|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 9, 2008 18:49:40 GMT -5
I am. And I don't care ;D However, I care enough not to return the favor, so you won't get a response from me if you engange on that level.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 9, 2008 19:39:20 GMT -5
Naptaq ------------------ I am. And I don't care ;D
However, I care enough not to return the favor, so you won't get a response from me if you engange on that level. It's good to hear you admit you're being irrational. I take this post to mean you concede the point from my previous post, and have nothing further to add to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 9, 2008 20:14:18 GMT -5
It's good to hear you admit you're being irrational. You wish. I managed to find the video of this "Bush doctrine" mention by O'Reilly. It's clear that O'Reilly was talking about Bush's plan on foreign policy. It's like saying: "The Dwyane Wade doctrine is to take it to the hole as often as he can so that he can get a high precentege look or/and draw a foul." And I bet there is a high possibility that that was the only mention of the words "Bush Doctrine" on the Factor before the Palin interview on ABC. I've never heard of such a thing as a 'Bush Doctine' before that interview, and I bet I'm not alone, since it's not used and therefore people don't know what it is. I see that the O'Reilly hating website you linked doesn't care about truth and grabs on to everything they can to distort and make O'Reilly look bad, because they hate him. But that's nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 9, 2008 22:04:13 GMT -5
Naptaq -------------- You wish. Oh dear. I do, in fact, wish you would own up to it when you're being irrational and work to fix it, if you honestly want to debate this stuff. Naptaq ---------------- I managed to find the video of this "Bush doctrine" mention by O'Reilly.
It's clear that O'Reilly was talking about Bush's plan on foreign policy.
Whaaa? That's what the Bush Doctrine is. Are you still not clear on this? He defined it. O'Reilly knew what it was. Naptaq ---------------- And I bet there is a high possibility that that was the only mention of the words "Bush Doctrine" on the Factor before the Palin interview on ABC. Let's review my claim: O'Reilly knew what the "Bush Doctrine" is prior to Palin's interview. Then he lied and said he did NOT know what the Bush doctrine is.Your refutation: Well, he only knew during that one interview (because I could only find one of the quotes on YouTube, and if it's not immediately accessibly on YouTube, it cannot exist anywhere ever) and besides, he probably, like, forgot it, or it wasn't a detailed definition, or something. And um... LIBERAL BIAS!!Naptaq ----------------- I've never heard of such a thing as a 'Bush Doctine' before that interview, and I bet I'm not alone, since it's not used and therefore people don't know what it is. Uh, and I would hope neither you nor anyone like you would ever be allowed anywhere near the vice presidency. You don't even understand the role of the Supreme Court, or why anyone should care about the government eavesdropping; I'm sorry, but I don't consider your level of understanding to be a very good yardstick of vice-presidential suitability, lol. I have never followed politics really at all until this election, and I didn't know the Bush Doctrine; I didn't know the leader of Iran; I couldn't have told you exactly what the US needs to do to negotiate lasting peace in the Middle East. Those are things the vice president absolutely ought to know. I should not be vice president or president of the United States. The fact of the matter is that Bill O'Reilly was better informed on many matters than the potential vice president of the United States. And he was moved to lie about it and say he had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was, in order to pretend that the Bush Doctrine was some obscure concept that Gibson made up on the spot. It wasn't. Naptaq --------------- I see that the O'Reilly hating website you linked doesn't care about truth and grabs on to everything they can to distort and make O'Reilly look bad, because they hate him. But that's nothing new. When in doubt, shove your fingers in your ears and scream "liberal lies!! Doesn't count!!"
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 10, 2008 7:45:21 GMT -5
Then he lied and said he did NOT know what the Bush doctrine is. No, he was saying what his plans are - it's clear if you actually watch the segment. There's no such thing as Bush Doctrine and nobody in the news media is using it. And to imply that he lied is, in my opinion, just wishful thinking by O'Reilly haters, to put it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Nov 10, 2008 10:08:36 GMT -5
Then he lied and said he did NOT know what the Bush doctrine is. No, he was saying what his plans are - it's clear if you actually watch the segment. There's no such thing as Bush Doctrine and nobody in the news media is using it. And to imply that he lied is, in my opinion, just wishful thinking by O'Reilly haters, to put it mildly. okay, as much as i hate looking at bill o'reilly's mug, i just had to watch the video clip since you two are at such loggerheads over it. he very clearly says that the bush doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists. so i have to agree with farouche on this one. it seems very clear to me, and i'm surprised that there's any disagreement over it.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 12, 2008 16:16:52 GMT -5
Naptaq ------------------ No, he was saying what his plans are - it's clear if you actually watch the segment. There's no such thing as Bush Doctrine and nobody in the news media is using it.
And to imply that he lied is, in my opinion, just wishful thinking by O'Reilly haters, to put it mildly.
