Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

He makes some good points
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 24 14:55:30 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196774,00.html


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed May 24 19:23:20 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  He sounds like an old crotchety history teacher. "These kids these days, with their drugs and their music."
Is it the kids fault that their teachers and schools are being cut short, with textbooks now not printing silly things like evolution? That new teaching standards are making it so that Only test-passing tactics are being taught, that math and college-essay writing are being fast-tracted.
Don't blame the kids. Think for a bit.
There is a conscious effort being made to stop teaching current events, practical uses of sciences, music and art, debate, and everything else that makes a person intelligible and being able to hold a discourse. It's in the budget- specifically how the education budget is being flayed.
bleh.

There's a problem in society so blame the group who's being manipulated by the problem.

Bill O'Reilly is sitting on his porch shaking his cane. No one can see him shaking his cane, for he lives in a mansion, being the man of the people he is.


 
addi Posted: Wed May 24 21:23:53 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.ledgeofliberty.com/2004/07/those_who_tresp.html


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 24 21:27:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>He sounds like an old crotchety history teacher. "These kids these days, with their drugs and their music."
>Is it the kids fault that their teachers and schools are being cut short, with textbooks now not printing silly things like evolution? That new teaching standards are making it so that Only test-passing tactics are being taught, that math and college-essay writing are being fast-tracted.
>Don't blame the kids. Think for a bit.
>There is a conscious effort being made to stop teaching current events, practical uses of sciences, music and art, debate, and everything else that makes a person intelligible and being able to hold a discourse. It's in the budget- specifically how the education budget is being flayed.
>bleh.
>
>There's a problem in society so blame the group who's being manipulated by the problem.
>
>Bill O'Reilly is sitting on his porch shaking his cane. No one can see him shaking his cane, for he lives in a mansion, being the man of the people he is.
>
Are you saying he doesn't make any good points ? What exactly was wrong with what he said ?
I know you don't like the man but at least be fair. Tell me what was wrong with what he said.

Also, how sure are you that he lives in a mansion, and even if it is true, why would that be a bad thing ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 24 21:29:00 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>http://www.ledgeofliberty.com/2004/07/those_who_tresp.html
>
And that has exactly what to do with what he said in my post above ?
Are you saying he doesn't make any good points ?
Does writing bad erotica make on unqualified to make intelligent observations ?


 
Posted: Wed May 24 21:53:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  A Crim-exclusive creative reinterpretation.
==========

Bill O'Reilly: OMFG THERE IS NOT ENOUGH REPREZENTATION OF TEH RIGHT WING IN TEH POPULAR MUSICKS AND CULTURE!!!1

Crim: This, Bill, is because there is very little representation of the right wing in American life, not because the million people who work in show-biz and the culture industry, combined with the tens of millions who work in media and social and news coverage, happen to be overwhelmingly leftist.

The truth is, Bill, that America is left-leaning: you happen to notice it in popular culture because popular culture is, by definition, popular. Asking why the right-wing isn't well represented in popular culture is just as relevent as asking why the Arab Tone system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_tone_system ) isn't well represented in popular culture: it's not well represented in the society it's trying to impress.

Bill: ...

Crim: ...and turn off your caps lock.

===

Oh, and by the way: please no more linking to FoxNews.com articles; instead, could we start maybe posting them on GT? Going to their site, at the first screen, the article takes up about 5% of the overall viewing area - the rest is composed of ads and hype links. Not easy to read.


 
addi Posted: Wed May 24 22:09:53 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>And that has exactly what to do with what he said in my post above ?
>Are you saying he doesn't make any good points ?
>Does writing bad erotica make on unqualified to make intelligent observations ?



I could take the time to go through point by point of that article, but it would just be a wasted effort. We don't see eye to eye on most social and political issues and I think I'll just leave it at that.

the man is an dangerous idiot, hif...really...you should stop posting his drivle here.
It's not a good reflection on you.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed May 24 22:10:13 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  America is left leaning ?
Really ?
I disagree, how do you explain republicans controlling the white house for the last 40yrs ?
I submit that the reason conservatives are not well represented in the arts is because artistic people are generally predisposed to be liberal and not very political.
I would also submit that America is right leaning and can be explained by the politicians they keep putting into office, more and more conservatives every year.

I would also submit that O'Reilly was right on every one of his talking points and not one you GT liberals can bring yourselves to actually say so, and thereby keep changing the subject.


