Bill O'Reilly: master of the partisan press

[herewego]

Glick explained his position and O'Reilly then turned around and said "you are mouthing a far left position, that is a marginal position in this society" and then stated that Glick shouldn't be saying such a thing because O'Reilly thinks, by projecting his being offended by it, Glick's father would approve of it. Glick wasn't an attack dog before this from what I can tell, but to have O'Reilly use Glick's father, who I doubt O'Reilly knew, is an underhanded, dirty tactic that people has let Bush get away with by evoking 9/11 for years now. He still remained cool the entire time.

Speaking of underhanded tactics, other than the ad hominem of "a bunch of morons", that's rather true of attacking or dismissing someone's credibility. Usually, that's a tactic of one who can't defeat the merit of another's argument, so it is easier to dismiss the person. There are legitimate reasons to discount one's statements due to credibility, so I'm curious how Glick fails to have or lose his.

"After cutting short the interview Bill O’Reilly threatened Mr. Glick, a professor at Rutgers University and teacher in the state prisons system, with physical violence." http://www.notinourname.net/media/fox_news_oreilly2_feb03.html

Wow. Somebody gets it.

 

[herewego]

JB

couple things

your "a lot of right wingers" - what's that?

as for not supporting the troops, I agree with u - being against the war doesn't mean ur against the troops

But if carp and complain and undermine the Pres/admin at every step, instead of trying to make things better, then you are hurting the troops and the cause

Big difference for sure.

Guys like Russ Feingold are anti war to the core - but his disagreements are not divisive - like many others in the House and on this board

You just described fascism. Congrats.

 

[herewego]

And as I said above, JUBbers are constantly being told that if they have an opinion counter to the die-hard Democrat position, they hate America and should leave.

Someone just took a quote from the Republican handbook and flipped it. Typical.

 

[herewego]

Well, I don't watch O'Reilly much anymore. I used to when I had a conservative roommate.

And I don't consider myself left (only slightly left of center). But I have to say, that from that clip, O'Reilly fairs far worse than Glick. As pointed out, simply dismissing somebody as being "far left and a marginal position" shows that you don't have the intellectual resources to argue the issue and would rather just dismiss the opponent. It's weak and pathetic. Glick tries to argue the case and O'Reilly doesn't just dismiss him, but goes on to imply and basically say that he is a dissappointment to his family ("I hope your mother isn't watching" and comments about how his father wouldn't agree). It's scum of the earth low in terms of arguing a topic.

And as to Glick's position that the US acts like a terrorist sometimes, that's not unfounded at all. If you take a look at history from somewhere outside the US, the history looks a lot different in a lot of places. We use underhanded tactics all of the time... we just spin it differently. For instance, we hold prisoners without legal counsel for an indefinite amount of time with no trial. But since they are suspected terrorists, it's okay. We've tried on multiple occasions to assasinate Fidel Castro, but again, national security. If another country tried to assasinate Bush, what would we call it? You guessed, terrorism. Let's be honest, the US is not blameless in this game.

O'Lielly lies about everything. He couldn't tell the truth about what he did yesterday. He's lied about his background, his school, his political affiliation, his awards, being in combat, etc. The man is a walking lunatic.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry... but for having a "no spin" show where everyone is entitled to express their opinion... once he feels he's losing the upper hand... its "cut their mike".... he has absolutely no credibility NONE... the man is just another puppet for the lies and slander machine meant to drive America apart at the seams and turn it into a completly freedomless land where only the bigots and religious fundamentalists thrive.

That "no credibility NONE" is an echo.... a favorite line of a number of absolutists here. I've never met anyone with no credibility, except maybe this delusional psychotic schizophrenic who lived under a bridge by the university -- but, no, even he could be counted on to get certain things right.

I like that last part, though -- O'Reilly would almost certainly be happy in such an "america" -- though I wonder if he could find employment; every yang needs a yin, after all.

 

[Kulindahr]

Someone just took a quote from the Republican handbook and flipped it. Typical.

No, the Republicans tell people they're unAmerican, and should march in step.
That was a near-quote from Democrats here, who say people hate America, and should leave.

