The USA presidential election 2008

[Sweet Pea]

Nov 2, 2008 13:31:56 GMT -5 Naptaq said:

Nov 2, 2008 12:48:20 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

despite your attempts to minimize the fact that mccain has said (or sung) these things, it matters very much. to the people who very much care that he doesn't think it's a big deal that we might be in iraq for 100 years, it matters. to the people who are sickened by his little "bomb bomb iran" parody, it matters. to thinking people who are against senseless war, it matters. to the people who don't just care about american casualties, but also about the american economy, it matters. to people who don't want to see millions, upon billions, upon trillions of american taxpayer dollars poured into military occupations of other countries instead of our own domestic economy, it matters very, very much.

Oh I see. For the people, who will vote for Barr, or any other anti-war candidate, which Obama will not be, think like you.

And you ignored the fact that America still has some troops near North Korea, which is what McCain meant with the 100 years remark.

It cannot be a 'sensless war' when it's protecting the whole world from terrorism.

i think most people would agree that war is senseless when it does not accomplish the stated goals. we were gotten into this war by being told that there were weapons of mass destruction. turned out they didn't exist. senseless. we were also told it would only take a matter of months. many years, deaths and trillions of dollars later, we're being told 50 to a 100 year occupation is what will be needed. senseless. how many countries does the american taxpayer have to occupy before it's enough for you hawks? answer, there will never be enough when the real goal is world domination. senseless.

[Naptaq]

Nov 2, 2008 13:40:27 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

i think most people would agree that war is senseless when it does not accomplish the stated goals.

No. The Iraq situation was a mess but now it's improved and there's less and less US casualites. So it's moving fast towards victory because a lot of Iraqi's own forces are already defending their own country, after having been trained by Americans.

we were gotten into this war by being told that there were weapons of mass destruction. turned out they didn't exist. senseless.

Sure, they found no WMD's.

They did a good thing by removing Saddam's regime.

But I have to remind you that Saddam violated the U.N. cease fire violation 17 times and that can be the grounds alone to go to war.

And if you look back in history, Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles many times as well.

Sen. William Borah who, on hearing of the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, lamented: "Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

Diplomacy does not work well with people who aren't even interested in peace.

we were also told it would only take a matter of months. many years, deaths and trillions of dollars later, we're being told 50 to a 100 year occupation is what will be needed.

Right. America's fighting terrorism, not occupying. A big difference in intention.

how many countries does the american taxpayer have to occupy before it's enough for you hawks? answer, there will never be enough when the real goal is world domination. senseless.

Yeah, and Afganistan and Iraq are becoming US states next year..

jk

The goal is to protect you and your fellow citizens.

[Sweet Pea]

i don't agree. i think the real agenda underlying all this is for positioned defense contractors to make a killing. they're getting richer, while the US is suffering. but american taxpayers are wising up now that they can actually see that they are not benefiting by the war games. it's just too bad that every generation seems to have to learn this lesson all over again.

and by the way, i don't just care about american casualties, i care about all the people being killed in this war.

[Naptaq]

Nov 2, 2008 15:43:02 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

i think the real agenda underlying all this is for positioned defense contractors to make a killing.

In your view of it America went to war to benifit the rare few, and to hammer the rest of Americans. I just don't buy that. America is not a military junta like Burma.

Sure it costs a lot of money and you pay a lot of military people but that's the reality of 21st century wars.

There's little doubt that Jihadists would be very willing to regroup and attack America again, if they were given a chance.

It's like medicine. Preventing a disease from developing makes a lot more sense than healing it.

[Sweet Pea]

Nov 2, 2008 16:07:23 GMT -5 Naptaq said:

Nov 2, 2008 15:43:02 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

i think the real agenda underlying all this is for positioned defense contractors to make a killing.

In your view of it America went to war to benifit the rare few, and to hammer the rest of Americans. I just don't buy that. America is not a military junta like Burma.

Sure it costs a lot of money and you pay a lot of military people but that's the reality of 21st century wars.

There's little doubt that Jihadists would be very willing to regroup and attack America again, if they were given a chance.

It's like medicine. Preventing a disease from developing makes a lot more sense than healing it.

no that's your reality, not my reality. in my reality we don't have to spend trillions of dollars on the military. we can get along with other countries and cultivate good relationships with them, and influence them in other ways rather than occupying them.

[Naptaq]

Nov 2, 2008 19:50:37 GMT -5 Sweet Pea said:

we can get along with other countries and cultivate good relationships with them, and influence them in other ways rather than occupying them.

That was the stance of USA before Pearl Harbor.

[Farouche]

Naptaq -------------------
I wrote this on October 1st in this thread but it's worth repeating again:

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.

Out of curiosity: What mistakes do you have in mind?

Oh fer chrissake... I am so sick of these accusations of liberal indoctrination coming from a self-admitted, starry-eyed fan of Bill freaking O'Reilly! Despite the fact that you cannot form a cogent argument in defense of "your" (O'Reilly's) opinions, it’s obviously everyone else who’s deluded. Yeah, that's a lot more likely. REREAD my post, because I spelled out exactly what mistakes I believe Bush made. I told you how I came to believe what I believe about him by searching out information and evaluating the evidence critically, forcing me to change my mind based on the facts, not due to an inability to shield my feeble mind from crazy evul librul misinformation. It really makes you look like a fool when you continually insist that liberal views are all a result of a pervasive Hollywood conspiracy that warps minds even through second- and third-degree contact. What a subtle way to discredit other ideas so you don't have to worry about actually having to think for yourself about the position you're rejecting.

Since I've already told you what I think of Bush AND why, it is your turn to state exactly what fallacies you are so concerned about liberals swallowing with regard to Bush, and tell why they are fallacies or lies.

Naptaq -------------------
I sense an ACLU endorsment coming from you. "To protect everyones's right we first have to protect the bad guys." Yeah sure.

Apparently, I'm guessing, your brain freezes up when you hear an argument O'Reilly never taught you how to respond to, so instead of responding to an actual argument, you go back to ranting about something O'Reilly did teach you about.

Do you *seriously* believe *any* liberal approves of Phelps and his family?? No way. Phelps and his family were/are VERY conservative and completely antithetical to liberal values. Now, can you think real hard and figure out why liberals would defend someone who goes against everything they stand for? Here's a hint: "I disapprove of what you say, but I would fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

Maybe in your country, the accused don’t have rights. In the United States, we believe people are innocent until proven guilty, and that if you're accused of being a criminal, you deserve to have someone stand up for your rights and your potential innocence. Of course, if you're a far righty this doesn't apply; what matters is that, by the grace of God, you really really feel in your gut that the accused is probably maybe guilty.

Naptaq ------------------
It has worked in some cases. For example they succesfully got information by using waterbaording on a high-ranking member of al-Qaida, Abu Zubaydah.

Torture has worked in “some cases?” Lobotomies have been successful in some cases. This is not about asking, does torture ever work? It’s about asking, do the potential gains of torture outweigh the fact that in order to make those gains, we have to cause intensely traumatic physical and/or psychological pain to a person who in many cases will have no pertinent information at all?

I just have to say again how weird it is to me that the same people who storm and cry about "baby-killing" find it acceptable to purposefully torture innocent adults (and you better believe they're not all terrorists), as long as it helps glean some information from the guilty, some of the time.

Naptaq -------------------
You're well aware that most Senators voted for the Iraq war. Hillary voted yes.
A president cannot do anything he wants.

