Ok, well I'll counter you with a moderate point of view.

What you said about O'Reilly is just flat-out wrong. He IS a different breed of hatemonger, but let me do some comparing since you only mentioned the liberal commentators in a negative light.

Moore is about the same as Coulter and O'Reilly when it comes to distorting the facts and in general being completely illogically insane.

Hannity and Franken are very similar in their methods, as well, from what I've seen. As in, they don't put on an appearance of being batshit insane, but they're very obviously on one side of the fence.

Rush I can't say anything about, as I only have very limited experience with his shit.



I'm sorry, but when it comes to O'Reilly you will never get me to admit that he is "not that bad." He is one of the very few people in the world (including my "namesake") that I would shoot in the face without hesitation because of the complete corruption of his non-existant soul. (Yes, I know that doesn't make logical sense, but bear with me) He's a sexually-abusive, borderline-racist scourge on the world.

He complains about the liberal bias in media (yet he's in a show that has a conservative bias, should only conservatives be allowed on tv and in print?). He bitches about Ludacris being sponsored by Pepsi because of his "violent and unwholesome image," meanwhile he doesn't give a shit that the Osbourne's are also sponsored by Pepsi, and they have far from a wholesome image. he calls his show the "no-spin" zone, but that's only because someone disagrees with him he starts talking over them.
"Clinton was a corrupt man; Bush is not corrupt."
Hah, right, they're politicians, they're all corrupt.

Granted, O'Reilly is more moderate than most of the other conservative commentators, but that doesn't mean he's not a douche-bag lying sack of shit.

I actually heard Rummys reply to the nursed armor question, and now I definitely think there is a media bias. I thought the only thing he said was "you go to war with the army you have," but that was only after he explained that he had spoken with a general about it, and that they were trying to get them armor as fast as possible, the problem was a matter of production. That they had the money, and they were working on it. I hadn't heard anything except, that "you go to war with the army you have," bullshit that is takin out of context.

I will agree that Hannity and those guys are conservative, but they don't try to hide it. What bothers me is that the mainstream media is supposedly unbiased, and yet they have an obvious leftward lean.

It is hard to figure out how O'Reilly has spun something, some of it is obviously unintentional, but the intentional ones are rare and hard to find for the average person. Here's a couple of examples that I've manages to catch,

he said right after the election, young people did not show up in any greater numbers, 17% in 2000 and 17% in 2004, he failed to go over the total number of people that voted, and say soemthing like while 17% of 117 million vs. 17% of 100 million is 3 million more young people that voted, it was not enough for the democrats, after which he then proceeded to put down the democratic get-out-the-vote effort, ~3 million more young voters is an increase, but the math let him hide it, to put down the vote or die and other efforts. Russell Simmons was on, and he confronted him about it, and oreilly told him they were looking at different age groups, 18-24 and 18-29... in both age groups more people showed up in greater numbers, which he had to have known...

The second time wasn't on his show, it was on Meet the press, with him and Krugman, of the new york times. he said the miami herald's study into the florida recount showed that it wouldn't have mattered if the recount that the supreme court stopped was done, and krugman said that it would've changed the election outcome, and they completely disagreed enough to where you know one of them had to be lying... the investigation was done 4 or 5 different ways, with counting chads, w/o it, blah blah, and if I remember right, 3 out of those 5 ways, it would have made a difference. both were lying, but krugman would've been less wrong. i can't find the investigation in the herald archives anymore.

I saw the whole thing 3 or 4 times in the day, It wasn't even taken out of context on the daily show... What channel did you watch?

I was listening to it on the radio like 15 times. I have no tv. They played the question, they played soldiers cheering, and then they played "you go to war with the army you have."

Ok, these are both bad examples. In your first example, O'Reilly is somewhat right for quoting that there is no percentage change, rather than go by actual numbers. I'm not too sure exactly how he put it or exactly what he was talking about but, from what I could get from your explanation, he might have been correct in using percent rather than actual total number when comparing. I would have to hear it for myself to be sure, however.

In your second example it could be taken either way. I've read books on the 2000 election, and liberal ones at that, that even admit that Bush would have won with a recount. The fact was that there were some people who might have been cheated out of their vote, and with those people who were cheated Gore was likely to win. So if they were just argueing over recounting chads, O'Reilly was very likely correct when saying that Bush still would have won. However, if they were argueing over things such as who would have won the election, had there been no problem with the voter rolls, then that would have been less clear cut and up for discussion.

It was in his words, "No greater numbers" were his words, which is wrong, or at the least, out of context when 17 million more people have voted, which he didn't mention. It's hard to not mention that fact when you're talking about the election in general. I don't even care about that, I care about the next thing: The way he put down Russell Simmons and the democratic get out the vote efforts, he was trying to tell him "don't bother in the next election, because you didn't succeed this time with this much hype the boat loads of money you got from liberals. " it was in the tone, you should see it, if possible...

And krugman and oreilly both have their audiences, neither mentioned that the herald's investigation did the recount 5 ways, which alone qualifies for a 'i've acted like moore' sticker for both. I'm sure they picked the ways that they feel most comfortable with and see no point in doing the recount any other way.

double post removed.

I apologize for this, but the Seek forums were going offline as I was posting. Somehow, this triple-posted. I must've hit the button three times, and then I couldn't get back in to fix it.

Oh please, make it stop.

double post removed.

wow, way to post the same thing three times. Next time give your computer a few seconds before hitting the button over and over.

In that case it sounds as if he was being an ass. I don't even know how he could blatently say that no more kids voted, because that's just obviously wrong. And either way, whether Russell Simmons' young voting efforts were for naught, it is still a fairly noble cause and there is no problem running it if people are willing to put their money into it.

However, O'Reilly generally doesn't seem to say stupid stuff like this, so I will still pay him heed and just think about what he actually says instead of believing all of it like some people. If I was to not watch anybody who does things like that, then the sad fact is I wouldn't be able to watch the news.

very true...

Although we've already switched topics (for what, the third time in this thread?), I just wanted to make one last comment on the whole capitalism vs socialism thing.



bagvwf has summed it up. That's simply something I disagree with. And, of course, that's a pretty fundamental difference, so I'm done arguing it.

Others have done the job for me, probably much better than I could. If anyone is interested (Yeah right. Not on vacation for the biggest Capitalist holiday) here's one of my favorites:
Myths of Capitalist Economics

I would make it stop, but its just too funny