I can kind of understand when someone sees a video of their lover betraying them, and the person just can't accept that their girlfriend or boyfriend would do that to them, so they block out the truth. But, a guy on TV? Why would that be hard to believe? -On at least one documented occasion O'Reilly said "the Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists." -The Bush Doctrine is and long has been to take the fight to the terrorists. O'Reilly's definition was concise and correct. He knew the term exactly as it was used in the Gibson interview. -O'Reilly claimed, "the Bush Doctrine? I don't know what that is!" -O'Reilly lied.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 12, 2008 17:12:10 GMT -5
I can kind of understand when someone sees a video of their lover betraying them, and the person just can't accept that their girlfriend or boyfriend would do that to them, so they block out the truth. But, a guy on TV? Why would that be hard to believe? No, I've seen the interview (which is a fun one btw) before you mentioned it here. Have you heard of The Bush Doctrine before the ABC interview with Palin, btw? I will certianly be extremely skeptical to anything an O'Reilly hating website says, or a newhounds.us. If you can find some other mention of "The Bush Doctrine" on The Factor, you get a cookie Your premise is that O'Reilly lied about the so called Bush Doctrine .. because? He was in the tank for McCain? Yeah, sure. I'm not buying it. Almost no-one in the media is using the term Bush Doctrine, alright. Even the liberal Washington Post wonders what it is and this is what they wrote: "The one thing all these Bush Doctrines have in common is that they are, at this point, utterly inoperative."But the columnist has his own wacky ideas about it, which, of course, are not what the wikipedia entry says about it. So who knows what it is, or if it even exists at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 12, 2008 17:21:02 GMT -5
LMFAO! I just noticed that Naptaq took the non sequitur "he was talking about Bush's plan on foreign policy" almost verbatim from a YouTube comment on that video. ;D
User "Dallouez" says: "Well will all you smart asses show the Bush Doctrine I want to read it! There isn't such a doctrine. What Oreilly is talking about is Bushes plans for foreign policy. If there were such a doctrine it would be massive!"
If you're going to talk nonsense, at least don't plagiarize it from a YouTube comment.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 12, 2008 17:27:28 GMT -5
If you're going to talk nonsense, at least don't plagiarize it from a YouTube comment. Hey don't attack my clone! Not fair. lol Ok, I have to confess - I get all my news from YouTube comments. ;D jk
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 12, 2008 18:01:13 GMT -5
Naptaq ---------------- Have you heard of The Bush Doctrine before the ABC interview with Palin, btw? I couldn't have told you what NAFTA was; I'd never heard of Ahmadinejad; I didn't know who Sarah Palin was before this election. Does that mean that these concepts didn't exist before I knew about them? Uh, no. To believe that they did not exist until I learned about them, I would have to be crazy. So, nice try, but just because you are ignorant about something does not mean it doesn't or didn't exist. It is just so mind-bogglingly illogical for you to keep repeating that if you don't know about it beforehand, it's not real. Naptaq ----------------- I will certianly be extremely skeptical to anything an O'Reilly hating website says, or a newhounds.us. Stop whining about that website. Watch the video. The website did not make O'Reilly say what he said. Naptaq ---------------- If you can find some other mention of "The Bush Doctrine" on The Factor, you get a cookie Again, this is why I am forced to call your sanity into question. Why would you need multiple videos of O'Reilly talking about the Bush Doctrine to believe that he knew what it was?? It's like someone watched a video of their lover clearly having sex with someone else, and then said, "it didn't happen. If you can find another video of them having sex with someone else, I might believe you that my partner is cheating. But probably not." Naptaq --------------- Your premise is that O'Reilly lied about the so called Bush Doctrine .. because? He was in the tank for McCain? Yeah, sure. I'm not buying it.
Stop trying to change the subject. I did not speculate about why O'Reilly lied. I claimed simply that HE LIED. We can argue about motives after you admit that he LIED. O'Reilly's definition, 2004: "The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorist."
