and a useless thing to bring since she admitted her mistakes years ago.
Why would you say I avoided the “timeline” issue? I addressed it, in noting that she only corrected her “mistake” when the video emerged.
If you don’t like the response, you can say so, but you shouldn’t claim I avoided something that I addressed directly.
6 years ago also. Yep, time is a harsh mistress.
Piffle, you are not acknowledging how useless, out of date and irrelevant your statement (red herring) was on this O’Reilly discussion.
What’s the difference how many years ago it was?
[ETA: In any event, even if you were right about that, it still doesn’t amount to avoiding the “timeline” issue.]
Well, yes. But there’s a middle position, something like this:
If someone says something false, watch what they do when confronted with the evidence. If they admit mistake, it’s better than if they double down on the false statement. The latter is a stronger indicator that they’re a liar.
Again, I’m not impressed with Clinton’s honesty. I think she has a rather mercenary attitude toward the truth, using it when it serves her purposes but not interested in it for its own sake. But O’Reilly’s attitude seems very different: he’s not so much mercenary toward the truth as he is actively hostile to it.
I don’t think reaction to him is a helpful calibrator for reaction to Clinton, for that reason.
The now is O’Reilly, Fotheringay-Phipps deal with his current denials and the Fact that FOX does think that keeping him would not be damaging.
Other statements are still out of date, irrelevant red herrings.
I don’t see how this addresses the point I made. The differences between O’Reilly’s situation and Clinton’s relate to how they reacted when confronted with the evidence. Perhaps I need to expand a bit.
For one thing, the evidence in the case of Clinton was more clear-cut, while O’Reilly’s - other than perhaps the nun story - has been murkier (though cumulatively overwhelming).
But more importantly, they are/were in different positions when confronted with the evidence.
Clinton was running for president. She needed for the issue to go away, and she needed to deal with it in a manner that would not alienate undecided voters who she needed to win over. For someone in that situation, even if they have zero integrity (which is not to say that she does) O’Reilly’s approach is not an option, and the SOP for people in that situation is to do exactly what she did, which is to back away from the story while trying to put the best spin possible on it.
O’Reilly, as a professional media loudmouth, is in a completely different position. He does not need to appear presidential and he doesn’t need to win over any undecided voters, and he doesn’t mind if the story keeps him in the news a bit longer. For someone in his position, taking a hostile approach which will rally his supporters to his side is the self-serving approach to take.
In sum, the varying approaches taken by these two people is completely aligned with their varying situations and self-interests, and is best explained along those lines and not interpreted as an indicator of different levels of integrity.
I disagree with this point: I think the evidence against O’Reilly is pretty clear-cut.
Sure, that might be. I’m not going to die on the hill of saying they have different levels of integrity. But I also don’t think it’s fair to conclude that they have similar levels of integrity. My claim is limited to the idea that you can’t calibrate your response to Clinton based on your response to O’Reilly: the circumstances and people involved are too different.
I’m not interested in Hillary, but I’m wondering how you can call the case against O’Reilly murky. We have a tape of his phone call from Dallas, asking about the suicide in Florida, when he later claimed to be on the guy’s doorstep at the moment of his suicide. We have the cameraman he claimed to have rescued in Buenos Aires, saying he was never injured or in trouble. We have Fox News itself admitting that O’Reilly only saw pictures of events in Central America and Northern Ireland that he later claimed to have witnessed. We have a long list of people who were working closely with O’Reilly during the alleged incidents, saying that it is impossible for them to have happened as described.
Exactly what would it take to make this less murky for you?
I didn’t say it was murky. I said it was murkier (than Hillary). What would make it comparable to Hillary is direct video of BOR at the actual incident. What you have instead for the most part is implications from other reports at the time, or memories of other people who were or claim to have been involved. At the cumulative level it’s very compelling, as mentioned, but there’s more room to weasel around each piece of evidence individually than if he was facing a single smoking gun video.
I acknowledged that the nun story might be an exception. What makes it a bit different is that what’s compelling there is not so much that it’s direct video-like evidence, but the fact that O’Reilly’s response was so completely ridiculous.
I didn’t recall the suicide story at the time I made my earlier post. But while on the subject, has BOR in fact responded to that allegation with the same bluster as the other stories? (I don’t recall seeing any response at all from him to that.)
We have that, too. In his video report, live from the protest in Buenos Aires, he described it as a “disturbance.” In later books, he claimed it was a “war zone.”
When this first came out (before the tape was released), I said that it would be understandable if he had thought the police were firing live ammo at the time, although I could not excuse his reporting people killed without confirmation. But now that we have the video, he didn’t say anything about either live fire or civilian deaths, so evidently those details were not the result of confusion during the fog of war; they were simply made up, years after the fact, when he knew they weren’t true.
As for the tape of his phone call from Dallas, I haven’t seen a response from him. I really don’t see what he could possibly say about it, except maybe claiming there were TWO prominent suicides connected to the JFK investigation, in Florida, in the same week, and he got them mixed up.