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed May 24 23:37:22 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>I disagree, how do you explain republicans controlling the white house for the last 40yrs ?


Republican is not synonymous with right-wing. Some of the great republican presidents of the 20th century have been more left leaning that their democratic counterparts, and is a reason why they got elected. Hoover was quite liberal, Ike was quite socially liberal, as with Nixon. Their policies resonated with the American voter; and their policies, at least socially were quite left leaning. Democrat and Republican do not mean left and right, respectively.


 
Silentmind Posted: Thu May 25 00:05:17 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Also, you forgot about Clinton in there. So, technically speaking, they've only controlled the White House since, what? The beginning of 2001? So, not quite 40 by my calculations. We're just coming up on 6 years.


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu May 25 04:52:06 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sorry, HIF, but the man even writes terribly.

"Public education is generally not emphasizing history, geography or civics preferring to indoctrinate American students into a world of tolerance, diversity and secular values. Plus every survey says the same thing: Many Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on."

And here I was just two hours ago searching for a survay at gallup.com about "People who know what's going on vs. people who don't know what that fuck is up." The results were staggering, bill was right.

After saying that, a grandiose statement which might prove to make a good headline or opening statement to the jury because it catches attention, Bill jumps onto a completely different point. But we the non-idiots of the world have questions on your "statement" here Bill, slow dooown.

Bill, tell me, when was the last time you ever sat in a classroom? I mean, where is your information coming from on what they do or do not teach in schools? Here is where most informed "journalists", or anyone writing any sort of logical, coherent, argumentive essay on a subject would add what we here in the world like to call "facts" or "proof." Take the time researching those two words, Hif, they're well hidden in the dictionary. Probably not the one jammed under the back leg of your gun vault, so you might have to head down to a library for that one. Or perhaps mama ripped out them pages to make some sort of stew?

But to return to the article: to "indoctrinate" students with "tolerance, diversity and secular values." Bill... come on now buddy, these "TOLERENCE!" Oh my, he said the "T" word. And the "D" word. He talks about these notions like they're bad! When is teaching these naughty phrases like "tolerance, diversity and secular values" a bad thing? Plus, we here in the United States of Americas learn plenty of history.

How do I know? Because I just bloody graduated from college and not many years ago, high school. This is a little thing we call "first hand experience." But I agree w/ Dan on the teaching methods. Teachers do not inspire interest in subjects. They threaten to fail if one does not pass, but they do not inspire! Does Bill mention this at all? No. He bitches about a problem which people know is a problem. This is day 37 of the great flood and Bill's still running around telling the Zebras that it's raining real hard outside.

and he continues "For example, a National Geographic survey says 63 percent of that age group can't locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East, even though the USA has been fighting there for more than three years"

I'm sorry, what about the dixie chicks again? Here Bill brings in a number, a "fact" which happens to have nothing to do with the god damned Dixie chicks or their involvement in preaching the word of the left to the mass number of people who take their political views from some only somewhat attractive violin strummers. Still with me?

I'd finish going through the post, but this man simply numbs my brain. I can't believe people pay this man to do what he does. I'm suprised he didn't bring Toby Keith into this discussion, you know, to maybe show that he(Bill) isn't a fascist asshole, but i guess that'd be expecting too much.

Anyhow, what the heck is he even reacting against? What'd the Dixie chicks do now?

The only consolation I have is on that website, a bloodred plate backdrops bill's photo and brings out a redness in his baldhead which only help me picture two tiny little horns poking out from above his temples.

