NationStates Jolt Archive

*if anyone needs anymore proof of how foxnews rapes the news after reading this then they have a serious case of partisan denial syndrome

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!. Over the weekend, I saw Georgetown Law professor, David Cole. I talked to him for a few minutes at Dulles airport just outside Washington, D.C., about his experience being on the "O'Reilly Factor," with Bill O'Reilly.

DAVID COLE: It was an afternoon in June when I got a call from Fox producer who says, do you want to come on the O'Reilly factor to talk about a story that day in the New York Times about the Guantanamo situation. I generally have declined going on O'Reilly. It's not the kind of show that I'm a fan of, but I think it's an important issue; I will go on the show. I went on the show, and I am sitting in the Washington studio. It's being recorded in New York. They're recording the intro that O'Reilly apparently always does to his show. It's an introductory commentary. In the course of this, O'Reilly says -- he was talking about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, 9/11, et cetera, and says, the factor -- the O'Reilly Factor established the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and here's what governor Tom Kean, the head of the 9/11 commission said about it this weekend. Then he play as clip in which Kean says something like we have found no evidence whatsoever of any connection between the Saddam Hussein and 9/11. However, we have found some contacts between – and at that point, O'Reilly interrupts very angry and says, we can't use this. We have to redo this whole thing. So, they -- so, there's silence for three minutes or so. They come back on. They re-record the introduction totally verbatim, except when they get to the Kean part, instead of putting on the sound bite, O'Reilly paraphrases and says over the weekend, the head of the 9/11 commission said they definitely found evidence of the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. So, then we go into my segment, which is about this New York Times story, and O’Reilly's spin essentially is that the New York Times is lying to us, the New York Times is biased, and that bias is under mining people's resolve in the war on terrorism. He keeps characterizing the New York Times story as saying that the people in Guantanamo are innocent, there's no reason for them to be there. I keep saying, no, that's not what the New York Times story said. It said it was reporting on a C.I.A. Report that had found they had gotten very little intelligence from the people at Guantanamo and there were very few high level people at Guantanamo, mostly low-level people who didn't actually pose much of a danger. We go back and forth, the usual -- you know, very thoughtful exchange that you get on this kind of talk show. Until I keep saying -- you know, Bill, you are misleading your viewers by mischaracterizing what the New York Times is saying and you are criticizing the New York Times for mischaracterizing the facts and he says, no, I'm not. At which point I say, I might as well go for it and say, it seems to me, Bill, like it's the pot calling the kettle black because not five minutes ago I sat here and watched you re-record the introduction to your show in order to take out the head of the 9/11 commission saying there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11. At which point he just went ballistic, screamed at me, called me an s.o.b. at least three times. He said -- guaranteed that this part of the segment would not air, and said that I would never ever be called back to the show, which at the time I wasn't sure whether to take as a threat or a promise. But in any event, that's where he left it. Later that night, the show aired and there was bill O'Reilly fuming about the bias and spin of the New York Times, but leaving out both governor Kean's statement and my statement to O'Reilly about his own spinning of the al Qaeda - Hussein connection. That's the story.

AMY GOODMAN: Georgetown University law professor, David Cole, talking about his experience on the O'Reilly factor. He then had this afterthought.

DAVID COLE: The most smarmy thing about the whole event was that O'Reilly's opening commentary was all about how terrible spin and how terrible the New York Times’ spin is because it's dividing the country, undermining the war on terrorism, and the final line was "the spin must stop. Our lives depend on it." But he had just spun the statement of Governor Kean to serve his own interests.

www.democracynow.org

And here I thought it was a transcript with Bill O'Reilly interviewing him. Alwell. Moveson to the next line!

Oh btw, this doesn't prove a thing. He's just mad that Bill Caught him spinning. Sorry but this doesn't hold substance especially since you got this from Democracynow.org!

Bill O'Reilly is an ass on his show, he doesn't allow people to speak and puts them in morality traps and such.

And here I thought it was a transcript with Bill O'Reilly interviewing him. Alwell. Moveson to the next line!

Oh btw, this doesn't prove a thing. He's just mad that Bill Caught him spinning. Sorry but this doesn't hold substance especially since you got this from Democracynow.org!
Bill O'reilly had them censor a clip from the 911 commission cause he didnt like what it said and he replaced it with a lie-if people dont put a republican spin to everything on foxnews they get fired

Bill O'reilly had them censor a clip from the 911 commission cause he didnt like what it said and he replaced it with a lie-if people dont put a republican spin to everything on foxnews they get fired

Proved that it was censored? I saw no censorship what so ever in the interview. I saw the interview MKULTRA! did you?

And here I thought it was a transcript with Bill O'Reilly interviewing him. Alwell. Moveson to the next line!

Oh btw, this doesn't prove a thing. He's just mad that Bill Caught him spinning. Sorry but this doesn't hold substance especially since you got this from Democracynow.org!

Actually the fact he publically making the claim that Bill is altering news bits to suit his needs might be considered libel(any lawyer types do correct me if I am wrong).

I am surprised Bill can't do a story about the 4th Reich known as the ACLU(at least what he would have you belive). Got tired of him droning on and on and on and on about it. Eventually stopped watching him all together.....

Oh btw, this doesn't prove a thing. He's just mad that Bill Caught him spinning. Sorry but this doesn't hold substance especially since you got this from Democracynow.org!
... stuff from Democracynow.org should immediately be shoved away as a lie?

Actually the fact he publically making the claim that Bill is altering news bits to suit his needs might be considered libel(any lawyer types do correct me if I am wrong).

I am surprised Bill can't do a story about the 4th Reich known as the ACLU. Got tired of him droning on and on and on and on about it. Eventually stopped watching him all together.....

He has done many stories on the ACLU Black Forrest. He constently critizes it and with good reason that they are taking away our Civil Liberties, not protecting it.

He has done many stories on the ACLU Black Forrest. He constently critizes it and with good reason that they are taking away our Civil Liberties, not protecting it.

What the hell are you talking about? How are the ACLU taking away our civil liberties, explain the scenario please..

He has done many stories on the ACLU Black Forrest. He constently critizes it and with good reason that they are taking away our Civil Liberties, not protecting it.

Well if you mean preventing Christians from planting their way in all public institutions......well then let them take them away.

Bill alters facts on his diatribes about them.

Might I also toss out. Bill was rather silent when the ACLU stepped in on Limbaughs side about his drug abuse.....

Well if you mean preventing Christians from planting their way in all public institutions......well then let them take them away.

Bill alters facts on his diatribes about them.

No one said anything about planting nothing. However, long established traditions have been taken away by the Courts thanks to the ACLU! If you like, and when I have time since I'm packing, I can go through the archives and pull up talking point memos about the ACLU as soon as I find them!