How can you be so smug when you don’t understand what you’re talking about? Duh yeah, I'm aware the war enjoyed wide support in the legislature, and was even accepted, at first, by overly-trusting Americans like myself; why are you so convinced that you know so much more about these subjects than American citizens?? Seriously, it makes you look really silly, especially when, right after you condescend to explain our own government to us, you get shown up.

...Like right now, for instance. I was not referring to the Iraq war when I talked about the president declaring himself above the law. I in fact had in mind something I read about only recently: his unprecedentedly extensive use of signing statements, which are basically little comments the President makes about selected laws he signs, saying that he will comply with those laws insofar as is constitutional, by his interpretation. Essentially, this means that if he doesn't believe the law or a part of a law is constitutional, he does not have to follow that law. You might find this confusing, but declaring laws unconstitutional is NOT the job of the president; it is the job of the courts. It's part of the system of checks and balances, to *check* the power of any one person or group, and to *balance* the three branches of government against one another.

Previous presidents have used signing statements, but Bush has reportedly issues more of them than all previous presidents combined. The president can’t do whatever he wants, can’t choose which laws to follow and when? Tell that to Bush.

Naptaq -------------------
He's the president, he calls the shots. At the end of the day he carries the responsibility of the decisions he makes.

So, “the president cannot do anything he wants,” but he can do anything he wants, and is responsible to no one but himself? You make a hell of an argument.

Naptaq ---------------------
No, I think O'Reilly gave up on Olbermann a long time ago, since it became apperent that Olbermann is a far left loon. He doesn't even bother with the man - he's a better man than I.

Olbermann is a loudmouth; O’Reilly is a loudmouth; you... are somethin' else.

Naptaq -----------------
I think Keith, Rosie o'donnell , Arianna Huffington and all of these far left people are all destructive to America.

Oh god, you’re not joking. I’d ask to hear your theory about how Rosie O’Donnell is ruining America, but I think my head might explode.

Naptaq ------------------
Again I'll point out that O'Reilly doesn't have anything against liberals. He has them on his show every week.

Wow, you mean he actually communicates face to face with liberals, instead of shooting ’em from helicopters?! Well, now I know he must be unbiased.

Naptaq -------------------
I want to point out to you a credible study on media, Fox News had 40% negative stories on Obama and 40% negative on McCain while the others are more or less in the tank for Obama.

I just read an article lately that beautifully articulated the way I feel about this. How can you do balanced coverage on two sides of an issue when the two sides are not balanced against each other? If McCain is really floundering around and Obama is really keeping cool, calm, and ahead, it makes no sense to give both campaigns equal coverage. If the roles were reversed, and Obama were the one who’d stooped to insinuating that his opponent was a communist, while standing arm-in-arm with a dim bulb running mate, McCain would be getting the positive coverage, and Obama would be getting the shaft. If things were the other way around, that’s the way *I* would want it, too.

Again I am telling you that when the race first started, I thought McCain was a decent fellow. His own words and actions have turned me solidly against him. He dug himself into this hole, and now he’s reaping the rewards.

Naptaq ------------------
Suit yoursef. I know I'd be very amused, not by O'Reilly's video clips itself, but by your commentary on them.

You’d be “amused,” huh? (I keep getting this creeping feeling that you’re lifting words and phrases from my posts.) So, you’re admitting right there that you would never accept *anything* as evidence of a bias on O’Reilly’s part, no matter what. First of all, that makes your claim unfalsifiable, which means that you’ve set up your standards of evidence such that you could not be proven wrong under any circumstances, even if you are wrong. And second, That’s EXACTLY why I’ll never do it! Why would I go to the trouble of digging up evidence just so that you can stuff your fingers in your ears and go “la la la, not listening?”

Naptaq --------------------
O'Reilly isn't a partisan commentator and

Hold it right there. So, because he doesn’t call himself a Republican, that makes him unbiased? Even though he says he’s a “traditionalist” conservative who happens to agree with the vast majority Republican platform issues?

If you believe that, here’s something that’ll blow your mind: I am not a Democrat.

Naptaq -------------------
There's more to O'Reilly's popularity than this.

Saying it does not make it so.

Wikipedia links to an interesting, if completely unsurprising, piece of research. Apparently 64% of O’Reilly viewers consider themselves conservatives. A mere 23% say they’re moderates. Only 10% are liberals. That means there’s a 54 point difference between the percentage of conservatives and the percentage of liberals who watch O’Reilly. Well, jeepers! That’s a very interesting distribution for a “centrist” television show, wouldn’t you say?

Compare those percentages to the viewership of Fox News overall: 49% Conservative, 14% liberal—a 35 point difference. With regard to evil liberal news orgs CNN and MSNBC... CNN boasts a 31% conservative, to 28% liberal viewership (yup, more conservatives than liberals); for MSNBC, 24% conservative to 34% liberal—a 10 point difference.

Let’s compare that in a clearer format:
MSNBC ---- 10 pt difference, more liberals
CNN ---- 3 pt difference, more conservatives
Fox News ----35 pt difference, more conservatives
the O’Reilly Factor ---- 54 pt difference, more conservatives

How about that, huh? I'd like to see you respond to that data. And don't you dare try to ignore it by ranting about Olbermann. You're the one who made the claim that O'Reilly and Fox News are centrists while the rest of the media is far far left; defend your assertion, or concede the point.

Naptaq ------------------
On the grounds of Suspicion of terrorism.

Not quite. They don’t need a warrant; they don’t need a court order. That means they don’t have to have ANY official reason at all. My understanding is that by law, they can wiretap anyone they want to in the US, anytime they want, for whatever reason they feel like—they don’t have to justify the wiretapping to the courts or the public.

Naptaq ------------------
This poem is not the reality of the USA.

Missed the point yet again. It’s a reality of LIFE that if you’re willing to allow the rights of people you don’t care about to be trampled, you invite the trampling of your own rights.

Think of it this way. If you’re friends with a guy who bullies people he thinks are weird, you ought to stand up for the “weird” kids not just for their sake, but in order to prevent the bully for one day turning and bullying you for doing something he thinks is weird. [That’s an analogy.]

Naptaq ---------------------
The point of the normal phone convo was that government doen't waste much time on it. If they wanted to tap every phone call, they would need 10% of chinese population.

?? I never said or implied that they tapped every phone call. I said that it has been alleged by an employee that they HAVE tapped very private phone calls. I wouldn’t sleep any better with a serial killer on the loose knowing that he won’t kill *everyone.* The idea that not every single person will be affected is a very poor argument.

Naptaq ----------------
It does not do that.

Sorry, yes it does. The law was enacted to make it easier for the government to spy on anyone it considers suspicious. Its stated purpose is to stop terrorists; its effect is to enable the government to spy on anyone, period. Don't confuse the two.

Naptaq -------------------
I don't see people complaining about CCTV cameras, because there's a lot of those cameras springing up. Would that be a violation of your rights as well? And what's already happening is that anything stupid that a person does, unaware that there is even a camera, and gets put on YouTube.

Again you demonstrate that you just don’t understand what you’re talking about. For one thing, CCTV cameras aren’t used as much in the US as in Europe, to my knowledge. And I can’t speak for Europe, but in the US, people have what is called a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their own home, in public bathroom stalls, in hotel rooms and changing rooms, etc. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, which includes the street corners where CCTV cameras are typically installed by the government, as well as most areas of a public businesses or schools. If someone puts a video of someone making a fool of themself on CCTV on YouTube, that person is an asshole, not a criminal.