His motive? I bet he sleeps with 8 year old boys. Don't quote me on that, but it's a hunch I have, and I'm usually right with these things.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 06:59:55 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>
>>I disagree, how do you explain republicans controlling the white house for the last 40yrs ?
>
>
>Republican is not synonymous with right-wing. Some of the great republican presidents of the 20th century have been more left leaning that their democratic counterparts, and is a reason why they got elected. Hoover was quite liberal, Ike was quite socially liberal, as with Nixon. Their policies resonated with the American voter; and their policies, at least socially were quite left leaning. Democrat and Republican do not mean left and right, respectively.
>
Right leaning is not synomous with right wing either, and Nixon was no more liberal than Kennedy, and Kennedy was not liberal either, even though he was a democrat. Their platforms were lower taxes, strong military, and strong against communism. The facts are this, America usually votes conservative.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 08:13:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>Sorry, HIF, but the man even writes terribly.
>
>"Public education is generally not emphasizing history, geography or civics preferring to indoctrinate American students into a world of tolerance, diversity and secular values. Plus every survey says the same thing: Many Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on."
>
>And here I was just two hours ago searching for a survay at gallup.com about "People who know what's going on vs. people who don't know what that fuck is up." The results were staggering, bill was right.
>
>After saying that, a grandiose statement which might prove to make a good headline or opening statement to the jury because it catches attention, Bill jumps onto a completely different point. But we the non-idiots of the world have questions on your "statement" here Bill, slow dooown.
>
>Bill, tell me, when was the last time you ever sat in a classroom? I mean, where is your information coming from on what they do or do not teach in schools? Here is where most informed "journalists", or anyone writing any sort of logical, coherent, argumentive essay on a subject would add what we here in the world like to call "facts" or "proof." Take the time researching those two words, Hif, they're well hidden in the dictionary. Probably not the one jammed under the back leg of your gun vault, so you might have to head down to a library for that one. Or perhaps mama ripped out them pages to make some sort of stew?
>
>But to return to the article: to "indoctrinate" students with "tolerance, diversity and secular values." Bill... come on now buddy, these "TOLERENCE!" Oh my, he said the "T" word. And the "D" word. He talks about these notions like they're bad! When is teaching these naughty phrases like "tolerance, diversity and secular values" a bad thing? Plus, we here in the United States of Americas learn plenty of history.
>

>How do I know? Because I just bloody graduated from college and not many years ago, high school. This is a little thing we call "first hand experience." But I agree w/ Dan on the teaching methods. Teachers do not inspire interest in subjects. They threaten to fail if one does not pass, but they do not inspire! Does Bill mention this at all? No. He bitches about a problem which people know is a problem. This is day 37 of the great flood and Bill's still running around telling the Zebras that it's raining real hard outside.
>
>and he continues "For example, a National Geographic survey says 63 percent of that age group can't locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East, even though the USA has been fighting there for more than three years"
>
>I'm sorry, what about the dixie chicks again? Here Bill brings in a number, a "fact" which happens to have nothing to do with the god damned Dixie chicks or their involvement in preaching the word of the left to the mass number of people who take their political views from some only somewhat attractive violin strummers. Still with me?
>
>I'd finish going through the post, but this man simply numbs my brain. I can't believe people pay this man to do what he does. I'm suprised he didn't bring Toby Keith into this discussion, you know, to maybe show that he(Bill) isn't a fascist asshole, but i guess that'd be expecting too much.
>
>Anyhow, what the heck is he even reacting against? What'd the Dixie chicks do now?
>
>The only consolation I have is on that website, a bloodred plate backdrops bill's photo and brings out a redness in his baldhead which only help me picture two tiny little horns poking out from above his temples.
>
>His motive? I bet he sleeps with 8 year old boys. Don't quote me on that, but it's a hunch I have, and I'm usually right with these things.

The whole rant was based on a current event you obviously have no knowledge of concerning the Dixie Chicks.
This is not a written essay, but a transcript of a spoken rant, hence the uneven writing. Go stuff your critique.

He made the following valid points that every one of you so far has managed to side step, gloss over, and totally ignore in your zeal to villify Mr. O'Reilly. Very nice and so typical of the left too.

Plus every survey says the same thing: Many Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on.

For example, a National Geographic survey says 63 percent of that age group can't locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East, even though the USA has been fighting there for more than three years.

That may be because 80 percent of younger Americans don't even own a world map. Ninety percent of the young'uns don't know where Afghanistan is. Ninety percent. And here's the best. Twenty-five percent of Americans ages 18 to 24 could not identify Dick Cheney as vice president.

Thus we have millions of Americans who get their news from Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers.

Our republic demands citizens pay attention in order for the best people to be elected. Is that happening today when 64 percent of young Americans can name the "American Idol" winners but just 10 percent know who the speaker of the House is?

Please explain how these are not valid points . . .

Oh yeah if you are going to villify and slander someone, maybe you should know something about the man. You inquired about the last time he sat in a class ?
He was high school history teacher before becoming a journalist.