Gibson's definition, 2008: "The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."Naptaq ----------------- Almost no-one in the media is using the term Bush Doctrine, alright. Not "alright." O'Reilly used it. It has been used. It has been defined. It exists. In addition, you've said many times you very rarely watch anything but Fox News, because you believe that only Fox News is truthful, and I'm pretty sure you can't be watching even Fox 24/7. So you really wouldn't be in any place to say who has and has not used the term, would you? Naptaq --------------- "The one thing all these Bush Doctrines have in common is that they are, at this point, utterly inoperative." That quote says that the Bush Doctrine exists, and exists in MULTIPLE FORMS ("all these Bush Doctrines"), and the quote only makes the claim that the definitions no longer work for the author. Let me quote the first paragraph of the piece, which completely contradicts your purpose in bringing up that article: "Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's evident cluelessness when asked in an interview yesterday if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine is appropriately being seen as emblematic of her ignorance of foreign policy." Naptaq -------------- But the columnist has his own wacky ideas about it, which, of course, are not what the wikipedia entry says about it. In other words, the Bush Doctrine has multiple, interrelated definitions, making it EVEN EASIER to define. O'Reilly chose a very clear version to explain when he said: "The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists."Naptaq --------------- So who knows what it is, or if it even exists at this point. O'Reilly knows what it is. He could never have said "The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists."four years ago if it didn't exist, now could he? O'Reilly did not claim that "the Bush Doctrine is an obscure concept that very few people know about" (that would be ambiguously dishonest, but not a lie). He said, "the Bush Doctrine? I don't know what that is." That makes it a lie.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 12, 2008 20:23:26 GMT -5
I found the thing I was looking for, and I have to backtrack. But here goes: This is part of the transript of The O'Reilly Factor, after the Palin-Gibson interview, which confirms my previous point: "What is The Bush Doctrine?" O'Reilly: "Now when I heard that question from Gibson, I thought the Bush Doctrine was the president's belief that encouraging, and in Iraq imposing, democracy is the ultimate solution to marginalizing terrorism. That was my definition.
But Gibson put forth that the Bush Doctrine is the use of military action to prevent anticipated attacks.
However, the record shows there is no precise definition of the so-called Bush Doctrine. Various media have defined it as taking pre-emptive action, but nothing is written down. We do not have a Monroe Doctrine situation here.
So if I were asked about the Bush Doctrine, I would have been confused, too. Gibson should have defined it for Palin. That would have been the fairest way to get a response." ( video) So if there are many versions of the thing, which the media made up, then it's not suprising that Palin didn't know which one Gibson was refering to. Since there is no clear cut definition of the 'Bush Doctrine', then, in my view of it, Bill O'Reilly didn't lie. Also it happened on 'Late Show with David Letterman', not the Factor. I don't know if you've watched the video in question but there were a lot of jokes thrown around, and it's obvious he was poking fun out of Gibson's gotcha question. (at about 4:10)
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 12, 2008 22:38:30 GMT -5
Naptaq --------------- "Now when I heard that question from Gibson, I thought the Bush Doctrine was the president's belief that encouraging, and in Iraq imposing, democracy is the ultimate solution to marginalizing terrorism. That was my definition.
But Gibson put forth that the Bush Doctrine is the use of military action to prevent anticipated attacks." That's another glaring lie, then. Let's review the quote: "The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists."Do you see anything about Iraq or Democracy in that definition? Nope. This definition by O'Reilly was merely a more concise version of what Gibson said. Not to mention, we have now a third version of O'Reilly's take on the Bush Doctrine: 1. The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists. (2004) 2. I thought the Bush Doctrine was about using Democracy to fight terror. (2008) 3. The Bush Doctrine? I don't know what that is. (2008) Naptaq --------------- "So if I were asked about the Bush Doctrine, I would have been confused, too. Gibson should have defined it for Palin. That would have been the fairest way to get a response." This is an INCREDIBLY dishonest thing to say. 1. O'Reilly would have been able to answer Gibson's question on Gibson's own terms, since their original definitions coincide. 2. However, even if their definitions differed, O'Reilly could have answered the original question, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" easily by assuming his own definition to be correct. Here O'Reilly is ADMITTING that he did have a definition of the Bush Doctrine in mind, and he was only surprised and confused AFTER Palin could not answer the original question; AFTER she could not give her own definition; AFTER Gibson was forced to offer his own definition. 