He has done many stories on the ACLU Black Forrest. He constently critizes it and with good reason that they are taking away our Civil Liberties, not protecting it.
no-you got them confuzed with Bush who is doing that. The ACLU makes sure those who are accused by the govt have some rights

Might I also toss out. Bill was rather silent when the ACLU stepped in on Limbaughs side about his drug abuse.....Bill just filters out anything that contradicts his skewed views

... stuff from Democracynow.org should immediately be shoved away as a lie?
When no real news source supports them, yes.

No one said anything about planting nothing. However, long established traditions have been taken away by the Courts thanks to the ACLU! If you like, and when I have time since I'm packing, I can go through the archives and pull up talking point memos about the ACLU as soon as I find them!
Not that this says anything about anything I support or don't support, I just like pointing out flawed arguments, therefore....

Slavery was a pretty long established tradition, but I guess the 13th through 15th ammendments just stole slavery away, eh?

No one said anything about planting nothing. However, long established traditions have been taken away by the Courts thanks to the ACLU! If you like, and when I have time since I'm packing, I can go through the archives and pull up talking point memos about the ACLU as soon as I find them!
are u goin somewhere?
(I am this coming weekend)

When no real news source supports them, yes.
What is your definition of a "real news source"?

When no real news source supports them, yes.
democracynow is the real news source--the rest is corporate pablum and rightwing lies

What is your definition of a "real news source"?
Something that you can cite and any conservative or moderate won't laugh in your face.

democracynow is the real news source--the rest is corporate pablum and rightwing lies
Uh, MKULTRA, I'm asking him what his definition of a real news source is, as democracynow clearly does not fit his definition...

Something that you can cite and any conservative or moderate won't laugh in your face.
Uh...so, the only thing that is real news is sports, right?

Uh...so, the only thing that is real news is sports, right?
CNN, ABC, FOX, NPR...news which is actually monitored for accuracy.

Uh...so, the only thing that is real news is sports, right?
And sports isn't news. No one should care about how much better someone is as a game than they are.

I am curious what exactly you are arguing with here. You've sort of sidetracked the argument by claiming that Democracynow isn't a real news source. Are you questioning that the interview between Cole and Goodman took place? Or claiming that Democracynow changed the content? Or that the interview between O'Reilly and Cole never took place?

Or are you just calling Cole a liar? In which case, what does Democracynow have to do with it? The post made on this thread is nothing but direct quotes. Unless you are claiming that Democracynow has altered or edited the content of the interview to skew it to their point, you're just being belligerent. If you want to call Cole a liar, I can't stop you (though he could, theoretically, sue you for libel), but the Democracynow passage draws no conclusions of its own. There is no spin, and no claims, other than that these people said these things. Any spin is in the interview itself. Unless you think the Coles/Goodman interview is made up (which I doubt... they're both libs), let's stay on topic instead of going ad hominem, shall we?

And I question the monitoring of FOX news for accuracy, or, at the very least, objectivity. And O'Reilly is another story again.

I'm curious as to why a real news outlet hasn't picked this up. As of right now, it just seems to be one guy making accusations with no facts.

I'm curious as to why a real news outlet hasn't picked this up. As of right now, it just seems to be one guy making accusations with no facts.
Obviously FOX wouldn't show this even if they heard this...and I think this is self-explanatory, and as much as other news groups would benefit (pocketbook-wise) from putting down FOX, they probably feel that it would force people to also question whether or not this was happening at their broadcasting station or not...the only really good way to do a show about politics is the way CNN does Crossfire, but they should spend a whole episode on an issue, not like 15 issues...

So we're supposed to believe Fox News are serial liars because some guy going through a third party outlet makes an accusation with no facts or evidence? God help us if any of you sit on a jury.

So we're supposed to believe Fox News are serial liars because some guy going through a third party outlet makes an accusation with no facts or evidence? God help us if any of you sit on a jury.
Why do people say "God help us"? Don't Christians believe that God is always there and don't atheists believe he is non-existent?

Why do people say "for Pete's sake"? Who the hell is Pete?

Why do people say "God help us"? Don't Christians believe that God is always there and don't atheists believe he is non-existent?
Because God doesn't automatically fix everything. You ask Him to help you when dealing with something overwhelming, like idiocy in this case.

Because God doesn't automatically fix everything. You ask Him to help you when dealing with something overwhelming, like idiocy in this case.
Idiocy like being superstitious? I hate that kind of idiocy...

What facts would you like him to offer up? You think the O'Reilly Factor kept the tapes of the abortive intro? Or of any deleted portions of the interview? Maybe they did. But do you think they are going to offer them (or any admissions) up to any reporters who want to do an expose? They aren't obligated, unless something criminal has been implied, and it certainly wouldn't make them look good to say "yeah, we edited out that part."
Nor does the major news media care enough about Bill O'Reilly to bother uncovering every one of his misleadings. There are, of course, whole books available on the subject, but any news outlet that bothered to follow up an allegation as generally inconsequential as Bill O'Reilly skewing his broadcast would instantly be labelled a liberal attack-dog. And rightly so. It isn't news. It isn't news because we all KNOW he's skewing facts to fit his points, and it isn't news because one TV pundit misleading his audience through omission is nothing new or in fact illegal.
Coles is certainly not the first to make allegations about being editted or censored by O'Reilly, and his approach to any number of issues shows just this same attitude of "show them the stuff that makes our point, and ignore the stuff that denies it."

Yeah well, the other day, I was on NPR. And they cut out my segment because I saw them eating babies. Anyone can say someone did something, but unless they can prove it, it doesn't matter too much in America.


"Idiocy like being superstitious? I hate that kind of idiocy..."
Yeah, I bet you don't like black cats either. Racist...

"Idiocy like being superstitious? I hate that kind of idiocy..."
Yeah, I bet you don't like black cats either. Racist...

Wow.

Just so you know:
rac·ism Listen: [ rszm ]
n.


1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

( http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/r/r0007100.html )

Well ok. At least now you're attacking Coles, not Democracynow. And you're right, I wouldn't give much credence to a claim that NPR was eating babies. Mostly because you're the only one making it, and you probably have no way of knowing.
Coles is certainly NOT the only one to claim that Bill O'Reilly has editted liberal arguments from his show. Nor the only one to claim that O'Reilly has deceived his audience. And he's been caught denying his own publicly delivered words more than once. I think O'Reilly is fink mainly because he has a long-standing (and provable) record of prevarication.
Whether you think the charges Coles makes or not are accurate... its one man's word against another's (though I don't think Bill has actually denied it), but the charges would be unsurprizing, given a backlog of bullshit.