Naptaq ---------------------
One could make a case that a restarunat is ripe for "dispicable acts", [bar bar bar]

?? That analogy makes zero sense. Let me fix it for you...

A restaurant considers spitting in food to be a harsh but effective means of dealing with asshole customers. The restaurant (the government) has a rule that says servers may not spit in a patron’s food unless the patron is suspected of being an asshole to the waiters and the evidence has been presented to a manager (the court), who then makes the decision on whether or not the server can spit in the patron’s food. But one day, a new owner (the president) takes over, who says that the servers can spit in anyone’s food, without consulting a manager, as long as the server has any cause to believe that the customer is an asshole.

What do you think will be the outcome of this scenario? Would you or would you not blame the new owner’s policy-making, if it soon became clear that the servers were spitting in the food of people who were definitely in no danger of acting like assholes?

Naptaq -------------------
So what? It still doesn't change the fact that it's out to protect you.

What do you mean, “so what??” I’m a freaking American citizen; this is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people, with a bunch of guaranteed rights. “So what” indeed. Why is it that the same people who favor limitless wiretapping are the same ones who tend to oppose all forms of gun control? I guess that is a right that they care about.

Naptaq --------------------
You have your rights. [blah blah blah]

I have a lot of rights, and I prefer to keep them. Now, could you actually respond to what I wrote? Or is that too much to ask? Here it is again with minor modifications. Agree or disagree:

IF, according to you, we should be prepared to forfeit certain rights during wartime,
AND we are at war somewhere in the world nearly all of the time,
THEN, according to you, we should be prepared to forfeit certain rights all of the time.

Naptaq -----------------------
It's fortunately. We don't want everyone thinking the same, do we? That's fascism. After all, I could be mistaken, and you're right - about everything.

You’ve linked “fascism” to a Wikipedia entry on what appears to be a piece of hysterical far right propaganda. Did you really think that was gonna fly? If you seriously believe that what Americans call liberalism is just an underdeveloped stage of fascism, you’re nuts, plain and simple.

And no, it’s not fortunate that many Americans cannot think rationally or form a coherent argument. This is ENCOURAGING people to learn how to reason, how to evaluate evidence and form their own opinions, and how to communicate their beliefs effectively and intelligently. It is not about forcing people to think ALIKE. Being well-educated in rational thinking does NOT make “everyone think the same,” in any way, shape, or form. It just makes discussion and compromise possible. This discussion is a case in point. Rather than directly responding to my points after thoughtfully considering what's been said, you just throw out a talking point that might be vaguely related. It’s impossible to get anywhere with you when you either cannot or will not make any attempt to understand the words I type.

It is FAR more important and definitely not “fascist” to teach people tools for thinking about things, rather than teaching them what to think.

[Naptaq]

Nov 2, 2008 20:35:09 GMT -5 Farouche said:

Since I've already told you what I think of Bush AND why, it is your turn to state exactly what fallacies you are so concerned about liberals swallowing with regard to Bush, and tell why they are fallacies or lies.

For example a statment "Bush is an idiot" that is popular among Bush haters

No idiot could get elected to lead one of the greatest countries in the world. An idiot wouldn't even pass the first debate in the primaries.

There's a certian level of sophistication and education that's required. Bush went to Yale University and Harvard Business School and Forrest Gump, a character that I love, would not be able to pass these schools.

There's also a thing called Bush Derangement Syndrome. Which is, I quote: "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush"

That desribes the far-left commentators very well. Anything he does will be criticized, even though most rational people see that Bush is doing what he thinks is best for the country, even though they may disagree with his policies.

I'm not impressed with BDS

Here's a hint: "I disapprove of what you say, but I would fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

Okay. Maybe not to death, eh? But I get your point.

However to defend KKK's rights or Phelps' family's rights to protest at military funerals is defending bad behaviour. It's so obvious.

The US constitution does not give special rights to those who disturb the peace.

The ACLU cherry picks it's cases and picks NAMBLA, of all cases.

It's against porn filters on free to all-library computers. That would be a rational protection.

In the same breath they adhore religion for some reason. So it does not suprise me that one of their major money contributions nowdays comes from our little friend, George Soros.

Talk about distorting the 1st ammendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

They're no doubt a far-left organization.

In the United States, we believe people are innocent until proven guilty, and that if you're accused of being a criminal, you deserve to have someone stand up for your rights and your potential innocence.

That's the case in Europe as well. War-criminals like Milosevic could have been defended by a lawyer if he wanted to.

Of course, if you're a far righty this doesn't apply; what matters is that, by the grace of God, you really really feel in your gut that the accused is probably maybe guilty.

If he's shooting at US or NATO forces in Iraq, he's quilty.

O.J. Simpsons killed his wife but he's innocent, on that crime, until proven guilty.

It’s about asking, do the potential gains of torture outweigh the fact that in order to make those gains, we have to cause intensely traumatic physical and/or psychological pain to a person who in many cases will have no pertinent information at all?

Be glad because both candidates are against torture.

I was not referring to the Iraq war when I talked about the president declaring himself above the law.

Okay.

I in fact had in mind something I read about only recently: his unprecedentedly extensive use of signing statements, which are basically little comments the President makes about selected laws he signs, saying that he will comply with those laws insofar as is constitutional, by his interpretation.

And the BDS ridden Boston Globe objects. I'm not suprised.

If TIME magazine did a story on this I would read it with less salt.

Essentially, this means that if he doesn't believe the law or a part of a law is constitutional, he does not have to follow that law. You might find this confusing, but declaring laws unconstitutional is NOT the job of the president;

Oh really? Don't argue with reality. He can, as you showed me, do this. I don't care what your opinion is on the matter, I care about facts.

A US president gives an oath to uphold the constitution. And that's a pretty big thing.

Previous presidents have used signing statements, but Bush has reportedly issues more of them than all previous presidents combined.

So? That's not an issue.

So, “the president cannot do anything he wants,” but he can do anything he wants, and is responsible to no one but himself? You make a hell of an argument.

He calls the shots, yes. He has to work with Congress to get things passed, or not. Therefore, he cannot do anything he wants.

If McCain is really floundering around and Obama is really keeping cool, calm, and ahead, it makes no sense to give both campaigns equal coverage.

Yes it does. That's why Fox News is highest rated, you know, the whole 'fair and blanced' thing. People want to watch that kind of program, as the recent poll found out, with Fox News scoring 43% as people's favorite cable news channel and CNN coming second with 25%.

If the roles were reversed, and Obama were the one who’d stooped to insinuating that his opponent was a communist, while standing arm-in-arm with a dim bulb running mate, McCain would be getting the positive coverage, and Obama would be getting the shaft. If things were the other way around, that’s the way *I* would want it, too.

McCain didn't accuse Obama of communism, but of socialism.

Obama is the new one on the political scene so it would be natural that the media takes a hard look at his history and who this man really is. But they haven't really done that because they've been too busy rooting for him, or withholding any harsh criticizm and instead going after McCain and Palin.

The media has the Ayers story was up for grabs, for months and nobody paid the guy a visit to ask him questions, until Bill O'Reilly sent his crew to put a camera in Ayers' face.

It was a total media blackout, except Fox News, on a legit story on Obama, that most people, wanted to know about.


But who do they find worth going after? Joe The Plumber! Ridicolus.

So, you’re admitting right there that you would never accept *anything* as evidence of a bias on O’Reilly’s part, no matter what.

