The USA presidential election 2008

[HybridMoment]

Oct 1, 2008 15:21:30 GMT -5 Farouche said:

Naptaq ----------

Naptaq ----------
And he'd probably increase spending with his entitelments programs, like democrats do

"Entitlements programs--" that would be the far right, Bill O'Reilly euphemism for social assistance programs that benefit the less fortunate, wouldn't it? The implication, I assume, being that the poor feel falsely "entitled" to having basic needs met, like food, shelter, and affordable healthcare.

The system is undoubtedly abused by many people who could help themselves out of the hole if they were forced to do so, but in my opinion it means that we need to revise the system, not revile it.

Sounds like legalized government theft; and poor people are not the only recipients of the redistribution of wealth. The US auto industry will now get a $25 billion loan so they can produce more fuel efficient vehicles, they should have taken a clue from Honda or Toyota years ago instead of opting to use the government for a low interest loan.

And yet Obama and McCain keep promising tax cuts while still promoting their pet projects, they need to find ways to cut back on spending that aren't entirely based on ending the war in Iraq (not that I'm really for it, but cutting costs should not end there.)

[MrNice]

Well without the media we wouldn't know what's going on. Even for the "research" we do, we go online, or read a book about the subject, magazine, listen to radio, watch TV.. It's all media. Different kinds of media, but still media.

My point is not that we believe everything that is said by the media, which is certainly not true for me, for you or for anyone else for that matter.

But when something is repeated long enough it becomes 'true', or 'common knowlege', even if it's not. That's where the corruption of the media comes in (e.g biased reporters) and it's danger.

For example, you may reject some piece of fallacious news when it first comes out at first, consciously, but days, weeks, months or even years later, when it's repeated so long and so often not just by the media, but by people you encounter, or people in your circle, you find yourself agreeing with the news more and more. This all happens very gradualy and sublty. This fallacious meme then propagades faster and faster because of the shear number of people being programmed by it. Like a rolling snowball this malignant cancer spreads.

I belive the media being the parent analogy is an appropriete one, because, it tells us everything. To the "child" within us, the media has become the parent. "This happened so and so" "This guy is bad" "This is wrong"

Being as there are so many different opinions in the media it very much matters which 'Foster Parent' you trust.

It is my personal opinion that Bill O'Reilly is awesome for the shear fact that he calls out corruption when it happens and he has a knack for seeing it. I believe such a counterforce is needed and is very benificial.

bill o'reilly is an idiot
he is not calling out corruption - he is just making misguided populist statements
he might have some good intentions buried somewhere deep in there, but there is a huge layer of assholishness on top of it
here is neil cavuto calling him out on some of it
www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1f7ICTAdVw

'you push this populist nonsense and people believe it' is exactly on the mark

I'm not interested in a creation vs. evolution debate. To me, there's obviously some intelligent design behind all of this and evolution is taking place as science has proven.

it has not been proven by science that there is intelligent design behind it
this is a fact and you are plain wrong (about the scientific evidence)
whether there actually is design is right now a theological/phylosophical question
as of right now science has no positive prroof for intelligent design
that doesn't mean that there isn't, but scientifically there is so far no evidence for it
therefor creation/intelligent design does not belong in a science classroom

Well killers, suicide bombers and people of that nature would be well served if they did read and take to heart 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

in case you haven't notice the ten commandments do not prevent killers from killing people
there is the same amount of killers among christians as there are among atheists
and the suicide bombers are often deeply religious people

And for the record, war is a different context. USA is killing terorrists in order to prevent somebody from killing you and people closest to you. Even me. Waiting to be nuked ain't no wise choise. And, you know, they haven't attacked America since 9-11 and that's no accident.

BS pure and simple
you still have not provided any evidence of terrorists in Iraq before the war that I asked for several times
you keep repeating this about nukes and terrorists, but there wasn't either in Iraq - so we invaded the country and killed people, why?

just like with this stupid bailout - if you dig into it, it turns out that it is actually harmful to the economy
but congress will pass it because our corrupt leaders call for it and ignore the better fair solution

I did, because in those cases it is. As was in Hitler's case. Now I'm not comparing them, just stating a fact.

for your information Hitler was not an atheist

[Sweet Pea]

well, folks...we're now $700 billion poorer. i'm tired. i think i'd better go to sleep early and get some rest while i still have a roof over my head

[Farouche]

Naptaq, dude. Why are you so reluctant to address what I actually say? You seem to be getting very confused, and I'm not sure if it's a deliberate attempt to drown out things you don't want to think about, or if this really is a reading issue. I'm going to re-post what I wrote before, translate it into simple words, break it down into bite-sized chunks, and show you where to respond to each individual point with a fill-in-the-blank line like this: ______________________



On Whether O'Reilly is biased at all

Naptaq: It is my opinion

Me: Your opinion is wrong.