Hmmm... let's do a comparison:

With respect to people who disagree with them, they say:

Democrats . . . . . . "hate America" . . . "leave"
Republicans . . . . . "unAmerican" . . . . "lockstep"

It's a weird way to make a comparison, but using these, if you had to be stuck with one and only one, which would you prefer?

 

[Andreus]

I'm sorry... but for having a "no spin" show where everyone is entitled to express their opinion... once he feels he's losing the upper hand... its "cut their mike".... he has absolutely no credibility NONE... the man is just another puppet for the lies and slander machine meant to drive America apart at the seams and turn it into a completly freedomless land where only the bigots and religious fundamentalists thrive.

as with a great deal of republicans and conservatives... the only free speech they support are the voices that agree with them

O'Lielly lies about everything. He couldn't tell the truth about what he did yesterday. He's lied about his background, his school, his political affiliation, his awards, being in combat, etc. The man is a walking lunatic.

don't forget the sexual harrasment case he settled out of court

 

[snapcat]

Drew, would you want me to add an "On-Topic Discussion" or "Open Thread" prefix to your thread?

 

[Andreus]

on topic here as well

thanks snaps

 

[chance1]

You just described fascism. Congrats.

Makes no sense

None

 

[Kulindahr]

as with a great deal of republicans and conservatives... the only free speech they support are the voices that agree with them

Replace "republicans" with "liberals" and you've got a true statement. The strangling of free speech on college campuses has been engineered by liberals.


I think of it as a Bell curve -- the ten or fifteen percent who constitute the two edges of the bell are very much alike in their desire to slander their opposites, and to stifle their freedoms of all sorts, not just speech.


In fact I find a certain irony in the situation where Bush had people aiding in getting the liberals working to strangle free speech stopped and their policies reversed, 'cause here he is trying to strangle free speech -- just not the same speech.

 

[Andreus]

liberals do not try to squash free speech

the most liberal organisation in the nation, the american civil liberties union, even dedicates huge resources and time defending the neonazis rights to speak their opinions, even though the neonazis hate said organization.

liberals like both sides represented

in anycase

this is off topic

i started this thread, and it is not about universities and liberals

it is about partisan press and oriellys place in it. counter examples of partisan liberal press are understandeable, but lets not go overboard. universities have nothing to do with press bias in any way

 

[Kulindahr]

liberals do not try to squash free speech

i started this thread, and it is not about universities and liberals

it is about partisan press and oriellys place in it. counter examples of partisan liberal press are understandeable, but lets not go overboard. universities have nothing to do with press bias in any way

I'd say universities have a lot to do with it. With one exception, every campus I or friends have attended have had those same gags on free speech, and the campus newspapers were so incredibly biased it wasn't even funny. Universities are where most of our future journalists are trained, and unless things have changed drastically, they're training future left-wing versions of O'Reilly (except generally more polished).

The exception was a very right-leaning Roman Catholic campus, where the school newspaper had an unofficial censor who students jokingly called "The Spanish Inquisition".

BTW, prompted by this thread, I've been watching O'Reilly more. He's entertaining.

 

[Andreus]

do you know whats laughable kul?

that someone who is living in a nation that cant even write letters without the republican president saying he has the right to read them would actually believe that the people who oppose those policies are against free speech.

and you really need to get back on topic

 

[Kulindahr]

I am on topic.
University liberals are training the new generation of O'Reillys, except they're on the Left, not the Right.
They're the masters of partisan press. O'Reilly is just a superstar of partisan pressmanship; it's the quiet, common assumption that topics must be presented in certain ways, that only certain views should be heard, and that those who know these things have a right to be in charge, that is scary -- O'Reilly's just entertainment.


I'll point out here that you're once again twisting and mangling -- your middle statement above has nothing to do with anything I've said.

 

[Andreus]

my middle statement has everything to do with your comments

you are blasting a group of people for being anti free speech and i am proving to you that they are not.

just because i disagree with you and point out your flawed logic, it doesnt mean that i am "twisting your words".

the liberals are the only people in this nation currently making free speech a part of their political platform and fighting the current administration's efforts to remove americans basic rights to express themselves.

how you can say that they arent is ludicrous and just dishonest.