I didn't say that. But it would be interesting. The last person that tried that gave me Olbermann links. Which of course doesn't work, as Olbermann's nuts.

And second, That’s EXACTLY why I’ll never do it!

As you wish.

My claim is that Bill O'Reilly is fair. That's why I watch him.

Hold it right there. So, because he doesn’t call himself a Republican, that makes him unbiased?

No. You can see it in interviews when he's defending Obama. For example O'Reilly never threw the 'Barack Hussein Obama' bomb, or say that Obama's a Muslim, or suggest that he has a forged birth cirtificate like some far-right commentators have done, because these things don't help anyone. They're cheap shots lies, alright.

I have reason to suspect he's trying to be fair

Even though he says he’s a “traditionalist” conservative who happens to agree with the vast majority Republican platform issues?

He takes no sides. He's a traditionalist who has liberal views as well as conservative views. Probably more conservative ones.

If you believe that, here’s something that’ll blow your mind: I am not a Democrat.

You voted straight Democrat in 2006 and will do so this year also. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That means there’s a 54 point difference between the percentage of conservatives and the percentage of liberals who watch O’Reilly. Well, jeepers! That’s a very interesting distribution for a “centrist” television show, wouldn’t you say?

It's 2006 data. There's probably more liberal viewers now, especially from some of the Hillary supporters. But that may only be a speculation on my part.

MSNBC ---- 10 pt difference, more liberals
CNN ---- 3 pt difference, more conservatives
Fox News ----35 pt difference, more conservatives
the O’Reilly Factor ---- 54 pt difference, more conservatives

I'll point out that O'Reilly's ratings are usually twice as high than Keith Olbermann's ratings. There's a lot of liberal viewers on Fox News too.

I'll take the most recent example, fromOctober 30th, 2008 ratings:

The O’Reilly Factor—4,706,000 viewers
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann- 2,811,000 viewers

So according to the precenteges you showed me, O'Reilly gets 10% of liberals. That's 470,600 liberal viewers that evening. Keith probably had more than 50%, or over 1,000,000 viewers per night that are liberals. But, according to MSNCB precentege on liberals (34%), since I don't have any other stats to run with, Countdown had 955,740 liberal viewers. Keith wins that.

1,082,380 moderate viewers watching O'Reilly. If the MSNCB's precentege points for moderates (37%) is the same for Countdown, then Keith has a few thousand less in that category: 1,040,070.

Combined The Factor had 1,552,980 viewers that are not conservative. If the MSNBC's precentege points you gave me were true for his show (1,040,070 moderates + 955,740 liberals = 1995810 viewers that are not conservative) which is 31% more of these viewers than O'Reilly had.



By the data you showed me, Fox News has, in quantity, a similar number of liberals that the other 2, CNN and MSNBC, have. I'll do the math:

Daytime ratings:
FNC – 1,638,000 viewers
CNN – 991,000 viewers
MSNBC – 939,000 viewers

Liberal: FNC 229,320; CNN 277,480; MSNBC 319,260
Moderate: FNC 507,780; CNN 346,850; MSNBC 347,430
Conservative: FNC 802,620; CNN 307,210; MSNBC 131,460

In the combined liberal and moderate category Fox beats both cable networks. There's less liberal viewers on Fox, but not by much.

I hope you are satisfied.

You're the one who made the claim that O'Reilly and Fox News are centrists while the rest of the media is far far left; defend your assertion, or concede the point.

Fox News gets most of the conservative viewers, because, as I pointed out before, other news outlets seem to be more or less in the tank for Obama and are leaning left. So conservatives comes to Fox News who dares to lean slightly to the right, and have debates and both points of view on their shows.

Missed the point yet again. It’s a reality of LIFE that if you’re willing to allow the rights of people you don’t care about to be trampled, you invite the trampling of your own rights.

Protesting at military families funarals ain't no slippery slope. They're wrong.

And it's not going in that direction.

I said that it has been alleged by an employee that they HAVE tapped very private phone calls.

That's the failure of the employee, not the law. I hope he was fired.

Its stated purpose is to stop terrorists; its effect is to enable the government to spy on anyone, period. Don't confuse the two.

The effect is in the head.

Why would somebody be so paranoid about it, if they're not guilty... I don't get it.

By the way, some websites already know more about you then you'd like.

Again you demonstrate that you just don’t understand what you’re talking about.

Sure, if I don't share your views I "don't know what I'm talking about".

CCTV can convict a person, much the same way as wiretapping can get a person arrested for planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

That analogy makes zero sense. Let me fix it for you [...] What do you think will be the outcome of this scenario?

Your restaurant analogy is fallcious, as it presumes that the Patriot Act's purpose is to wiretap anyone, with the intetion to infringe your rights, regardless of the context. No, it's purpose is to prevent further attacks on American soil therby preventing Americans from getting killed.

Nobody is 'spitting in your food', because you're not affected, since you're innocent.

In as far as I know anyway jk

With my restaurant example I was marely pointing out that one can be paranoid about virtually anything that has to do with people, because for example, anybody could kill me, or our dog.

It's a scary world, really. ;D jk

Lighten up. Nobody's out to get you.

Why is it that the same people who favor limitless wiretapping are the same ones who tend to oppose all forms of gun control?

Because that's the way it is.

IF, according to you, we should be prepared to forfeit certain rights during wartime,
AND we are at war somewhere in the world nearly all of the time,
THEN, according to you, we should be prepared to forfeit certain rights all of the time.

That's a really loaded question, because it presumes your rights are being violated, so it cannot be anwsered.

You’ve linked “fascism” to a Wikipedia entry on what appears to be a piece of hysterical far right propaganda. Did you really think that was gonna fly?

Yes.

If you seriously believe that what Americans call liberalism is just an underdeveloped stage of fascism, you’re nuts, plain and simple.

It's the intolarence of people leaning right, pro-lifers and all that.. that can be dangerous.

As a whole liberals are good people, but this intolerance is giving liberals a bad reputation, in my opinion.

Don't be hatin' on rednecks now.

And no, it’s not fortunate that many Americans cannot think rationally or form a coherent argument.

Traditional American values have worked very well for America in the past.

The way you appear right now, is that anybody who listenes to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is a 'dittohead', that "refuse to think for themselves, and couldn't be trusted to form a rational argument if their lives depended on it". These are your own words.

You seem to view millions of your fellow Americans, as stupid - as far as politics goes.

Let's put it in a different context: If Obama or his wife, said some of the things you say, it would be a very bad blow to their presidential campaign. Worse than "clinging to guns and religion".

This is ENCOURAGING people to learn how to reason,

To reason that pro-choise is right for everybody.. I know.

A little sarcasm there.

how to evaluate evidence and form their own opinions, and how to communicate their beliefs effectively and intelligently. It is not about forcing people to think ALIKE. Being well-educated in rational thinking does NOT make “everyone think the same,” in any way, shape, or form. It just makes discussion and compromise possible. This discussion is a case in point. Rather than directly responding to my points after thoughtfully considering what's been said, you just throw out a talking point that might be vaguely related.

That's all good. Education gives power to the people.

It’s impossible to get anywhere with you when you either cannot or will not make any attempt to understand the words I type.

You don't get it. I know what you're saying, but I have a different view of it.

Maybe you'd like me to agree with you, or in your own words - understand.

It is FAR more important and definitely not “fascist” to teach people tools for thinking about things, rather than teaching them what to think.