I don't know what's worse, that you took that comment seriously or that you ignored the actual point.

Well ok. At least now you're attacking Coles, not Democracynow. And you're right, I wouldn't give much credence to a claim that NPR was eating babies. Mostly because you're the only one making it, and you probably have no way of knowing.
Coles is certainly NOT the only one to claim that Bill O'Reilly has editted liberal arguments from his show. Nor the only one to claim that O'Reilly has deceived his audience. And he's been caught denying his own publicly delivered words more than once. I think O'Reilly is fink mainly because he has a long-standing (and provable) record of prevarication.
Whether you think the charges Coles makes or not are accurate... its one man's word against another's (though I don't think Bill has actually denied it), but the charges would be unsurprizing, given a backlog of bullshit.
There's thousands of people saying Bush did something wrong or that Kerry did something wrong or that Saddam hasn't done anything wrong, but it doesn't matter. Unless you can prove someone did something, it's just your word against their's, and that doesn't carry much weight on an anonymous internet forum.

I don't know what's worse, that you took that comment seriously or that you ignored the actual point.
I take the accusation of racism just as seriously as I take racism itself...
Also, I assumed that the actual point was directed to someone else...

To whom was that directed?

I take the accusation of racism just as seriously as I take racism itself...
Also, I assumed that the actual point was directed to someone else...
If someone accused me of racism because of cat related superstitions, I would just ignore him so he wouldn't be encouraged. Or realize he might not be serious, one of the two.

Ok. I'm saying you can find substantiated proof of Bill O'Reilly's misleadings, prevarications, and outright lies. While there are several fine examples in "Lies and the Lying Liars", there is a more concentrated source: "The O'Really Factor"... which is more or less a catalogue of the man's bullshit. All quoted, either directly from O'Reilly, in the case of his statements, or from established, non-political sources, in the case of the truth. Please please PLEASE don't just take my word for it.
I'm not saying he did something wrong, in the way Kerry, Bush, or Saddam may have done. Nothing that complex. I'm saying he has a record of inaccuracy and spin, which can be found directly in the public record.
And naturally, as these sources both attack O'Reilly, they must be liberal and therefore suspect, and therefore illegitimate sources. You see the circularity here?

Ok. I'm saying you can find substantiated proof of Bill O'Reilly's misleadings, prevarications, and outright lies. While there are several fine examples in "Lies and the Lying Liars", there is a more concentrated source: "The O'Really Factor"... which is more or less a catalogue of the man's bullshit. All quoted, either directly from O'Reilly, in the case of his statements, or from established, non-political sources, in the case of the truth. Please please PLEASE don't just take my word for it.
None of that has anything to do with Democracynow or this topic. Maybe he is full of crap, I don't know I don't listen to him. But that doesn't matter as far as our professor is concerned.

If someone accused me of racism because of cat related superstitions, I would just ignore him so he wouldn't be encouraged. Or realize he might not be serious, one of the two.
I accused you of idiocy because of black cat-esque superstitions, not racism...

None of that has anything to do with Democracynow or this topic. Maybe he is full of crap, I don't know I don't listen to him. But that doesn't matter as far as our professor is concerned.
Democracynow has nothing to do with the topic...the topic is about O'Reilly and the integrity of FOX...

Your argument, as I've perceived it, is that Coles attack on O'Reilly is unprovable, and unsubstantiated, and suspect especially because of its presence on a liberal website. Those are EXACTLY the points I have been attempting to answer.

I accused you of idiocy because of black cat-esque superstitions, not racism...
I'm aware of that. I was saying if you truly thought I was calling you racist, that it would have been best for you to ignore me. Of course if you did believe that, then you're more gullible then all of dem Christians I keep hearing so much about.

Can we drop the cat thing?

Your arguments, as I've perceived them, is that Coles attack on O'Reilly is unprovable, and unsubstantiated, and suspect especially because of its presence on a liberal website. Those are EXACTLY the points I have been attempting to answer.
And you haven't. His case is still as unproven as it was at the beginning of the argument.

Well, I think I've established that Democracynow is irrelevant to the conversation, and that it would be reasonable to conclude that Coles is telling the truth, based on O'Reilly's past record. I don't have to have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This isn't a criminal trial.

I'm aware of that. I was saying if you truly thought I was calling you racist, that it would have been best for you to ignore me. Of course if you did believe that, then you're more gullible then all of dem Christians I keep hearing so much about.
Racists get a bad name (eh...KKK, Hitler, Nazis...). I'd like to maintain as good as name as I can, or at least earn my bad name for things I've actually said...not accusations by idiots. I don't think that you think I'm a racist, but I also don't think you should've called me one if I'm not being one...

Well, I think I've established that Democracynow is irrelevant to the conversation, and that it would be reasonable to conclude that Coles is telling the truth, based on O'Reilly's past record. I don't have to have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This isn't a criminal trial.
And the fact that we're talking about FOX, which is evidence enough...

Oh for the sake of all that is good. Drop the racism argument! That isn't what the thread is about.

Oh for the sake of all that is good. Drop the racism argument! That isn't what the thread is about.
Would you appreciate being called a racist? Undeservingly, might I add...

And the fact that we're talking about FOX, which is evidence enough...
And I just starting thinking you didn't blandly stereotype. So sad. Since every other news outlet including Democracynow only reports truth with no editorial taint and all...

Would you appreciate being called a racist? Undeservingly, might I add...
You might not be a racist, but you just proved you suscribe to stupid stereotypes. That's not helping your case I'm afraid.

You're right. FOX is a much larger point, that would take months to argue and catalogue. Care to answer my points on O'Reilly specifically?

And I just starting thinking you didn't blandly stereotype. So sad. Since every other news outlet including Democracynow only reports truth with no editorial taint and all...
Uh...all news outlets report with lots of "editorial taint"

You gotta take in as much as you can and think (ooh, that's a tough one) for yourself (even tougher...), which is why I hate republicans who refuse to see Farenheit 9/11 on the basis that they know it will be "unpatriotic and anti-American..."

What is your definition of a "real news source"?Something that you can cite and any conservative or moderate won't laugh in your face.

Sorry but it can't work that way. Anytime a non-thinker, conservative or liberal, doesn't want to acknowledge any inconvenient facts he can laugh and call it bullshit. It works really great if enough sheep happily devour what he says, that is, what they want to hear, that their senseless bleating can drown out those truth for anyone who might be willing to hear.

Formal Dances, if everything and anything that Democracy Now has to say can be dismissed because of their bias, then anything and everything that FOX News has to say certainly can be as well.