 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 09:04:07 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  80% of fox viewers have 1 or more misconceptions about the reasons the US started a war against iraq.

why aren't you pointing any fingers at that?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 09:52:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>80% of fox viewers have 1 or more misconceptions about the reasons the US started a war against iraq.
>
>why aren't you pointing any fingers at that?
>
Because it's not true


 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 10:08:26 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So you're putting the pipa survey down just like that and neglecting empirical evidence because you don't like it, basicly?




also: (just skip to results if you don't want to read it all)

http://www.visualstatistics.net/Readings/Iraq%20Wars/Iraq%20Wars.html


 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 10:11:12 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>http://www.ledgeofliberty.com/2004/07/those_who_tresp.html


Take special care in noting how he's writing from the woman's point of view.

Can somebody say repressed homosexuality?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 10:14:56 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Who thought Iraq had WMD? Most everybody





As Memorial Day approaches, 51 percent of Americans, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, think the commander in chief "deliberately misled" us about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. "Deliberately misled"? Once again, let's go to the videotape:

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 1998: "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "

Clinton, July 2003: " . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean [D], September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country."

Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."


Robert Einhorn, Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, March 2002: "How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously -- and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: "There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. . . . In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., December 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking minority Intelligence Committee member, October 2002: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."

Any questions?




 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 10:19:32 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  just numbers: http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_quaire.pdf

pretty graphs of them and explanations: http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 10:21:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes," which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side."

There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his dog."

The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the war with Iraq by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well, I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!

The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."

Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.

Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."

In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the 9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague.

Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October. When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a 200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox New Channel.




 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 10:21:51 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Then again, that is not the point hif, the point is that 80% of fox viewers have at least 1 major misconception about the war on iraq, whereas people who get their news from other sources are far less lickely to have them.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 10:23:02 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Then again, that is not the point hif, the point is that 80% of fox viewers have at least 1 major misconception about the war on iraq, whereas people who get their news from other sources are far less lickely to have them.
>
Of course as illustrated in my post above, the definition of "misconception" is pretty much up in the air at pipa wouldn't you say ?


 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 10:48:20 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Not really no, I think they're pretty clear in the questioning and in what is thereby understood in "misconception".


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 11:25:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Not really no, I think they're pretty clear in the questioning and in what is thereby understood in "misconception".
>
Really ?
"The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."



 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 11:37:44 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Which evidence is there


The question is not "is there or is there not any evidence", you can never be sure about what might come up in the future, the question was "has" the us already found clear evidence that SD was working closely with al qaeda.


 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 11:38:50 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The only thing you are saying, unless you do have clear evidence, as was the question, is that 80% of the people who watch fox can't read well enough to understand the question ;o)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 11:40:12 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Which evidence is there
>
>
>The question is not "is there or is there not any evidence", you can never be sure about what might come up in the future, the question was "has" the us already found clear evidence that SD was working closely with al qaeda.
>
Uh huh, and yes that case has been made to the satisfaction of many, yet PIPA labels that as a misperception. Cooked stats, case closed.


 
Silentmind Posted: Thu May 25 12:01:33 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Back to the whole "O'Reilly makes good points" aspect. Remember when he called for the boycott of French goods? In order to show his loyal followers that their boycott was having an impact on the French economy, he quote a NONEXISTANT magazine {The Paris Business Review} which he claimed France lost billons of dollars due to the boycott he initiated. "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in February 2004, the United States imported $2.26 billion in French goods and services, up from $2.18 billion in February 2002." The man has no credibility.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 12:18:43 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  From NRO aug 2004:

Compounding France's economic miseries has been the residual damage from the boycott by Americans of everything French. Last year millions of Americans, incensed by the French government's outrageous failure to support the U.S. in the war in Iraq, heeded the advice of talk-show icon Bill O'Reilly and began a boycott of French products. Even though critics like the New York Times editorialized that the boycott was futile, the immediate impact of the voluntary decision by Americans not to buy French goods (from cheese to lingerie to wine) or to travel to Paris or the French Riviera for vacation hurt the French big-time in the pocketbook.

But despite assurances from French officials that the economy has weathered the storm and that no aftershocks persist, the truth is that France is still suffering from the boycott.

The short-term impact of the boycott against the French was devastating to key French industries. According to a report by the trade publication Wine Spectator, French wine sales fell by 26 percent in the first three months of the boycott and the global share of wine sales by France for the first half of 2003 plummeted by half. A poll by the French Luxury Marketing Council discovered that nearly 4 out of every 10 wealthy Americans were swearing off French goods.