 

[Kulindahr]

my middle statement has everything to do with your comments

you are blasting a group of people for being anti free speech and i am proving to you that they are not.

just because i disagree with you and point out your flawed logic, it doesnt mean that i am "twisting your words".

the liberals are the only people in this nation currently making free speech a part of their political platform and fighting the current administration's efforts to remove americans basic rights to express themselves.

how you can say that they arent is ludicrous and just dishonest.

Your middle statement avoided my comments by misdirection. I said nothing about anyone who opposes right-wing stifling of free speech. Since I'm one of them, I'm hardly going to attack them.

And you haven't offered any proof at all. There have been court cases around the nation, suits brought against liberals who are stifling free speech on campuses, both in general and in campus newspapers. Nor have you pointed out any "flaws" in my "logic"; you've merely dodged and tried to force meanings into my words that aren't there.

I don't know why you operate in such absolutes so regularly. To me that's a sign of a closed, fanatical mind, or possibly one that doesn't want to face all of reality and so closes portions of it off by defining it away. From your last several posts it would seem that all liberals must be shining saints crusading for freedom. The fact is that the most common experience I have ever had of liberals is their elitism and their politically-correct efforts to stifle the voice of any opposition -- a description that many liberals on JUB merely reinforce.

You do manage to concede a bit of absolutism when you said "as with a great deal of republicans and conservatives", thereby acknowledging that not all Republicans or conservatives want free speech stifled. But your reaction to my presentation of the fact that there are many liberals who want to do their own stifling rather cancels that.

I'm perfectly aware that there are liberals who favor free speech. From some of the other comments in this thread, that would be hard to tell, though; the attacks on O'Reilly are shrill enough they seem nothing but partisan. Compared to those, I'll take O'Reilly -- though I'd rather not take either. The fact is, though, that there are many liberals who do not favor free speech, only speech that favors them. And when those are in charge of college campuses, and especially when they are in charge of journalism programs, they are in fact training a new generation of partisan press.

But this statement of yours takes the cake:

"the liberals are the only people in this nation currently making free speech a part of their political platform and fighting the current administration's efforts to remove americans basic rights to express themselves"

That's absurdly false, and you know it. If O'Reilly had said something like that, you'd be all over it. If you were in his position, saying that, people would be perfectly right to call you "master of the partisan press". Right off hand, I canname two non-liberal organizations which have engaged in "fighting the current administration's efforts to remove americans (sic) basic rights to express themselves": one is the Libertarian Party, and another is the NRA.

This is also false; you're doing the absolutism bit again:

"how you can say that they arent is ludicrous and just dishonest."

The accusation in there is pure invention, Andreus -- I've said no such thing.


Calling O'Reilly partisan is a no-brainer -- whether he's the master at it is another matter. But jumping from there to a position holding that there aren't any liberals at all who are partisan, who are his mirror-images, is unfounded. However bad he may be, it does not wipe out the fact that there are many on the Left who want to end such things not in order to gain freer speech, but to replace his partisan hounding with their own.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would have to say, tho...that the most bombastic, and yet least charismatic of the right wing broadcasters is Mark Levin. He sounds like a drunk monkey grating a brick of chalk on a chalkboard while being anally stuffed by an elephant.

Just when I was starting to have a decent day, you had to mention Levin....


(where's the vomit emoticon when you need it?)

 

[Kulindahr]

Better make that "Master of Media Partisanship" -- abbreviating, the Masters of Partisanship would come out MP, which could be confusing in several parts of the world.

Bill O'Reilly, MMP

 

[Andreus]

But jumping from there to a position holding that there aren't any liberals at all who are partisan, who are his mirror-images, is unfounded. However bad he may be, it does not wipe out the fact that there are many on the Left who want to end such things not in order to gain freer speech, but to replace his partisan hounding with their own.

i never said that once

show me where it was said by anyone anywhere much less me.

you are being dishonest, pointlessly arguementative and counter productive to discussion.

the rest of your post isnt worth answering.