3. Gibson gave Palin the opportunity to respond to ANY definition of the Bush Doctrine she wanted by asking her, "What do you interpret it to be?" She blew it, and that's all there is to it. 3. Gibson DID define the Bush Doctrine for Palin after she failed to provide her own personal interpretation. Naptaq -------------- So if there are many versions of the thing, which the media made up, then it's not suprising that Palin didn't know which one Gibson was refering to. Nope. Does not fly. That excuse has been floated a million times by now, and it is just as vacuous now as it was originally. Did you actually watch the interview, or just watch O'Reilly summarize his impressions? When Palin was unable to respond to the question, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" Gibson asked Palin point blank, "well, what do you interpret [the Bush Doctrine] to be?" Her response: "His world view? Hmm?" She could have given ANY of the possible, interrelated definitions of the Bush Doctrine, but she knew NONE of them. It is mind-boggling to me that anyone would try to spin this in any other way, but the far right has all the bases covered. You claim: -Palin knew exactly what Gibson was talking about, but she had so many definitions and intelligent answers swimming around in her head that she just didn't know which to use first. -...But if she didn't know what Gibson was talking about, then it's because it was a completely unfair gotcha question that no other politician or pundit could have answered. Naptaq ---------------- Since there is no clear cut definition of the 'Bush Doctrine', then, in my view of it, Bill O'Reilly didn't lie. Then your view is wrong, sorry. And you're being dishonest and moving the goal posts. Previously you argued repeatedly that the Bush Doctrine doesn't exist, and that is why O'Reilly could not have known what it is. Now you're saying that the Bush Doctrine DOES exist, in multiple forms, and that O'Reilly did not lie because he did not discuss, in detail, EVERY SINGLE facet of all definitions, all of which are very similar in nature. You keep using different reasons to excuse anything O'Reilly says. I just cannot understand those who idolize famous people to this extent. Naptaq ---------------- and it's obvious he was poking fun out of Gibson's gotcha question. (at about 4:10) It wasn't a "gotcha question." That was part of the lie. The Bush Doctrine was not a made-up phrase. O'Reilly defined it. Then he said he thought it was something different. Around that same time, he claimed, on Letterman, that he did not know what it was at all, and he was clearly not joking when he said he didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, or when he said they were "gotcha" questions. Oh, and I should point out that this is a new excuse for the lie that you keep denying: now you're saying that, ok, he DID define the Bush Doctrine, and he DID say years later that he didn't know what it was, but he was joking.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Nov 13, 2008 5:34:17 GMT -5
That's another glaring lie, then. Let's review the quote: No it's not, because there's no clear cut definition of the doctrine. No it's not. Palin asked Gibson what he meant. Don't twist it. She asked him "His world view?" and then she defined it after Gibson explained what he meant. Yeah, sure. That's your opinion, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Nov 13, 2008 14:28:27 GMT -5
Naptaq ------------------- No it's not, because there's no clear cut definition of the doctrine. First you said it DID NOT EXIST, and that O'Reilly didn't lie because he wasn't even talking about the Bush Doctrine when he talked about the Bush Doctrine. Now you're saying it has no *clear cut* definition, and that it is impossible to know about anything that is not defined 100% unambiguously. Which is it, then? Your story keeps changing, but it's not getting any better. I'll point out to you first of all that MANY WORDS have multiple definitions. That doesn't mean that you "don't know what 'park' means'" just because you ONLY define it as "a verb meaning what you do with your car" and not "a place with open spaces where children frolic." If there are multiple definitions, that just means there are MORE OPPORTUNITIES to get it right. Also, unsurprisingly, you completely ignored the most relevant parts of my previous post, in order to respond with your non-evidence-based talking points. So I'll repost this: 1. The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists. (2004) 2. I thought the Bush Doctrine was about using Democracy to fight terror. (2008) 3. The Bush Doctrine? I don't know what that is. (2008) Naptaq ---------------- No it's not. Palin asked Gibson what he meant.
More dishonesty. You appear to have little regard for being "fair and balanced." Like O'Reilly, you have been more than willing to twist the truth to support your partisan politics. This is the progression of the conversation, paraphrased: Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine? Palin: In what respect, Charlie? Gibson: The Bush Doctrine--well, what do you interpret it to be? Palin: His world view? Hmm? Gibson: My understanding of the Bush Doctrine is the right of the US to preemptively attack terrorists... Palin: I will now respond with my opinion on the Bush Doctrine. I knew what it was the whole time. I was just testing to see if YOU knew, Charlie... So, in other words... Even if you suppose that "in what respect, Charlie?" was just a knowledgeable attempt by Palin to understand Gibson's viewpoint, Gibson then gave Paline the chance to define how SHE interpreted the Bush Doctrine. She said, "his world view? Hmm?" Which is NOT any definition of the Bush Doctrine. Naptaq -------------------- Don't twist it. She asked him "His world view?" and then she defined it after Gibson explained what he meant. [/blockquote] *I'm* twisting it?? *boggle* This is off-the-tracks bizarre. I've never had this kind of conversation with someone who is actively denying reality. You cannot possibly be serious that Palin responding to the Bush Doctrine after it is defined for her constitutes an understanding of this subject. You could do that with anything: A: Do you agree with the banana ping pong doctrine? B: In what respect? [what the heck is that??] A: The banana ping pong doctrine. What do you interpret it to be? B: A game played with paddles and fruit? Hmm? [must... try... to pretend I know this, hoping for some more hints...] A. It's an industry term that means you should always have two people working on a dish that involves bananas. B: Oh, I mean, duh, obviously that's what I meant. [whew!] I think it's great that two people can work on a banana dish together in this great country of ours also... Naptaq ---------------- Yeah, sure. That's your opinion, sorry. Sorry, that is reality. You have been caught flatly denying reality, and I'm not going to let this go. You've been much too smug about how fair and honest Bill O'Reilly is and how dishonest the rest of the news is.
|
|