Religious upbringing is teaching them what to think. Such an upbringing, is benificial, in most cases.

Unless, you're brought up by in a Catholic school, by nuns, like O'Reilly. That tends to screw a person up. ;D jk

[Farouche]

Naptaq -------------------
For example a statment "Bush is an idiot" that is popular among Bush haters

Fail. You have no response to the criticisms against George Bush except, “nuh-uh?" Then you fail.

You may try again to address the reasons I gave, instead of making up your own reasons and then refuting them.

Naptaq --------------------
There's also a thing called Bush Derangement Syndrome. Which is, I quote: "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush"

Fail. It's nothing more than a meaningless pop psychology term coined by a Republican commentator. When it gets in the DSM (and it won't, LMAO), we’ll discuss it.

Look, I can coin fake psychology terms right now! I’m going to define Naptaq Syndrome as “the inability to respond to any argument rationally, due to a malfunction in the temporal lobe. May be expressed as hysterical accusations of liberal brainwashing and latent fascism.”

Naptaq --------------------
Anything he does will be criticized, even though most rational people see that Bush is doing what he thinks is best for the country

Fail. Presidents are judged by whether the people believe he is doing what’s best for the country, not on how impressed the president is with himself for doing what he thinks is best.

Have I mentioned that his nationwide approval rating is about 22%? That means MOST people, and I’m gonna go ahead and say most RATIONAL people disagree with you.

Naptaq ------------------
Okay. Maybe not to death, eh? But I get your point.

However to defend KKK's rights or Phelps' family's rights to protest at military funerals is defending bad behaviour. It's so obvious.

Fail. Apparently you did not get the point. Here it is again. Go meditate on it:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I would fight to the death to defend your right to say it.”

I do not believe it's right to protest at funerals. I'm of a mind that it's harrassment. But I definitely support these people's right to be defended.

Naptaq ------------------
The US constitution does not give special rights to those who disturb the peace.

Fail. The Constitution guarantees generic free speech. The interpretation thereof is subjective and left to the courts and the American people.

Naptaq ------------------
our little friend, George Soros.

You’re obsessed with that guy. No one cares.

Naptaq --------------------
Talk about distorting the 1st ammendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Major fail. That amendment is the basis for the idea of “separation of church and state,” which means that the government must not show PREFERENCE for one religion over another. The "free exercise" of religion means you can do whatever you want privately, but you can't force your beliefs into government-funded institutions like public schools. Most public schools now attempt to devote equal time to all major religions, and will either have a generic holiday celebration, or nothing at all. I don't think that's an outrage.

Naptaq ---------------------
That's the case in Europe as well.

I know. I was being sarcastic. The point is that you have no excuse for being so flippant about the rights of the accused.

Naptaq --------------------
If he's shooting at US or NATO forces in Iraq, he's quilty.

Fail. You have no idea under what circumstances those prisoners are being held and/or tortured.

Naptaq --------------------
Be glad because both candidates are against torture.

George Bush isn’t.

Naptaq ---------------------
And the BDS ridden Boston Globe objects. I'm not suprised.

If TIME magazine did a story on this I would read it with less salt.

Fail. The use of signing statements is FACT. Either argue with the *interpretation* of those facts, or give up and concede the point. Do you deny that Bush has used more signing statements that all previous presidents combined? Explain exactly what signing statements say and what they mean, in your own words.

More importantly, however, I linked the story to support my contention that my dislike of George Bush is REASONABLE, whereas you insisted that it was UNreasonable to criticize him. I explained to you why I believe what I do, and I presented an article that espouses that viewpoint—the first I found on Google. So again, you miss the point entirely.

Naptaq ------------------
Oh really? Don't argue with reality. He can, as you showed me, do this. I don't care what your opinion is on the matter, I care about facts.

A US president gives an oath to uphold the constitution. And that's a pretty big thing.

EPIC fail. What the hell are you talking about?? Reality? I don't believe you know the meaning of the word!

In the magical land of reality the president could pretty much write a whole book about how he interprets the Constitution to mean he's the acting king of America. He CAN do plenty. He CAN veto every law congress tries to pass, and they have to muster a full 2/3 majority to override it. Our president HAS expanded the powers of the presidency beyond its historical boundaries. Those are the facts, bud. All you can do is argue whether that is a good thing.

Naptaq -----------------
He calls the shots, yes. He has to work with Congress to get things passed, or not. Therefore, he cannot do anything he wants.

If a law passed by Congress is not upheld by the president, that law is meaningless. Get it? It seems as though you're saying that the president can and should be able to do pretty much anything but call himself Mr. Congress and put his policies directly on the books.

Naptaq ------------------
Yes it does.

Nope. Fail. If one candidate is doing 70% positive things and 30% negative things, he ought to get 70% positive coverage, 30% negative. If one is doing 30% positive things and 70% negative, his coverage should reflect that. There's no reason to iron things out so each gets fifty percent positive and negative coverage. That's not "fair" to the person who's doing more positive things.

Naptaq -------------------
That's why Fox News is highest rated, you know, the whole 'fair and blanced' thing.

Huge fail. Are you the kind of person who believes every advertisement catchphrase you read?? “Well it must be the best toilet paper on the market, because it says ‘Best Toilet Paper EVER' right on the package!” lol!

I repeat: upwards of 40% of Americans are so conservative that they do not believe evolution is real. It is not in the least surprising that O’Reilly is the king of pundits and Rush Limbaugh is the king of talk radio, and you’d have to be pretty thick to believe either of them are “fair and balanced” no matter what their marketing departments might say.

I was just watching Colbert, and he mocked the "fair and balanced" thing very effectively with his sarcasm: when people want to know the answer to a question, "you don't have to tell them the truth! Keep it fair and balanced!" You shouldn't tell people who's likely to win, he argued facetiously; that might influence somebody's perception of who's likely to win, lol.

Naptaq --------------------
McCain didn't accuse Obama of communism, but of socialism.

It was more communism that Palin described in her ridiculous speech about how under Obama everyone’s money and property would be communally owned. McCain and company aren’t even sure what they’re trying to say anymore--commie, socialist, terrorist--as long as it might hurt Obama’s chances.

Naptaq -------------------
Obama is the new one on the political scene so it would be natural that the media takes a hard look at his history and who this man really is.

Fail. That’s a silly Republican talking point that makes even less sense than it would otherwise when the same person who whines about how the media ought to investigate Obama ‘cause he’s a newcomer also makes the argument that the media should NOT investigate Palin BECAUSE she’s a newcomer! Obama has been very much vetted by the media, and by his own fellow party member Hillary Clinton when he ran against her.

Naptaq --------------------
But they haven't really done that because they've been too busy rooting for him, or withholding any harsh criticizm and instead going after McCain and Palin.

False, and you fail again. The media has investigated all the claims the Republicans made against Obama, but for those with an agenda, that is never enough; if the media doesn’t find anything, it’s not because he’s innocent; it’s obviously because he’s hiding something. Classic. “You didn’t ‘pal around with terrorists?’ That’s exactly what someone who DID pal around with terrorists would say!!”

Naptaq ------------------
The media has the Ayers story was up for grabs, for months and nobody paid the guy a visit to ask him questions, until Bill O'Reilly sent his crew to put a camera in Ayers' face.

Wow, so you’re admitting that O’Reilly started this whole Ayers thing?? So you’re admitting that O’Reilly dug up a tenuous association with a non-homicidal domestic terrorist who Obama was not close with, in order to purposefully smear Obama. I’m both surprised and pleased by this rare display of honesty. You get one point.