It sounds to me like you're saying that David Cole, the guy that you saw interviewed, is a flagrent liar. Maybe he is, but I don't think he is on Democracy Now's payroll, which indicates to me that unless he has conspired with them to libel O'Reilly, either he is most likely telling the truth or they have libelled him by falsely attributing lies to him.

So either Cole is a liar, O'Reilly is a liar, or Democracy Now has lied by attributing lies to Cole. In the latter case Cole and O'Reilly would probably join forces to debunk, of not sue, Democracy Now. Have They? Didn't think so. SO that means, either Cole is lying or O'Reilly is the liar that Cole says he is.

But here's the thing: DOZENS of people who have had the misfortune of interacting with the O'Reilly Propaganda Machine have come forth to tell us what a big stinky liar the "man" is. Well... either that or Democracy Now, and others, have based dozens of stories on the practice of misquoting people by means of putting libels against others into their mouths. Since we have not seen dozens of... well... any? lawsuits against Democracy Now in which both the misquoted and the secondarily libelled have come together to testify against D.N., or in fact anyone who has claimed that they put lies into his mouth, just looking at the numbers I strongly suspect that O'Reilly is the liar, as opp. to the dozens who have called him one.



- Dru

P.S.: be mean if you want and tell me to count up to 24 people who have called O'Reilly a liar and have been on his show. I won't. I probably can't. :p But I know we've all heard about it time and again... just not on FOX...

You're right. FOX is a much larger point, that would take months to argue and catalogue. Care to answer my points on O'Reilly specifically?
What points? The topic deals with an incident, what are you referring to?

You might not be a racist, but you just proved you suscribe to stupid stereotypes. That's not helping your case I'm afraid.
It is hard to believe my eyes when I see someone defending FOX...

It is hard to believe my eyes when I see someone defending FOX...
It's hard for me to believe someone is saying X is always Y and wondering why they're being accused of stereotyping. Last time I checked FOX news had the most viewers, logically someone is going to defend them.

"Well, I think I've established that Democracynow is irrelevant to the conversation, and that it would be reasonable to conclude that Coles is telling the truth, based on O'Reilly's past record. I don't have to have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This isn't a criminal trial. "

This is the point to which I refer... you conveniently ignored it.

"Well, I think I've established that Democracynow is irrelevant to the conversation, and that it would be reasonable to conclude that Coles is telling the truth, based on O'Reilly's past record. I don't have to have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This isn't a criminal trial. "

This is the point to which I refer... you conveniently ignored it.
What past record? A bunch of people say he's a meanie liar poo-poo head? A lot of people claim to have seen UFO's, a lot of people believe in witches. If none of them have proof, it's the same as not having proof at all. Zero times a thousand is still zero. Cite O'Reilly's past record before using it.

Did you not catch me referring to a book, "The O'Really Factor," which (at least I claim) contains provable referable examples of O'Reilly's lies? Let's not be childish. If you don't want to look at the book, don't. But don't accuse me of baseless slander.

It's hard for me to believe someone is saying X is always Y and wondering why they're being accused of stereotyping. Last time I checked FOX news had the most viewers, logically someone is going to defend them.
There is a difference between racism and stereotyping...a HUGE difference (and yes, I know racism is a form of stereotyping...actually, it isn't always, but whatever...), but I don't watch FOX that much unless I missed the last week of the "real news" because from what I've seen, FOX reports a lot of stuff a bit after the other places do...(FOX commented on Bush winning the election on the economy and not the war, which is weird because his dad lost because of the economy and got support for the war...but FOX said this like 2 months after I first heard CNN say it, just an example) anyway, there is no way that anyone can argue that FOX is the most accurate news source...and I feel sorry for anyone who watches nothing but FOX...

Take your last digs. I promise not to respond. I'm ready for bed.

Did you not catch me referring to a book, "The O'Really Factor," which (at least I claim) contains provable referable examples of O'Reilly's lies? Let's not be childish. If you don't want to look at the book, don't. But don't accuse me of baseless slander.
You're citing a book I don't have access to so I can neither look at its arguments nor debunk it. If you want to have that kind of debate, do it in a library, not the internet.

Ok, I lied. One last reply:
If you are arguing that I shouldn't make any arguments whose sole proof doesn't exist on the internet, you've just rendered the entire debate futile. In fact, nearly EVERY debate futile. Because even if I quoted specific examples from the book here on NS, you could still claim I made it up because you don't have immediate access to the video of O'Reilly saying those specific things. You could claim I'm making it up. By denying any form of evidence which is available for your perusal (perhaps not at the moment, but visit amazon.com or your local barnes & noble), you are denying my very ability to make a valid argument.

So unless you are prepared to go and look at the book, and so me why the vast majority of the claims made are false, I'm done arguing with you.

Ok, I lied. One last reply:
If you are arguing that I shouldn't make any arguments whose sole proof doesn't exist on the internet, you've just rendered the entire debate futile. In fact, nearly EVERY debate futile. Because even if I quoted specific examples from the book here on NS, you could still claim I made it up because you don't have immediate access to the video of O'Reilly saying those specific things. You could claim I'm making it up. By denying any form of evidence which is available for your perusal (perhaps not at the moment, but visit amazon.com or your local barnes & noble), you are denying my very ability to make a valid argument.
And you're preventing me from refuting your argument. You could say anything you wanted, you could even misquote the book unintentionally, and I couldn't respond. The first rule of debating is that you use mutally accessible facts.

Go to a bookstore! This doesn't have to be settled tonight!
Sit on a couch, take notes. You don't even have to buy the darn thing.

Go to a bookstore! This doesn't have to be settled tonight!
Sit on a couch, take notes. You don't even have to buy the darn thing.
If you want to debate a book, make a thread about it. If you want to debate the professor who claimed O'Reilly was being unfair, do it in this thread. You can't expect me to bend over backwards to find your supposed evidence so I can argue on your terms. If I want to do that, I'll do it in a thread devoted to said book.

You're citing a book I don't have access to so I can neither look at its arguments nor debunk it. If you want to have that kind of debate, do it in a library, not the internet.

One thing i noticed while reading through this thread is that Arammanar keeps pushing the PROOF issue.

He says that the guy probably doesn't have the copy of the original recorded intro, and that if he did, he wouldn't release it. therefore there is no proof.

Well, there IS proof, one way or the other, as I am sure there were many people in the room who witnessed what actually went on. The fact is, we just don't have ACCESS to the proof here.

Arammanar seems to think that if you don't have access to the proof, it's the same thing as there not being proof, and therefore the thing is not true.

Sorry, buddy. Truth is truth whether the evidence is readily available or not.