Naptaq: It is my opinion that he would not be the 'king of cable' if he were far-right

Me: He is far right. The word "traditionalist" should clue you in. "Traditionalist" means conservative. He is a far right conservative. You are a far right conservative. I myself am unapologetically left-leaning.

You are getting all your news and opinions from an extremely biased source. Just accept it.

[/color][/i]
Translation: Bill O'Reilly is a far right wing conservative, and so are you.

Naptaq's response to the possibility that Naptaq might himself be far to the right:_________________________



On the Idea that O'Reilly is Centrist and Everyone Else in the Universe is Extremely Biased to the Left

Naptaq: Wait, I think I just discovered something. Because most media [in USA, 2008], is leaning left, with NBC being the worst then it's no wonder that, a so called 'traditionalist', an indipendent voter like Bill O'Reilly, who represent the values of half the country is labeled far- right. Of course! That all makes sense now.

watch the BBC for what is widely regarded as some of the least biased reporting available today. I think CNN (not the opinion segments) is regarded as slightly left-leaning but reasonably balanced, and MSNBC is considered to be strongly left-leaning.

[/i][/blockquote][/color]
Translation: O'Reilly is far right. MSNBC is far left (liberal). CNN is slightly left (liberal). The BBC is centrist (in the middle).

Naptaq's response: haha.. there is no liberal bias??? You have got to be kidding me. No, you really believe that.. Ok.

[/color]
Naptaq's apology for mischaracterizing my argument:__________________________

Naptaq's response to the possibility that O'Reilly's show is extremely right-wing, in the same way that some other networks are left-wing:_________________________

[Farouche]

Oct 1, 2008 20:55:18 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

well, folks...we're now $700 billion poorer. i'm tired. i think i'd better go to sleep early and get some rest while i still have a roof over my head

I looked it up when I saw this post. Ehhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Question: is there any chance of the House of Reps turning this down and proposing something different? By now I've heard of at least a couple of other plans out there that sound like they make a lot more sense than this throw-money-at-it thing.

[malcom72]

Oct 1, 2008 20:55:18 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

well, folks...we're now $700 billion poorer. i'm tired. i think i'd better go to sleep early and get some rest while i still have a roof over my head

No actually it's worse than that. The Senate added at least $110 billion more to the bill. That Congress for you, these people just cannot stop spending... I mean wasting the peoples money.

[Naptaq]

Oct 1, 2008 20:28:56 GMT -5 MrNice said:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1f7ICTAdVw

'you push this populist nonsense and people believe it' is exactly on the mark

Calling him out on what? Are oil companies not jacking up the prices? With record profits I think they just might.

I don't know how one can make the connection from this video that he is far right.

And Bill O'Reilly does apperently identify himself as a populist according to wikipedia. You know, the one that's for the people not for the elites.

Here's a couple of examples how O'Reilly is calling out dishonest folks/organizations and, I think, one of the main reasons he's #1.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1D7hjGClB4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7FmG4wdJoQ

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln6zwp_p8iM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5NMNYyzZs

in case you haven't notice the ten commandments do not prevent killers from killing people
there is the same amount of killers among christians as there are among atheists
and the suicide bombers are often deeply religious people

That's why I said they would be well served to take it to heart.. meaning acting like that. Knowing about it is one thing, acting according to the 10 commandments is another.

you still have not provided any evidence of terrorists in Iraq before the war that I asked for several times
you keep repeating this about nukes and terrorists, but there wasn't either in Iraq - so we invaded the country and killed people, why?

The intelligence at the time 'knew' that they had WMD's. In retrospect they were wrong. But they did a noble thing and removed Sadam. And now terrorists are attacking the troops there, rather than preparing for another attack. Hence with fighting terrorists over there you didin't have another attack on The Big Apple or any other US city. That's the credit of Bush.

Besides you don't correct a mistake (intelligence mistake in this matter) by pulling out because that would be even worse. If you leave it you basicly give away oil to terrorists that are now in the region. And that means money for terrorists. And that means a nuke, potentialy.

I did, because in those cases it is. As was in Hitler's case. Now I'm not comparing them, just stating a fact.

For the times he's infamous for he definitely was an atheist.

[Farouche]

Naptaq ---------------------------
For the times he's infamous for he definitely was an atheist.

Just real quick here, and not to belabor the point (heh), but...That is a lie.

"The [Nazi/NSDAP] party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession."