Naptaq ------------------
It was a total media blackout, except Fox News, on a legit story on Obama, that most people

FAIL. You don’t live in the US. All you do is watch Fox and speculate. You have no clue what “most people” believe.

I can tell you, “most people” don’t give a crap about this Ayers BS. That includes “most” educated Republicans who vote on the issues.

Naptaq --------------------
But who do they find worth going after? Joe The Plumber! Ridicolus.

Not ridiculous. McCain cynically used poor dumb Joe the Plumber as a symbol for those who Obama was hurting. It turns out that he would in fact benefit from Obama’s tax plans, and is in general not the symbol of Americana that McCain was trying to use him as. I agree it was an asshole thing for McCain to do, shoving him in the spotlight like that, but Joe has been happy to join the campaign and talk to the media, so it looks like it turned out ok for him.

Naptaq --------------------
I didn't say that. But it would be interesting. The last person that tried that gave me Olbermann links. Which of course doesn't work, as Olbermann's nuts.

Ok, first of all, if you’re having debates on YouTube, stop it. I’m pretty sure there has never been an intelligent conversation on YouTube in its entire history. If there has been, it belongs in a museum.

Second of all, if you’re going to ask people to watch O’Reilly clips, it is only fair of you to watch their Olbermann clips. Pretty much any liberal you asks believes O’Reilly is the one who’s insane, so the least you can do is watch their guy who YOU say is “nuts.”

Third, did it occur to you that they sent you those clips because Olbermann was TALKING about and airing objectionable O’Reilly clips? You could have just fast-forwarded to those parts if it hurts too much to hear someone spouting rhetoric that conflicts with the rhetoric you’re used to.

Naptaq ------------------------
My claim is that Bill O'Reilly is fair. That's why I watch him.

Fail. Watching Bill O’Reilly is automatically a fail, but it’s a double fail because you keep using your personal standard of what you like to hear as the definition of “fair.” You think it’s “fair” to emotionally decry pro-choicers as “baby killers,” so I’m afraid you don’t have much pull when it comes to defining “fair.”

Naptaq ----------------------
No. You can see it in interviews when he's defending Obama. For example O'Reilly never threw the 'Barack Hussein Obama' bomb, or say that Obama's a Muslim, or suggest that he has a forged birth cirtificate like some far-right commentators have done, because these things don't help anyone. They're cheap shots lies, alright.

I have reason to suspect he's trying to be fair

You admitted he dug up the Ayers smear himself. Just because O’Reilly doesn’t defend the really crazy theories, like the birth certificate claims, doesn’t mean he’s not “in the tank” (I hate that stupid catchphrase) for the Republicans.

Naptaq ------------------
He takes no sides. He's a traditionalist who

Wait, stop right there—you just broke my irony meter.

Naptaq -------------------
Probably more conservative ones.

Geeze, NO KIDDING?!

Naptaq ------------------
You voted straight Democrat in 2006 and will do so this year also. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ok, the last presidential election was in 2004. But yes, I almost always vote Democrat. I lean very liberal; it’s generally a no-brainer.

So, what have we learned today? That people who don’t belong to a party can still support one party’s candidates over another. Here’s the test: Hey, Naptaq, who do you think O’Reilly votes for?

Naptaq ----------------------
It's 2006 data.

I’m... speechless. Your personal feelings about how many liberals SHOULD be watching O’Reilly according to your psychic projections is does not compare to an actual viewership survey. Insane.

Naptaq -------------------
I'll point out that O'Reilly's ratings are usually twice as high than Keith Olbermann's ratings.

I’ve never seen anyone so smug about their favorite pundit’s ratings! Argument ad populum is a particularly silly fallacy. “So many people commit felonies; how can millions of people be wrong??”

Naptaq ----------------
There's a lot of liberal viewers on Fox News too.
[

Naptaq proceeds to reminisce about percentages]
I hope you are satisfied.

FAIL. If this were a test about what the word “percentage” entails in terms of hard math, you’d get a gold star. But it’s not, sorry. Think of it this way: say that a country called Lalonia exists with a population 10 times larger than that of the US. If 10% of Lalonians are liberals, and 90% are conservatives, Lalonia has as many liberals as the US has people. But the US has about 50% liberals. Does that mean that Lalonia is more liberal than the US, because they have a higher total number of liberals? Obviously, the answer is NO. That’s why we use percentages to compare the two. Fox News is a bigger brand than MSNBC or CNN, so we have to look at percentages in order to make meaningful comparisons between them.

Now, let’s try something simpler. Again and again you’ve claimed that O’Reilly’s popularity is attributable to his broad appeal across the political spectrum. The percentages prove you wrong; your own math proves you wrong. If the number of liberal viewers is comparable between O’Reilly and MSNBC/Olbermann, what does that mean? It means O’Reilly’s ratings advantage is made up of conservatives. Concede the point.

Naptaq --------------------
Fox News gets most of the conservative viewers, because, as I pointed out before, other news outlets seem to be more or less in the tank for Obama and are leaning left.

Fail. No matter how many times you whine about the liberal media fawning over Obama and being oh so unfairly mean to Palin, and no matter how many times Fox tells you you’re special because you buy the brand they’re trying to sell you, it doesn’t make it true.

Naptaq -------------------------
Fox News who dares to lean slightly to the right

AH HAH! Fox News leans to the right. You admit it’s not fair and balanced: it leans right. We agree that Fox is a right wing news channel; now the argument is only one of degree. You say “slightly;” I say, “enough.”

Naptaq ---------------------
Protesting at military families funarals ain't no slippery slope. They're wrong.

And it's not going in that direction.

Fail. You are apparently not capable of grasping the point, so I’m going to have to refer you to a specialist. In the meantime I order you to take two weekly doses of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow to supplement your steady diet of Bill O’Reilly.

Naptaq -------------------
That's the failure of the employee, not the law. I hope he was fired.

Fail. The law was responsible for allowing these employEES, plural, to do what they did. There are no legal limits on what the government can and cannot listen to. It is perfectly legal, just not ethical, to listen to people having phone sex for entertainment purposes, and since it wasn’t illegal, and the wiretaps did seem to be authorized (for non-entertainment purposes), and because the government takes care of its own, these people will likely get nothing more than a slap on the wrist, IF the allegations can be proven.

I love how you don’t even care that phone tapping led to this. Someone had their privacy and rights violated? Shrug. These things happen.

Naptaq -------------------
The effect is in the head.

That sentence makes no sense in context. Fail.

Naptaq ------------------
Why would somebody be so paranoid about it, if they're not guilty... I don't get it.

I already explained it to you once; I’m not doing it again. FAIL.

Naptaq ------------------
By the way, some websites already know more about you then you'd like.

How is that an argument? “Even if the government does tap private phone lines of innocent citizens and record phone sex, some websites keep track of your Google searches, so it’s equivalent and nothing matters!!” Ridiculous. Fail.

Naptaq -------------------
Sure, if I don't share your views I "don't know what I'm talking about".

It’s not about sharing my views. It’s about having the rational ability to actually think about what is being said, and respond in kind. There are plenty of conservatives who do have this ability; you just don’t seem to be one of them. I should clarify that I don’t think you know nothing; I just think your understanding is incredibly superficial, and that you’ve mostly been repeating what Fox’s pundits say, instead of evaluating the facts for yourself. If you had, I think you’d be able to explain your point of view without having to resort to demonizing your opponents as fascists.