Now the evidence for 2004 indicates continued residual damage to the French business environment resulting from the boycott. Real imports from France to the U.S., which stood at $2.6 billion a year in 2001, are on course to reach barely $2.5 billion in 2004. French wine sales have not recovered, potentially because consumers switched to new brands and never went back. Here is what the evidence shows: The value of French wine exports fell 10 percent in the first five months of 2004, compared with the same period in 2002. Even more embarrassing for the French is that wines from California, Chile, and Australia overtook French wines on global export markets for the first time last year. France exported 1.78 billion bottles; new-world vintners exported 1.93 billion.

French tourism has evidently recovered, but industrial production and investment continue their anemic growth rates. French business investment is nearly flat at one-percent growth a year.

**So he couldn't remember the name of a publication while live on the air and now he has zero credibility ?
He has at the very least as much credibility as Dan Rather and imho a helluva lot more.



 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 12:26:56 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Uh huh, and yes that case has been made to the satisfaction of many, yet PIPA labels that as a misperception. Cooked stats, case closed.

What evidence, hif.

Perhaps you're also misinformed, you seem to be watching fox a lot




haha, couldn't stop myself (it happens at my age, it's natural! *runs off looking for clean pants*)


 
Silentmind Posted: Thu May 25 12:31:21 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  So, thats just wine. Again, there was an increase across the board. The statistic is from a gov't agency, and I think shows an increase across the board. Attributing his "boycott" to a reduction in French wine sales globally is foolish. He claims his boycott is the single factor that is hurting the french economy. Sounds like the man has a big ego. And yes, when ANY journalist goes on air and quotes something, presents what they call facts, or anything like that, they must ensure that what they are stating is correct. That includes what publication they are quoting. I don't care who it is, they have to ensure it. And if they screw-up, they should admit it, correct it, and apologize for it. O'Reilly hasn't done that.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 12:32:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Uh huh, and yes that case has been made to the satisfaction of many, yet PIPA labels that as a misperception. Cooked stats, case closed.
>
>What evidence, hif.
>
Look up, it's in one of my previous posts.
You really should read them before you slam them.


 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 12:37:49 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sorry to burst your bubble here hif, but your last point was bullshit, plain and simple, seriously.

The reason for a smaller french export, not only to the us but to every other country where bill o'reilly doesn't have any impact, is due to the fact that the french wines are having a very roguh time competing with the cheaper wines from other southern nations but also eastern european countries.

No doubt you'd like to ascribe that to your hero, but if you would have done any serious research on the matter yourself, outside of bill o'reily's website and the fox one, you might perhaps catch a glimpse of what's really going on.




What you're saying when you claim that o'reilly caused this is like me saying that my ass is an elephant-deterrent because there are no elephants around.




Can I also ask what the point is in putting an embargo on 1 country that does not rush into a war that the UN did not ratify and of which the world community did not think there was sufficient evidence, which hasn't been found to this day either by the way.


And the excuse of not remembering the name of the magazine: which magazine was it then, for starters, and second of all, shouldn't he have kept his mouth shut if he didn't remember it or at least have taken the time to remember it or rectify the mistake in a later broadcast if he had any integrity at all?

Goes to show how luch crap you'll take from this guy. Doesn't this bother you in the slightest hif? I don't get it how you sometimes act like a 13 year old nymphomanic groupy with guys like o'reilly.


I also don't get why you fail to admit that if it would have been a similar event from the democratic camp you'd be nailing the guy to a cross after covering him with tar and feathers.



I seriously wonder who i'd vote on if I was a US citizen, in theory I'd be a republican but I could not get myself to vote for the people associated with it and put myself in the o'reilly camp.

The guy never stopped writing fiction it seems.


 
FN Posted: Thu May 25 12:39:48 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Look up, it's in one of my previous posts.
>You really should read them before you slam them.