And i saw your last comment coming...:D "I would have to go to the library and look for the book, which is more trouble than my little mind can deal with, so I would rather just pretend there still isn't any proof"

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Classic.

One thing i noticed while reading through this thread is that Arammanar keeps pushing the PROOF issue.

He says that the guy probably doesn't have the copy of the original recorded intro, and that if he did, he wouldn't release it. therefore there is no proof.

Well, there IS proof, one way or the other, as I am sure there were many people in the room who witnessed what actually went on. The fact is, we just don't have ACCESS to the proof here.

Arammanar seems to think that if you don't have access to the proof, it's the same thing as there not being proof, and therefore the thing is not true.

Sorry, buddy. Truth is truth whether the evidence is readily available or not.

And i saw your last comment coming...:D "I would have to go to the library and look for the book, which is more trouble than my little mind can deal with, so I would rather just pretend there still isn't any proof"

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Classic.
I can pull 100 examples from 100 books proving anything. Or, I could not be a dick, and only use information other people have access to. But no, I'm Tropical Montana, and I don't see the issue in forcing people to find my alledged evidence because I'm an inconsiderate prick. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT EVERYTHING O'REILLY HAS OR HAS NOT DONE. IT IS ABOUT THE INCIDENT MENTIONED BY THE TOPIC CREATOR. If you want to debate every book written by every person about a guy, then do that. Just don't do it here.

I can pull 100 examples from 100 books proving anything. Or, I could not be a dick, and only use information other people have access to. But no, I'm Tropical Montana, and I don't see the issue in forcing people to find my alledged evidence because I'm an inconsiderate prick. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT EVERYTHING O'REILLY HAS OR HAS NOT DONE. IT IS ABOUT THE INCIDENT MENTIONED BY THE TOPIC CREATOR. If you want to debate every book written by every person about a guy, then do that. Just don't do it here.
Uh...a lot of the times when lawyers debate something about whether or not someone did something, they make references to other things the person in question has done...for instance, if Bush were to say that Mexico were developing nuclear weapons, I'd point out what happened in Iraq...you see what I'm saying...anyway...this can all be solved with two things...email and scanner. Whoever has the book, scan it and email it to whoever wants it. The argument is solved. You can't deny evidence just because it doesn't support your side of the argument...

I'm so done. the only places on the internet that will bother to post "proof" of O'Reilly's omissions are liberal sites, which you wouldn't accept, having rejected them as suspect. To any of the major news sources, as I said before, the subject is immaterial. The very idea of proof on the internet is ridiculous (since ANYTHING you could find on the internet is falsifiable), and would involve me spending many many hours to find video files of clips from his show that a book has already quoted quite clearly. I do not have the book on hand, and I certainly don't have all that video. But I have in the past checked some of the book's specific claims via watching back episodes of the O'Reilly Factor at the Museum of Television here in New York, and have found the claims I spotchecked to be accurate. But you won't believe me either.
Just as you are unwilling to take the time to look at a book that might disprove your arguments, I don't have time to do the massive backlog of research it would take to prove to you personally, in black and white (and many other colors), that he said things he later denied.
So I'm done. I suppose, at the end of the day, you can take my arguments, or leave them. If you want to do the research on your own time, do. If not, I wash my hands of you.

There will probably never be proof for or against the specific claims in question here, for reasons that have been discussed. This isn't a court of law, and I don't have to prove beyong all doubt that he did it. But I can establish that it is more likely that he's prevaricating than his opponent. All we have is precedents, which is what I've been building. If you don't accept the premise of those precedents, there is nothing else I COULD offer you.

Even if you take Democracynow at face value, it still offers no evidence. Whether or not the site is liberal is immaterial, it doesn't stand on its own legs.

I can pull 100 examples from 100 books proving anything. Or, I could not be a dick, and only use information other people have access to. But no, I'm Tropical Montana, and I don't see the issue in forcing people to find my alledged evidence because I'm an inconsiderate prick. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT EVERYTHING O'REILLY HAS OR HAS NOT DONE. IT IS ABOUT THE INCIDENT MENTIONED BY THE TOPIC CREATOR. If you want to debate every book written by every person about a guy, then do that. Just don't do it here.

LMAO, i think i hit a nerve!

Only one post in the thread and already Arammanar thinks i am worthy of ad hominem attacks.

In my experience, whenever someone makes ad hominem attacks against me, it is because they don't have a viable argument to the point i made, which is that:

ARAMMANAR LOVES TO REFUSE TO LOOK AT EVIDENCE SO HE CAN SAY IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Like so many Republicans...sticking their head in the sand and saying THERE ARE, TOO, WMD IN IRAQ!!!

I can't wait to hear the names you call me now. They make me laugh really hard. ROFLMAO (Gawd, i hope the mods watch the flaming that is sure to follow)

Even if you take Democracynow at face value, it still offers no evidence. Whether or not the site is liberal is immaterial, it doesn't stand on its own legs.

exactly. Just like every other page on the web. Sources on the internet are either absent or unprovable, 95% of the time. I can't prove ANYTHING on the internet.

exactly. Just like every other page on the web. Sources on the internet are either absent or unprovable, 95% of the time. I can't PROVE anything on the internet.
Hmm, the fact that he expects 100% proof over the internet might just mean it isn't worth anyone's time to prove it to him...

bingo. done.

LMAO, i think i hit a nerve!

Only one post in the thread and already Arammanar thinks i am worthy of ad hominem attacks.

In my experience, whenever someone makes ad hominem attacks against me, it is because they don't have a viable argument to the point i made, which is that:

ARAMMANAR LOVES TO REFUSE TO LOOK AT EVIDENCE SO HE CAN SAY IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Like so many Republicans...sticking their head in the sand and saying THERE ARE, TOO, WMD IN IRAQ!!!

I can't wait to hear the names you call me now. They make me laugh really hard. ROFLMAO (Gawd, i hope the mods watch the flaming that is sure to follow)
Nice way to dodge the issue and cover it up under ad hominem. The fact remains I could say anything I wanted to, and say it was in some obscure book, and by your logic it would be your job to disprove it. If you want to debate a book, make a thread about it.

Hmm, the fact that he expects 100% proof over the internet might just mean it isn't worth anyone's time to prove it to him...
Not 100%, any. The only proof you've offered is one person's statements, and alluded to others. None of those statements can be verified, it's just hearsay vs. hearsay. This is a pointless topic anyway, since anyone who actually cares about O'Reilly will read one of the books for or against him, and not try to latch on to vague accusations made by obscure people.

"Nice way to dodge the issue and cover it up under ad hominem."

I am not dodging the issue. If you noticed, i never had any comment on the original issue. I was simply pointing out a flaw in your logic, Arammanar.