Naptaq ----------------
CCTV can convict a person, much the same way as wiretapping can get a person arrested for planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

FAIL. They are not equivalent, and you fail to consider the difference between video taping a public space and tapping a private phone line.

Naptaq -------------------
Your restaurant analogy is fallcious, as it presumes that the Patriot Act's purpose is to wiretap anyone,

Nooooo it doesn't. Fail. The analogy presumes the Patriot Act’s stated purpose it to go after anyone the servers (the NSA) are suspicious might be an “asshole” (terrorist). They’re still supposed to only target the assholes, but they’re not accountable to manager (the courts) or to anyone except themselves. That makes it a situation ripe for abuse or even in-good-faith stretching of the truth.

Naptaq -------------------
No, it's purpose is to prevent further attacks on American soil therby preventing Americans from getting killed.

Fail. Why, why why why do you keep acting like you have some kind of special knowledge on this issue?? We know what the stated purpose is. What Americans are concerned about is what the OUTCOME is.

Let’s use this website as an example. It was ordained with a simple stated purpose: to discuss the issues that face shy people. And we do talk about shy issues, but since there are no hard laws/rules that say we can ONLY talk about being shy, we end up doing things that are outside of that stated purpose, like debating politics or discussing movies. Do you understand?

“This site is for discussing shy issues” is a soft rule, just as “this secret agency is for listening in on potential terrorists” is a soft rule. An example of a hard rule would be, “You may ONLY talk about shy issues, and all topics must be approved by a moderator before posting,” or “this secret agency is ONLY for listening in on potential terrorists, and all wire tapping must be approved by a judge.”

Naptaq -------------------
Nobody is 'spitting in your food', because you're not affected, since you're innocent.

When those people’s intimate conversations were passed around, they were not under ANY suspicions of terrorism. They were ordinary American citizens making calls to and from the United States, mainly between soldiers and press agents in Iraq, according to the article. That means that anyone who has loved ones in Iraq may be affected. And I care about that, even if it doesn’t involve me—I assume, at least, since I do make regular calls to outside the US, and I can’t really know.

Naptaq -------------------
With my restaurant example I was marely pointing out that one can be paranoid about virtually anything that has to do with people, because for example, anybody could kill me, or our dog.

Logical fallacy. That argument boils down to, “bad things happen all the time, so it doesn’t matter if the government does bad things that could easily be prevented.” Or, “Everybody dies sometime, so it doesn’t matter if someone goes around killing people.”

Naptaq --------------------
Lighten up. Nobody's out to get you.

Fail. If you don’t defend your liberties, you will eventually lose them.

Naptaq -------------------------
Because that's the way it is.

Classic. But telling.

Naptaq ---------------------
That's a really loaded question, because it presumes your rights are being violated, so it cannot be anwsered.

*Mind is boggled* FAIL! These are your words: “It's like all the complaining about America's rights being violated because of the Patriot act, but they don't mention the context, which is that America is at war.”

You did not argue that no rights were being violated. You argued that being “at war” makes those violations ok, whereas they would not be if the country were not at war.

Do you believe that the Patriot Act is appropriate only in times of war? If that is true, why do you believe it is not appropriate when we are not at war? And if we are always at war, does not that mean that you find the Patriot Act to be appropriate on a permanent basis?

Naptaq ----------------------
Yes.

No. Fail.

Naptaq -------------------
As a whole liberals are good people, but this intolerance is giving liberals a bad reputation, in my opinion.

List the ways in which you find liberalism is intolerant. I’m willing to bet they’re all bogus. It’s a classic far-right flip around to claim that liberals are the most intolerant because liberals don’t tolerate intolerance.

Naptaq -------------------
Traditional American values have worked very well for America in the past.

Tell that to any black person living in the US from 1776 to at least the 1970s. Tell that to any woman who wanted to do anything with her life other than getting married, popping out babies, and cleaning house up till the 70s.

Naptaq -------------------
The way you appear right now, is that anybody who listenes to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is a 'dittohead', that "refuse to think for themselves, and couldn't be trusted to form a rational argument if their lives depended on it". These are your own words.

Sigh. I said MOST of the people who think that way (unwilling to consider other arguments; think all non-right-wing news sources are wildly liberal) do so BECAUSE they are ditto-heads who can’t think for themselves or form a rational argument. But I’m willing to go ahead and say that most people who listen to Limbaugh are not very well-educated or rational, and I include my dear grandmother in that category (sorry, gramma!). Limbaugh is scary. Hannity is just a jerk.

Naptaq --------------------
You seem to view millions of your fellow Americans, as stupid - as far as politics goes.

Have I mentioned that over 40% of Americans don’t believe in evolution? I thought I mentioned that... So yeah, I feel comfortable asserting that millions of Americans are poorly educated and have great difficulty thinking rationally, and I’m talking about in general, not in politics.

Naptaq -------------------
Let's put it in a different context: If Obama or his wife, said some of the things you say, it would be a very bad blow to their presidential campaign. Worse than "clinging to guns and religion".

Lol! Uh, duh, that’s why they don’t say them. But I’m not running for president, so I don’t have to walk on eggshells. Lucky me. ;D

Naptaq ---------------------
To reason that pro-choise is right for everybody.. I know.

First of all, how are you still hammering away at this bizarre notion that liberals are the ones “forcing” their views on people by making abortion legal?? “Pro-choice” means that anyone who WANTS a choice GETS a choice. If your religion or your morals say that you should not have a choice, and that every fetus must be carried to term, then you effectively DON’T have a choice, just like you wanted. How is this hard?

Naptaq ----------------------
That's all good. Education gives power to the people.

Yes.

Naptaq ---------------------------
You don't get it. I know what you're saying, but I have a different view of it.

Fail. You know how I can tell you’re the one not getting it? Time and again I’ve had to explain to you two, three times, what I was talking about, because you keep arguing against something completely different than what I’ve said. I’ll say something like, “pillows are soft” and you’ll say, “No, pillows are white.” I’ll say, “That makes no sense. Some of them are white, but I’m talking about texture. Pillows tend to be soft,” and you’ll say, “They can’t be soft, because they’re white, and they’re used on beds.” And then I go bang my head against a wall.

Naptaq ---------------------
Maybe you'd like me to agree with you, or in your own words - understand.

Nope. I’d like you to actually read what I write and attempt to understand what I say and why I would believe that, even if only so you can argue that point. I’m not saying that you misunderstand *everything,* but it seems to happen a lot when things get complex or abstract.

Naptaq ---------------------
Religious upbringing is teaching them what to think.

Lol, EXACTLY! It teaches children, “this is the way things are, and even if it sounds weird or nonsensical, you can’t question this. It’s just how things are."

I don’t begrudge parents the right to teach their kids what they believe, but I think the world would be a much better place if more people thought it equally important to teach their kids to question and to evaluate information and viewpoints critically.

[Farouche]

PS. Everybody vote tomorrow, if you haven't already! ;D

PPS. I need to go get a job.

[Sweet Pea]

Nov 4, 2008 0:04:25 GMT -5 Farouche said:

PS. Everybody vote tomorrow, if you haven't already! ;D

except naptaq.