I do, and I see no evidence of an active link, I only see that there were talks and even evidence that SD had nothing to do with the stuff al qaeda had done up to that point.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 12:58:37 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Sorry to burst your bubble here hif, but your last point was bullshit, plain and simple, seriously.
>
>The reason for a smaller french export, not only to the us but to every other country where bill o'reilly doesn't have any impact, is due to the fact that the french wines are having a very roguh time competing with the cheaper wines from other southern nations but also eastern european countries.
>
>No doubt you'd like to ascribe that to your hero, but if you would have done any serious research on the matter yourself, outside of bill o'reily's website and the fox one, you might perhaps catch a glimpse of what's really going on.
>
Just a coincidence that french wines sales didn't start dropping here until the boycott and then off 26 perccent the first three months eh ?
>
>
>Can I also ask what the point is in putting an embargo on 1 country that does not rush into a war that the UN did not ratify and of which the world community did not think there was sufficient evidence, which hasn't been found to this day either by the way.
>

This has been hashed and re-hashed !
The reason for the boycott was because Chirac send second dumbass in command de Villepin ahead of Colin Powell to persuade other countries not to support us. In other words our supposed ally stuck us in the back with a big french knife.
And now we know why, they were profiting big time from the UN oil for food program. How nice !
Note there were no boycotts called on anyone else that disagreed with us.

>And the excuse of not remembering the name of the magazine: which magazine was it then, for starters, and second of all, shouldn't he have kept his mouth shut if he didn't remember it or at least have taken the time to remember it or rectify the mistake in a later broadcast if he had any integrity at all?
>
Perhaps, when you're on live strange things happen, I never said he was perfect, but he is credible.
I'll take his word over Dan Rather's or Michael Moore any day.

>>I also don't get why you fail to admit that if it would have been a similar event from the democratic camp you'd be nailing the guy to a cross after covering him with tar and feathers.
>
When did I fail to admit something like that ? Are you putting words in my mouth ?
>
>
>I seriously wonder who i'd vote on if I was a US citizen, in theory I'd be a republican but I could not get myself to vote for the people associated with it and put myself in the o'reilly camp.
>
If you were a US citizen, I'd kick your ass all the way back to Belgium, and then I rip off your head and piss into your dead skull.
Not really, but I could show you where the polling stations are, and how to pull the Republican lever.
:-)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 13:01:58 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>So, thats just wine. Again, there was an increase across the board. The statistic is from a gov't agency, and I think shows an increase across the board. Attributing his "boycott" to a reduction in French wine sales globally is foolish. He claims his boycott is the single factor that is hurting the french economy. Sounds like the man has a big ego. And yes, when ANY journalist goes on air and quotes something, presents what they call facts, or anything like that, they must ensure that what they are stating is correct. That includes what publication they are quoting. I don't care who it is, they have to ensure it. And if they screw-up, they should admit it, correct it, and apologize for it. O'Reilly hasn't done that.
>
Where does he claim he is affecting the global market on French products and where does he claim his boycott is the SINGLE factor hurting the French economy ? Yes, he has a big ego, but it's not that big.

Now, let's get back on topic please.

Would you please address my questions on the talking points in the first post ?




 
Asswipe Posted: Thu May 25 14:49:03 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The whole rant was based on a current event you obviously have no knowledge of concerning the Dixie Chicks.

Which is what I assumed, and not that I really care what they said, I did ask what they might have done to warrant this "reply" or whatever you want to call it, from this dickhead.

>This is not a written essay, but a transcript of a spoken rant, hence the uneven writing. Go stuff your critique.

Nice finisher there, it drives your point home that when people are talking they don't need to make coherent logical sense.

>
>He made the following valid points that every one of you so far has managed to side step, gloss over, and totally ignore in your zeal to villify Mr. O'Reilly. Very nice and so typical of the left too
.
>
>Plus every survey says the same thing: Many Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on.
>
>For example, a National Geographic survey says 63 percent of that age group can't locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East, even though the USA has been fighting there for more than three years.
>
>That may be because 80 percent of younger Americans don't even own a world map. Ninety percent of the young'uns don't know where Afghanistan is. Ninety percent. And here's the best. Twenty-five percent of Americans ages 18 to 24 could not identify Dick Cheney as vice president.
>
>Thus we have millions of Americans who get their news from Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers.

Well it's a good thing Jon Stewart isn't a History teacher, cause I bet he sure doesn't know where Iraq is. Seriously though, I really love a man who can claim "Americans have nothing going on!" which is quite a bomb, and then go and call someone else a bomb-throwing entertainer. At least Jon Stewart would slightly agree w/ Bill here that he(John) is an entertainer and not a credible news source. O'Reilly seems to somehow place himself above this, as if considering himself an actual journalist.

>
>Our republic demands citizens pay attention in order for the best people to be elected. Is that happening today when 64 percent of young Americans can name the "American Idol" winners but just 10 percent know who the speaker of the House is?