And if you scroll up, it was YOU who resorted to ad hominem. I am not attacking your character (as you have done mine) I am attacking your logic. Isn't that part of debate?

"Nice way to dodge the issue and cover it up under ad hominem."

I am not dodging the issue. If you noticed, i never had any comment on the original issue. I was simply pointing out a flaw in your logic, Arammanar.

And if you scroll up, it was YOU who resorted to ad hominem. I am not attacking your character (as you have done mine) I am attacking your logic. Isn't that part of debate?
Your point is that if someone says anything, and something somewhere on earth supports what they said, it's his opponent's job to verify. I say that's ridiculous, and the burden of proof falls with the asserter. Then you rambled about ad hominem, and ignored the fact no public speaker exhorts his audience to "go look it up."

Ok, lazy ass... (yes, THAT was ad hominem) I looked it up for you. I did a search using "amy goodman bill o'reilly david cole" and guess what???

The first site to come up is FAIR --Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. THis is one of those sites that liberals and conservatives alike agree on.

The article cited in FAIR is from the Washington Post. Here's the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16182-2004Jun29.html

HA! Looks like proof to me.

Ok, lazy ass... (yes, THAT was ad hominem) I looked it up for you. I did a search using "amy goodman bill o'reilly david cole" and guess what???

The first site to come up is FAIR --Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. THis is one of those sites that liberals and conservatives alike agree on.

The article cited in FAIR is from the Washington Post. Here's the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16182-2004Jun29.html

HA! Looks like proof to me.
Yes, proof that a soundbite was used and rejected. O'Reilly said it was the wrong sound bite. The argument O'Reilly was presenting was that the NYT was being unfair for saying there was no link between Iraq and Al-Queda, when the 9/11 commission said that there was. That is what the commission said, so O'Reilly would only be lying if he said otherwise. Props to you however for finding a source, that's all I ask for.

Ok, here's another:
http://www.the-hamster.com/mtype/archives/000828.html

Too long to print out here. Essentially, he says that the NYT never wrote a story on "The Factor", while writing many on the new liberal radio network. A falsehood, as shown.

"that's all I ask for"

Not true. You never asked for sources. In fact, all the other sources you were offered you just turned your head aside and said you couldnt see them. You spent more time yellling NO PROOF and calling names than it took me to do a simple online search--which is what you should have done immediately in order to have fuel for debate. (and you would have found out you didnt have a leg to stand on).

And shame on you, Ish-mael for not doing this search yourself. (although i do realize Arammanar pre-empted you by claiming ANY internet information as unproveable)

Asking for proof that Bill O'LIEly lies is like asking for proof that fire is a stupid thing to stick your hand in to. Here's an idea, just do a google search for "Bill O'Reilly" AND lie. Pretty easy, right?

I would say that in general, it is good manners for someone to provide sources and proof of their statements, but that it is NECESSITY for someone to provide proof and sources if they want to contest someone's else's statement.

Arguing on the internet is like boxing in a tu-tu. Even if you win, you look like an idiot.

Ok, here's another:
http://www.the-hamster.com/mtype/archives/000828.html

Too long to print out here. Essentially, he says that the NYT never wrote a story on "The Factor", while writing many on the new liberal radio network. A falsehood, as shown.
If you read the excerpts, they're mostly slams against O'Reilly. Maybe any press is good press, but I think he'd want to be interviewed and talked to, rather than just have things said about him.

Uh, MKULTRA, I'm asking him what his definition of a real news source is, as democracynow clearly does not fit his definition...
then he should change his definintion or hes a dumb ass

Yes, proof that a soundbite was used and rejected. O'Reilly said it was the wrong sound bite. The argument O'Reilly was presenting was that the NYT was being unfair for saying there was no link between Iraq and Al-Queda, when the 9/11 commission said that there was. That is what the commission said, so O'Reilly would only be lying if he said otherwise. Props to you however for finding a source, that's all I ask for.
Boy are your facts mangled. The Commission DID say there was no link between alQuaeda and Iraq. O'Reilly was misleading when he said the Commision connected the two. NYT was not only being fair in saying the Commission found no connection, they were also accurate.

You have been listening to too much Rush. I recognize the tactics.

What he said was NOT that the New York Times had never said anything nice, but that they had never said anything at all.

And actually, the articles quoted on this site aren't especially negative. Two of them not at all.

Boy are your facts mangled. The Commission DID say there was no link between alQuaeda and Iraq. O'Reilly was misleading when he said the Commision connected the two. NYT was not only being fair in saying the Commission found no connection, they were also accurate.

You have been listening to too much Rush. I recognize the tactics.
The commission said there was a link. They said there wasn't a link between Iraq and 9/11. Iraq supports terrorist activity just not that one example of terrorist activity.

CNN, ABC, FOX, NPR...news which is actually monitored for accuracy.
nice try--fox is monitered for their lies

then he should change his definintion or hes a dumb ass
So is Fox News a news source to you? How about The O'Reilly Factor? Nevermind, you're probably a dumbass anyway.

I'm curious as to why a real news outlet hasn't picked this up. As of right now, it just seems to be one guy making accusations with no facts.
the only real news outlet did pick it up

Arguing on the internet is like boxing in a tu-tu. Even if you win, you look like an idiot.

*laughs till she cries.* Can I quote you on that? That's RICH. HAHAHAHAHA

the only real news outlet did pick it up
The Washington Post is the only news outlet?

the only real news outlet did pick it up

We've really sort of moved on from those arguments, MK.

We've really sort of moved on from those arguments, MK.
He's not the swiftest horse in the race. Oooo, ad hominem! I'm so bad.

Arammanar-
Out of shear, non-hostile curiosity, how many of your 140-odd posts did you rack up tonight? Last time I looked you were in the hundred and teens.

The commission said there was a link. They said there wasn't a link between Iraq and 9/11. Iraq supports terrorist activity just not that one example of terrorist activity.

No, the Commission only said there had been CONTACT made. They found clear evidence that Sadam refused to meet with the terrorists, or to aid or abet them.

Contact is not collusion, nor is it connection. If i call you before i shoot someone and ask you to help, but you refuse, you cannot be said to be connected with the murder.

It is hard to believe my eyes when I see someone defending FOX...
I know--Armamammal is defending hate TV

Feel free to use any quotes I come up with, Tropical Montana, that's the only way my fame will spread.

No, the Commission only said there had been CONTACT made. They found clear evidence that Sadam refused to meet with the terrorists, or to aid or abet them.