[MrNice]

quick points

'if you are innocent you have nothing to fear' is a fallacy
people with power will abuse that power
it always comes down to 'I don't like that guy, lets make him go away' situation

pro-choice stance is called pro choice for a reason - because its pro choice. its about giving people a choice. the pro life stance is about taking the choice away. Under pro choice, if you don't believe in abortion you don't do it. If you think its ok you do it. Pro-life limits the choice by forcing people to adhere to one point of view.

Fox News is much more then slightly right leaning

[Naptaq]

Nov 4, 2008 0:02:24 GMT -5 Farouche said:

Fail...

Yeah I fail because I'm the bad guy for watching The O'Reilly Factor and not for leaning left enough. Sure.

Only the Diety knows if my views on politics are 'Fail', 'Major fail' or 'Epic Fail'

If a law passed by Congress is not upheld by the president, that law is meaningless. Get it?

Wait, what laws has he violated?

Keep it fair and balanced!" You shouldn't tell people who's likely to win, he argued facetiously; that might influence somebody's perception of who's likely to win, lol.

Joking or not joking: He's right. The media does not only respesent people's views, but also majorly influences it.

It was more communism that Palin described in her ridiculous speech about how under Obama everyone’s money and property would be communally owned. McCain and company aren’t even sure what they’re trying to say anymore--commie, socialist, terrorist--as long as it might hurt Obama’s chances.

They're politicians! They all try to 'sell themselfs' and strech the truth. Obama does this with comparing McCain to Bush, and talking about 'failed policies' while disregarding Barney Frank's failed loan policies

Wow, so you’re admitting that O’Reilly started this whole Ayers thing??

Yeah he was one of the first to report on it.

I’m pretty sure there has never been an intelligent conversation on YouTube in its entire history. If there has been, it belongs in a museum.

There are very few and far in between.

Second of all, if you’re going to ask people to watch O’Reilly clips, it is only fair of you to watch their Olbermann clips. Pretty much any liberal you asks believes O’Reilly is the one who’s insane, so the least you can do is watch their guy who YOU say is “nuts.”

I watch a little from time to time, to see where he's at.

You could have just fast-forwarded to those parts if it hurts too much to hear someone spouting rhetoric that conflicts with the rhetoric you’re used to.

What is this, the fariness doctrine?

You admitted he dug up the Ayers smear himself. Just because O’Reilly doesn’t defend the really crazy theories, like the birth certificate claims, doesn’t mean he’s not “in the tank” (I hate that stupid catchphrase) for the Republicans.

The Ayers story was a legit story. What do you want him to do? Not report it?

Here’s the test: Hey, Naptaq, who do you think O’Reilly votes for?

I don't know. I know that O'Reilly has been accused, by his viewer, of being an 'Obama apologist'.

I’ve never seen anyone so smug about their favorite pundit’s ratings! Argument ad populum is a particularly silly fallacy.

haha.. well the point was to show that many liberals watch Tha Factor every night. But since his ratings are 200% higher than Olbermann's, that means that the others are conservative, yes.

You admit it’s not fair and balanced: it leans right.

Fox News Channel is Fair and Balanced, certified.

It’s about having the rational ability to actually think about what is being said, and respond in kind. There are plenty of conservatives who do have this ability; you just don’t seem to be one of them. I should clarify that I don’t think you know nothing; I just think your understanding is incredibly superficial, and that you’ve mostly been repeating what Fox’s pundits say, instead of evaluating the facts for yourself. If you had, I think you’d be able to explain your point of view without having to resort to demonizing your opponents as fascists.

Well "And nearly all of them are steadfastly ignorant, superstitious dittoheads" implied bigotry, that the book I linked, talked about.

Nearly all of them? How can you make a judgment about this large portion of your fellow citizens?

I guess the 'superstitous comment' was your view of their religion, Christianity.

And the dittoheads comment was probably directed at the right wing, middle America.. or just about anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh?

“bad things happen all the time, so it doesn’t matter if the government does bad things that could easily be prevented.” Or, “Everybody dies sometime, so it doesn’t matter if someone goes around killing people.”

I didn't imply that.

You did not argue that no rights were being violated. You argued that being “at war” makes those violations ok, whereas they would not be if the country were not at war.

It would be inapropriate in time of peace.

Do you believe that the Patriot Act is appropriate only in times of war? If that is true, why do you believe it is not appropriate when we are not at war? And if we are always at war, does not that mean that you find the Patriot Act to be appropriate on a permanent basis?

The number of people affected is minimal.


"The report says between the Sept. 11 attacks and May 5, Justice Department terrorism investigations led to charges against 310 people, of whom 179 were convicted or pleaded guilty. The Patriot Act, it says, was instrumental in many of these cases."

List the ways in which you find liberalism is intolerant. I’m willing to bet they’re all bogus. It’s a classic far-right flip around to claim that liberals are the most intolerant because liberals don’t tolerate intolerance.

I already did, with the ACLU, that you defend.

It's pointless to go round and round in circles.

Tell that to any black person living in the US from 1776 to at least the 1970s. Tell that to any woman who wanted to do anything with her life other than getting married, popping out babies, and cleaning house up till the 70s.

Traditional values of America now, not in the 18th century.

But I’m willing to go ahead and say that most people who listen to Limbaugh are not very well-educated or rational, and I include my dear grandmother in that category (sorry, gramma!). Limbaugh is scary. Hannity is just a jerk.

There you go again with throwing bombs.

Have I mentioned that over 40% of Americans don’t believe in evolution?

So what? That doesn't mean they're stupid or uneducated.

First of all, how are you still hammering away at this bizarre notion that liberals are the ones “forcing” their views on people by making abortion legal??

Ok, not forcing, but being intolerant of pro-lifers, for some reason.

“Pro-choice” means that anyone who WANTS a choice GETS a choice. If your religion or your morals say that you should not have a choice, and that every fetus must be carried to term, then you effectively DON’T have a choice, just like you wanted.

I know.

Lol, EXACTLY! It teaches children, “this is the way things are, and even if it sounds weird or nonsensical, you can’t question this. It’s just how things are."

Yes, but most people, by the time they're 18, reach their own conclusions about it. Some turn atheist or agnostic while others don't.

I don’t begrudge parents the right to teach their kids what they believe, but I think the world would be a much better place if more people thought it equally important to teach their kids to question and to evaluate information and viewpoints critically.

I disagree. I think the world would fall apart if it wasn't for the religious people, who are benificial to the world. It's just the way it is.

Every religion seems to have it's own version of "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Which is a very good thing and a positive influence

[Naptaq]

Nov 4, 2008 9:14:25 GMT -5 MrNice said:

'if you are innocent you have nothing to fear' is a fallacy
people with power will abuse that power
it always comes down to 'I don't like that guy, lets make him go away' situation

Are Keith Olbermann, and the like, being investigated because of suspected terrorism?

Clearly they're not pro-Bush or pro-government and if your statment were true, Keith would be in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

[Sweet Pea]

Nov 4, 2008 9:58:34 GMT -5 Naptaq said:

Nov 4, 2008 9:14:25 GMT -5 MrNice said:

'if you are innocent you have nothing to fear' is a fallacy
people with power will abuse that power
it always comes down to 'I don't like that guy, lets make him go away' situation

Are Keith Olbermann, and the like, being investigated because of suspected terrorism?

Clearly they're not pro-Bush or pro-government and if your statment were true, Keith would be in Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

people with power often do abuse that power. just because you acknowledge that, it doesn't mean that you think every individual with some power will abuse that power in every possible instance. you keep making these unfounded logical leaps, and i think that's what makes it so hard to take alot of the things you say seriously.