I don't know what to say about this. I agree that more attention could be paid to politics, but it's genuinely hard to. Even those educated and educators out there have a hard time discussing and involving themselves in politics when it's the same glorified name calling and dirt digging back and forth. Honestly, the only people who invest any time in politics are those trying to sell the story of politics. Like your Mr. O'Reilly here. He just happens to do it in a much less clever/tactful manner than others.

>
>Please explain how these are not valid points . . .

Oh, I've decided that I don't need to.

>
>Oh yeah if you are going to villify and slander someone, maybe you should know something about the man. You inquired about the last time he sat in a class ?
>He was high school history teacher before becoming a journalist.

I said "sat", not "stood in front of." And please don't call this man a journalist.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 15:20:52 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>>This is not a written essay, but a transcript of a spoken rant, hence the uneven writing. Go stuff your critique.
>
>Nice finisher there, it drives your point home that when people are talking they don't need to make coherent logical sense.
>
You show your ignorance by not recognizing that different speech patterns are used to get one's point across when using the written word rather than the spoken word.
Or more to the point you don't care if it affords you an opportunity to burn Mr. O'reilly.

>>
>>Please explain how these are not valid points . . .
>
>Oh, I've decided that I don't need to.
>
>>
>>Oh yeah if you are going to villify and slander someone, maybe you should know something about the man. You inquired about the last time he sat in a class ?
>>He was high school history teacher before becoming a journalist.
>
>I said "sat", not "stood in front of." And please don't call this man a journalist.
>
2 Emmys, 20 million viewers a week, and several bestsellers say he is a journalist, and apparently a successful one at that.



 
addi Posted: Thu May 25 15:53:27 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>2 Emmys, 20 million viewers a week, and several bestsellers say he is a journalist, and apparently a successful one at that.

posts like this are why it's hard to take you seriously.

Number of viewers and awards have absolutely zero to do with being a journalist.If that was the case Benny Hill was a journalist. I feel dumb even having to say something so bloody obvious.
O'Reilly is a topical news entertainer, for lack of a better term. Journalists use backed up well documented facts when they report news. He uses whatever suits his needs, whether it's factual or not...hoping to rile his ignorant listeners into a lather and boost his ratings so he can feed his enormous ego.

"THERE'S A WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!"

I don't get on your case for being a conservative, hif. I say the things I do because you use questionable logic backing up your beliefs. To defend this moron, who has been caught lieing over and over on his show (I've heard the tapes)is just dumb. you should find some other intelligent conservative to cut and paste here...there must be one somewhere out there.


*and yeah I'm harsh today. It's been a day in hell, and I'm taking it out here.
despite our political fights I sincerely appreciate your words on the other thread about my son's well being. I know you meant them. thank you much

and sweet p and misszero and christophe too



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 16:21:23 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  No Benny Hill was a comedian and that's what his awards say on them and that what his viewers will tell you.

Oreilly didn't get his awards for comedy, they were for journalism.

Definition of journalist: journalist is a person who practises journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people.

Read the man's bio, he's a fucking journalist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu May 25 19:08:59 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>No Benny Hill was a comedian and that's what his awards say on them and that what his viewers will tell you.
>
>Oreilly didn't get his awards for comedy, they were for journalism.
>
>Definition of journalist: journalist is a person who practises journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people.
>
>Read the man's bio, he's a fucking journalist.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)

Perhaps, at sometime in his life, he has practiced some journalism. However, the "rant" which you posted does not qualify as journalism. Being a journalist does not mean that everything you create is journalism.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu May 25 21:58:59 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>No Benny Hill was a comedian and that's what his awards say on them and that what his viewers will tell you.
>>
>>Oreilly didn't get his awards for comedy, they were for journalism.
>>
>>Definition of journalist: journalist is a person who practises journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people.
>>
>>Read the man's bio, he's a fucking journalist.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)
>
>Perhaps, at sometime in his life, he has practiced some journalism. However, the "rant" which you posted does not qualify as journalism. Being a journalist does not mean that everything you create is journalism.
>
That's absolutely true and I never said what I posted was journalism, although I think it could be debated that it is, I won't try.
I do however think his syndicated column might qualify as journalism.
And I would think most of his work on the O'Reilly factor would qualify as journalism. You don't have to like it and you obviously don't but when you say his stuff is not journalism is something akin to me saying Green Day doesn't make music.
Obviously they do make music, but I think most of it is crap.
Truth be told, I don't much about them but it is a good analogy.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]