Contact is not collusion, nor is it connection. If i call you before i shoot someone and ask you to help, but you refuse, you cannot be said to be connected with the murder.
However, if you had called me numerous times for numerous murders, it would be very suspect. Saddam met with terrorists, he just didn't support their trade center plans. But I don't want to argue this right now, it's my bed time.

I know--Armamammal is defending hate TV
Least I'm not trolling.

So is Fox News a news source to you? How about The O'Reilly Factor? Nevermind, you're probably a dumbass anyway.
O'reilly is a pathological liar and his face is infested with herpes sores

However, if you had called me numerous times for numerous murders, it would be very suspect. Saddam met with terrorists, he just didn't support their trade center plans. But I don't want to argue this right now, it's my bed time.

Oh, no you dont...

YOu can't just throw out something like "Saddam met with terrorists" and not provide proof. Even the Commission did not find proof of that. It would be very interesting to see what you know that the Commission does not.

Now it's MY turn to ask for your source.

O'reilly is a pathological liar and his face is infested with herpes sores
And he still has more people believe him than you.

Oh, no you dont...

YOu can't just throw out something like "Saddam met with terrorists" and not provide proof. Even the Commission did not find proof of that. It would be very interesting to see what you know that the Commission does not.

Now it's MY turn to ask for your source.
I'll give you that Saddam probably didn't meet personally with Bin Laden, however, Bush probably doesn't meet personally with every FBI and CIA agent either.

"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994." They were meeting, mayhaps unproductively, but it was occurring.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/

And he still has more people believe him than you.
and thats why america is losing its freedoms

and thats why america is losing its freedoms
My freedoms are just fine, I don't know what you're whining about.

And there is a photograph of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam about the same time Saddam was gassing Kurds....

Okay, so what does this all prove? That Rumsfeld was involved in 9/11 too? I would be willing to buy that, but that's besides the point. ;)

You need a remedial course in logic and debate, Aramammal.

Typical right-wing logical (or rather illogical) contortions: Only give credence to things that support one's pre-conceptions, and spin everything that doesn't

The 9/11 commission has determined that there was no collaborative relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Period. There were meetings, but Iraq apparently refused cooperation. Remember that Osama hated Saddam in particular and any non-theologically based government in general. Saddam returned said sentiment.

Rumsfeld met with Saddam, was he in league with Saddam? The American government funded the mujadeen (sp?) in Afganistan, which Osama also supported and was part of, does this mean that the US and Osama were in league?
In fact, one could say, if one spun the info just enough, that the US was much more in bed with Al Qaeda than Saddam ever was.

This is all beside the point, as this thread was supposed to be about the professor (who has no verifiable record of being a liar,) and O'reilly (whose list of lies is long and verifiable with just a little GOOGLE-aided research.)

Bedtime is irrelevant to me, as i am self employed and don't live with my mommy. But i think i have spent all the useful time here that i can.

That being said, i leave you all with my parting comment:

My freedoms are just fine, I don't know what you're whining about.
america is sick of morally superior people being attacked by the rightwing hate machine and character assassins--the airwaves belong to THE PEOPLE and not to you bottom feeding rightwing vermin--from now on all your hate spin and corporate lies will be thrown back into your faces-WE DEMAND OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR AIRWAVES BACK

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

(do a search on "anti-bush activist civil rights"...if you don't think they have already started coming for us)

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." Herrman Goerring, at the Nuremburg Trials

All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." Herrman Goerring, at the Nuremburg Trials
We were attacked, buddy.

We were attacked, but not by Iraq. The Bush administration led us to believe Iraq and 9/11 were connected and/or Iraq was an immediate threat. They played upon our fears to conduct a war of choice, a war without an adequate amount of planning for conditions following after the initial invasion. A war that seems to have at it's core an immense amount of corruption and profiteering.

If there were no such thing as pre-emptive war, there would be no such thing as war.

You can quote me on that too, Tropical Montana

No, we weren't attacked by Iraq. We were attacked by terrorists. And though Saddam didn't support these terrorist for the 9/11 attack, he did have connections with them through-out the 90s. Add in the fact that after the Afghanistan war a top Al Queda leader was allowed to be treated in a hospital in Baghdad. A hospital under control of one of Saddam's sons.
I'll admit there was poor planning for the aftermath. You'll even find that "right-wing" FoxNews was calling for more troops against Bush's initial decisions.
But where do you get ideas of corruption and profiteering?? Are you believing the allegations of Haliburton overcharging the government? Of them getting the job because Cheney worked for them?

Oh please, Halliburton HAS overcharged the government. Overcharged for gas, overcharged for food that our men never ate, overcharged for truck caravans that travel from place to place with no cargo. Try doing a google search on "Halliburton" and "overcharge".

Also, the 9/11 commission has shown that Saddam and Al Qaeda HAD NO COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP. If you don't believe it, take it up with the 9/11 commission. Contact does not equal collaboration. In the 80's the US had a lot of contact with Osama AND Saddam, are we to blame for the attack on ourselves?

Yes, I know about the "top Al Qaeda leader" in Iraq story. That story has been debunked. First of all, he apparently wasn't closely tied to Al Qaeda. He was a highly placed operative in another terrorist organization. 2nd, US intelligence has gathered that A. said terrorist leader mainly hid out in Kurd controlled northern Iraq, amidst Saddam's enemies, and B. he was treated in a Baghdad hospital so that Saddam's intelligence force could track him more easily.

Try to get your info from other sources besides Rush and Fox.

No, we weren't attacked by Iraq. We were attacked by terrorists. And though Saddam didn't support these terrorist for the 9/11 attack, he did have connections with them through-out the 90s. Add in the fact that after the Afghanistan war a top Al Queda leader was allowed to be treated in a hospital in Baghdad. A hospital under control of one of Saddam's sons.
I'll admit there was poor planning for the aftermath. You'll even find that "right-wing" FoxNews was calling for more troops against Bush's initial decisions.
But where do you get ideas of corruption and profiteering?? Are you believing the allegations of Haliburton overcharging the government? Of them getting the job because Cheney worked for them?
yes--how can you not believe it when its all documented fact?

No, we weren't attacked by Iraq. We were attacked by terrorists. And though Saddam didn't support these terrorist for the 9/11 attack, he did have connections with them through-out the 90s. Add in the fact that after the Afghanistan war a top Al Queda leader was allowed to be treated in a hospital in Baghdad. A hospital under control of one of Saddam's sons.
I'll admit there was poor planning for the aftermath. You'll even find that "right-wing" FoxNews was calling for more troops against Bush's initial decisions.
But where do you get ideas of corruption and profiteering?? Are you believing the allegations of Haliburton overcharging the government? Of them getting the job because Cheney worked for them?
Uhm...by this logic, America should have also attacked...America...I mean, after all, it was the CIA that armed the Mujahadeen (which Osama was either the leader of or a major member of) in Afghanistan to fight off the Soviets. This led to the rise of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan which allowed Al Qaida to really grow and allowed Osama bin Laden to have a safe-heaven in Afghanistan. But you don't see us attacking us now do you?