"In a 1922 speech, he [Hitler] said: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

[Sweet Pea]

Oct 2, 2008 8:17:59 GMT -5 Farouche said:

Naptaq ---------------------------
For the times he's infamous for he definitely was an atheist.

Just real quick here, and not to belabor the point (heh), but...That is a lie.

"The [Nazi/NSDAP] party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession."

"In a 1922 speech, he [Hitler] said: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

i think to say hitler was an atheist kinda misses the whole point of the nazi movement altogether.

Oct 1, 2008 22:20:39 GMT -5 Farouche said:

Oct 1, 2008 20:55:18 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

well, folks...we're now $700 billion poorer. i'm tired. i think i'd better go to sleep early and get some rest while i still have a roof over my head

I looked it up when I saw this post. Ehhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Question: is there any chance of the House of Reps turning this down and proposing something different? By now I've heard of at least a couple of other plans out there that sound like they make a lot more sense than this throw-money-at-it thing.

well, the bill has swelled from a 3 page plan to hundreds, and the senate has added a buncha stuff to appease the house, so you know it's gonna pass. just a matter of time. we're just in the pork barrel negotiation phase.

to put this bailout in historical perspective:



the big one on the right is the current bailout.

notice that there were four other bailouts in 2008 which totalled about 340 billion. so this one actually will push us over a trillion dollars in bailout spending in one year. oh yeah, we can afford that...

History of U.S. Gov't Bailouts

[MrNice]

Calling him out on what? Are oil companies not jacking up the prices? With record profits I think they just might.

calling him out on his BS
his reason for oil companies gouging gas (one of those things that when repeated enough people start to believe) was that oil went down 30% while gas only went down 20% or whatever
so basically he just created this rule out of nowhere that gas prices have to exactly follow oil prices
and Cavuto pointed out that while oil prices trippled since some time ago, the gas only went up twice. Don't be fooled, O'reilly knew he was WRONG, yet he pressed on and just kept repeating how oil prices are gouging and how they are not being fair (whatever that means).

He keeps repeating LIES and DISTORTIONS and people listen to him. He tells people what they want to hear - he lays blame on innocent people and unrelated circumstances for the hardships that occur to this audience.

The intelligence at the time 'knew' that they had WMD's. In retrospect they were wrong.

what exactly did the intelligence at the time know?
can you provide some specific details?
and what about terrorists in Iraq before the war? Still nothing?

But they did a noble thing and removed Sadam.

and this is a great excuse for going to war on a false pretense
oh and by the way the price of oil tripled since we went toIraq
why doesn't o'reilly talk about that?

And now terrorists are attacking the troops there, rather than preparing for another attack. Hence with fighting terrorists over there you didin't have another attack on The Big Apple or any other US city. That's the credit of Bush.

so basically its ok with you to go and attack a sovereign country, a war in which 10s of thousands of civilians die in the process just so that terrorists have something to do over there? Give me a break.
and what about non us bombings? the war didn't make them busy enough? maybe we should invade 2-3 other countries and then all terrorist activity will stop

Besides you don't correct a mistake (intelligence mistake in this matter) by pulling out because that would be even worse.

we are not talking about pulling out right now - but admitting the mistakes
let me make it easier for you to find evidence of WMD in Iraq - there was no evidence - the intelligence did not have evidence of WMD in Iraq
We went to war based on a LIE

If you leave it you basicly give away oil to terrorists that are now in the region. And that means money for terrorists. And that means a nuke, potentialy.

this kind of reasoning is so disconnected from reality its scary
why don't we just nuke every country in the middle east - that way there will definitely be no terrorists there, now and potentially.

For the times he's infamous for he definitely was an atheist.

this would fit with your idea that atheists are evil by nature. But you are just plain wrong on this one. Sorry.

[Naptaq]

Oct 1, 2008 21:05:14 GMT -5 Farouche said:

Naptaq, dude. Why are you so reluctant to address what I actually say? You seem to be getting very confused, and I'm not sure if it's a deliberate attempt to drown out things you don't want to think about, or if this really is a reading issue. I'm going to re-post what I wrote before, translate it into simple words, break it down into bite-sized chunks, and show you where to respond to each individual point with a fill-in-the-blank line like this: ______________________

I don't know if this is mean spirited or you're really confused to want me to address this yet again but here we go.

Naptaq's response to the possibility that Naptaq might himself be far to the right:_________________________

I'm not.

On the Idea that O'Reilly is Centrist and Everyone Else in the Universe is Extremely Biased to the Left

I'll leave the Universe out of it and just talk about the USA media. ;D

watch the BBC for what is widely regarded as some of the least biased reporting available today. I think CNN (not the opinion segments) is regarded as slightly left-leaning but reasonably balanced, and MSNBC is considered to be strongly left-leaning.