Add in the fact that after the Afghanistan war a top Al Queda leader was allowed to be treated in a hospital in Baghdad. A hospital under control of one of Saddam's sons.
Oh, so a doctor upholding the doctor's code and not letting that man suffer in a hospital which just happened to be operated by a Hussein automatically means that we should attack Iraq? Please. If that Al Qaida member stumble onto an American army hospital out in the desert the doctors would have treated him there too...

Proved that it was censored? I saw no censorship what so ever in the interview. I saw the interview MKULTRA! did you?
Of COURSE he didn't!

Of COURSE he didn't!whoa- where the hell have you been Panhandlia?I missed steamrolling you in debates, heh

whoa- where the hell have you been Panhandlia?I missed steamrolling you in debates, heh
If by "steamrolling" you mean "boring me to death with baseless crap," then I guess you have missed it.

On the other hand, your humble capitalist has been very busy lately, making a huge business deal. Of course, this thing being dead for a portion of the time did help too.

As I always remind you libs, I do have a life that does NOT revolve around this forum, and this is just my way to blow off steam, by making you lefties show your true colors.

If by "steamrolling" you mean "boring me to death with baseless crap," then I guess you have missed it.

On the other hand, your humble capitalist has been very busy lately, making a huge business deal. Of course, this thing being dead for a portion of the time did help too.

As I always remind you libs, I do have a life that does NOT revolve around this forum, and this is just my way to blow off steam, by making you lefties show your true colors.
are you an international arms dealer?

are you an international arms dealer?
I am.

I am.
did Bush buy any suitcase nukes from you this year?

are you an international arms dealer?
For me to know...

For me to know...
that means yes

did Bush buy any suitcase nuke from you this year?
No. I have a special thing I sell to Bush. It's called "Bush's Bible." It is a really huge crate that comes with two tanks, one hundred M16, five thousand of those plastic hand-cuff things, fifty English-to-Arabic translator books, and two cans of chimpanzee food (for the President).

No. I have a special thing I sell to Bush. It's called "Bush's Bible." It is a really huge crate that comes with two tanks, one hundred M16, five thousand of those plastic hand-cuff things, fifty English-to-Arabic translator books, and two cans of chimpanzee food (for the President).
you forgot a pair of jumper cables for cheneys heart

that means yes
Maybe...how much is that worth to you?

Uhm...by this logic, America should have also attacked...America...I mean, after all, it was the CIA that armed the Mujahadeen (which Osama was either the leader of or a major member of) in Afghanistan to fight off the Soviets. This led to the rise of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan which allowed Al Qaida to really grow and allowed Osama bin Laden to have a safe-heaven in Afghanistan. But you don't see us attacking us now do you?
actually, i do see us attacking us now.

meaning i see the controlling powers of the US government (pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, oil companies, bush administration and the NeoCons) attacking the american people in a covert and corrupt cold war. They are cutting taxes at the same time as spending our future at an alarming rate. You can't have fiscal responsibility without cutting expenditures. They are creating a crippling debt that will later be blamed on the Democrats, who will have to raise taxes to pay for the debt their predecessors leave them.

And what about the Patriot Act? The erosion of our civil rights, our right to medical privacy, our right to self determination and pursuit of happiness. How is it that in a country whose hallmark is freedom of speech, would arrest people who cry out in criticism of the administration's policies?

also, i have believed since very shortly after 9/11 that the Bush Administration was COMPLICIT. Bob Dole's former chief of staff is now speaking out about this, joining his voice with the "liberals" who have been pointing at the clues all along.

Like...why wasn't the president whisked away from the school by the Secret Service and a kevlar blanket thrown over his head? I can understand they didnt want to alarm the children...so why did Bush still stand around the school for a half hour after he left the classroom? It was a scheduled, announced visit. Any terrorist would have known exactly where he was.

Bush doesnt tell the Secret Service what to do, the Secret Service tells HIM what to do. The only plausible reason for their not whisking him away immediately is that they KNEW he was safe. How could they know that? Because they were in on it, is my conclusion.

Can you say Reichstag?

actually, i do see us attacking us now.

meaning i see the controlling powers of the US government (pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, oil companies, bush administration and the NeoCons) attacking the american people in a covert and corrupt cold war. They are cutting taxes at the same time as spending our future at an alarming rate. You can't have fiscal responsibility without cutting expenditures. They are creating a crippling debt that will later be blamed on the Democrats, who will have to raise taxes to pay for the debt their predecessors leave them.

And what about the Patriot Act? The erosion of our civil rights, our right to medical privacy, our right to self determination and pursuit of happiness. How is it that in a country whose hallmark is freedom of speech, would arrest people who cry out in criticism of the administration's policies?

also, i have believed since very shortly after 9/11 that the Bush Administration was COMPLICIT. Bob Dole's former chief of staff is now speaking out about this, joining his voice with the "liberals" who have been pointing at the clues all along.

Like...why wasn't the president whisked away from the school by the Secret Service and a kevlar blanket thrown over his head? I can understand they didnt want to alarm the children...so why did Bush still stand around the school for a half hour after he left the classroom? It was a scheduled, announced visit. Any terrorist would have known exactly where he was.

Bush doesnt tell the Secret Service what to do, the Secret Service tells HIM what to do. The only plausible reason for their not whisking him away immediately is that they KNEW he was safe. How could they know that? Because they were in on it, is my conclusion.

Can you say Reichstag?

Your grip on reality is highly tenuous at best.

I don't know...

Just because someone says "there was a conspiracy" doesn't automatically make them crazy.

Forty years ago, those who doubted that Oswald acted alone were considered certified, tin foil hat wearing, lunatics.

Now it is the mainstream opinion that Oswald did not act alone.

Watch the Zapruder film. back and to the left, back and to the left.

Just because its a conspiracy theory doesnt make it untrue.

I don't know...

Just because someone says "there was a conspiracy" doesn't automatically make them crazy.

Forty years ago, those who doubted that Oswald acted alone were considered certified, tin foil hat wearing, lunatics.

Now it is the mainstream opinion that Oswald did not act alone.

Watch the Zapruder film. back and to the left, back and to the left.

Just because its a conspiracy theory doesnt make it untrue.
every truth starts out as a "conspiracy theory"

every truth starts out as a "conspiracy theory"

No... every truth starts out as a set of preexistent conditions in reality.