[/i][/blockquote][/color] [/quote]
I don't have any beef with BBC so I agree with your assesment.

Naptaq's apology for mischaracterizing my argument:__________________________

Well most media is leaning left and I said that because you seem very unwilling to acknowledge that. Lets take a bigger sample.

New York Times - liberal to far-left
Media Matters.org - far-left
ACLU - far left
Washington Post - Liberal to far left
MoveOn.org - far-left
NBC - Liberal to far left
Newsweek - Liberal to far-left
ThinkProgress.org - far-left
DailyKos - far-left
HuffingtonPost - far-left
PBS - liberal to far-left


Now these organizations sometimes employ conservatives but, of course they get outnumbered 1:10. For example CNN's Headline News, the spin-off of CNN, has a conservative Glenn Beck on.

Naptaq's response to the possibility that O'Reilly's show is extremely right-wing, in the same way that some other networks are left-wing:_________________________

[/i]
[/quote]
Extremely right wing?
Maybe this would fit the bill:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbgZ9KfPr7A

In all fairness this is not the real renetto, as this is satire. However, it is far-right as just one minute of that video will reveal.

So, no, I don't think Bill O'Reilly is far-right. Infact some of the far-right guys hate Bill O'Reilly's guts and I'm not suprised why.

The word "traditionalist" should clue you in. "Traditionalist" means conservative. He is a far right conservative. You are a far right conservative. I myself am unapologetically left-leaning.

As well as being a liberal you seem to be secular-progressive. When Bill coined the term traditionalist he put secular-progressive as it's counterpart, as you probably know.

To futher clarify being a traditionalist doesn't mean that one is a conservative and I think there are a lot of liberals that would be labeled 'traditionalist' by Bill O'Reilly. Including Martin Luther King and JFK.(part 3 of the videos below, starting at 4:55)

Now there's a fine gem I found on YouTube and it's the whole show of Bill O'Reilly on my favorite show besides the Factor.

It's Bill explaining his traditionalist position, the 'secular-progressive' and his take on the Iraq war (beginning of part 3) among other things. Interesting debate. Enjoy:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz0iNix9CNo - part 1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTVUoJJ4QG8 - part 2

www.youtube.com/watch?v=syOTBxfHJZc - part 3

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-isSVrTLJoU - part 4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh2HRuIwtl8 - part 5

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWx3Tndg_9o - part 6

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eio1x3oWomk - part 7

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd6ETHlFnlU - part 8

[Sweet Pea]

as far as the presidential race goes, i'd like to see obama say he's gonna sponsor legislation that would make it illegal for the government to bailout private corporations in the future. i think everyone in the private sector needs to be put on notice that there isn't gonna be any more bailouts to fall back to because the american taxpayer is DONE! CRISPY! TOTALLY FRIED!

[Naptaq]

Oct 2, 2008 8:17:59 GMT -5 Farouche said:

Just real quick here, and not to belabor the point (heh), but...That is a lie.

"The [Nazi/NSDAP] party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession."

"In a 1922 speech, he [Hitler] said: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

here's another one of his quotes:

on 14th October, 1941, midday
Hitler: "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."

[/color]

Apperently Hitler's made both anti-atheist and anti-religion statments in his lifetime, as well as pro-christian ones as you pointed out.

From the date of the quote you provided (1922) doesn't dispute my earlier statment that he was an atheist for the time he's infamous for (1939-1945). The anti-atheist quote above is from 1941.

Even Richard Dawkins, known for his atheism, doesn't seem too sure what Hilter was. (at about 4:10)

Too bad that we don't know the dates of the anti-atheist quotes. But it's fair to say, based on his quotes and the dates of those quotes, that he was an atheist.

[MrNice]

But it's fair to say, based on his quotes and the dates of those quotes, that he was an atheist.

no - its not - this is just a case of believing what you want to believe

this is more important though (quoted from the article)

Germany saw itself as a fundamentally Christian nation and millions of Christians enthusiastically endorsed Hitler and the Nazi Party, seeing both as embodiments of German and Christian ideals.

[Naptaq]

Oct 2, 2008 11:06:55 GMT -5 MrNice said:

But it's fair to say, based on his quotes and the dates of those quotes, that he was an atheist.

no - its not - this is just a case of believing what you want to believe

this is more important though (quoted from the article)

Germany saw itself as a fundamentally Christian nation and millions of Christians enthusiastically endorsed Hitler and the Nazi Party, seeing both as embodiments of German and Christian ideals.

well they were indotrinated.