Very Apt O'reilly Memo
Jammer
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Haters and Hate</div> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The hate industry and the Bush administration, that's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. After much study, I've come to the conclusion that this story about the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson (search) being outed as a CIA employee is of minor importance, unless someone in the White House is the leaker.
Mr. Bush doing the right thing by cooperating with the Justice Department investigation. If they find a person, he or she should go to jail.
But there's now question in my mind that whoever exposed the ambassador's wife did so to get revenge, because Wilson wrote an article embarrassing Bush over the Africa uranium Iraq situation.
So once again, trying to hurt somebody for political reasons has backfired. Writing in The New York Times today, columnist David Brooks says that debating issues has been replaced by hating those with whom we disagree politically.
<b>There's no question that the far left despises President Bush, just as the far right loathed Bill Clinton.</b>
Brooks writes about the anti-Bush warriors. <b> "The quintessential new warrior scans the Web for confirmation of the President's villainy. He avoids facts that might complicate his hatred. He doesn't weigh the sins of his friends against the sins of his enemies. But about the President he will believe anything...the core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves." </b>
Bingo, good for Brooks. And it's ironic that the column appeared in The New York Times which has adopted some of the haters and promoted their vitriol with glee. I'm talking about the attacks on Mel Gibson (search), Arnold Schwarzenegger (search), and myself in recent weeks
Make no mistake about it. The haters have power right now in America. Perhaps out of desperation, some of our cable news competitors have allowed the worst possible defamation to go unchallenged. Simply hard to believe that character assassins were given so much air time on CNN and MSNBC. And by the way, their ratings went nowhere with the smear tactics.
An exception was our direct competitor, Paula Zahn, who did conduct an honest interview. In the end, the haters always lose. Whoever tried to hurt Ambassador Wilson by leaking his wife's CIA connection, which is illegal, is now being hunted and has brought embarrassment to the Bush administration.
Passionate debate and respect for opposing points of view are what this country is all about. Smear campaigns and hatred are unacceptable. And those who traffic in this sort of thing are doomed to failure.
And if you don't believe me, here is proof. My book, Who's Looking Out for You? will debut at number one on The New York Times list a week from Sunday. Once again, Americans have rallied. The defamers are on the run.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I bolded 2 parts I found most interesting and most true. That quintessential warrior bit can also be applied to many of Bush's rabid supporters. The message of the peice is clear: debate the issues, not the person.
Thats a lesson we should keep in mind here. I know I'll try to.
Mr. Bush doing the right thing by cooperating with the Justice Department investigation. If they find a person, he or she should go to jail.
But there's now question in my mind that whoever exposed the ambassador's wife did so to get revenge, because Wilson wrote an article embarrassing Bush over the Africa uranium Iraq situation.
So once again, trying to hurt somebody for political reasons has backfired. Writing in The New York Times today, columnist David Brooks says that debating issues has been replaced by hating those with whom we disagree politically.
<b>There's no question that the far left despises President Bush, just as the far right loathed Bill Clinton.</b>
Brooks writes about the anti-Bush warriors. <b> "The quintessential new warrior scans the Web for confirmation of the President's villainy. He avoids facts that might complicate his hatred. He doesn't weigh the sins of his friends against the sins of his enemies. But about the President he will believe anything...the core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves." </b>
Bingo, good for Brooks. And it's ironic that the column appeared in The New York Times which has adopted some of the haters and promoted their vitriol with glee. I'm talking about the attacks on Mel Gibson (search), Arnold Schwarzenegger (search), and myself in recent weeks
Make no mistake about it. The haters have power right now in America. Perhaps out of desperation, some of our cable news competitors have allowed the worst possible defamation to go unchallenged. Simply hard to believe that character assassins were given so much air time on CNN and MSNBC. And by the way, their ratings went nowhere with the smear tactics.
An exception was our direct competitor, Paula Zahn, who did conduct an honest interview. In the end, the haters always lose. Whoever tried to hurt Ambassador Wilson by leaking his wife's CIA connection, which is illegal, is now being hunted and has brought embarrassment to the Bush administration.
Passionate debate and respect for opposing points of view are what this country is all about. Smear campaigns and hatred are unacceptable. And those who traffic in this sort of thing are doomed to failure.
And if you don't believe me, here is proof. My book, Who's Looking Out for You? will debut at number one on The New York Times list a week from Sunday. Once again, Americans have rallied. The defamers are on the run.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I bolded 2 parts I found most interesting and most true. That quintessential warrior bit can also be applied to many of Bush's rabid supporters. The message of the peice is clear: debate the issues, not the person.
Thats a lesson we should keep in mind here. I know I'll try to.
Comments
To make an understandable analogy : would you eject a comm for being a noob , or rather for saying perverted things ? The latter reason is just irrelevant.
I'm sorry, that man is a rabid far-right news personality, and him giving advice to anyone else concerning political debating is disturbing.
This is the same man that closed an interview with "That may be your opinion, but your <i>opinion</i> is wrong"
Ok, I didn't intend for this to be a debate over O'Reilly or Bush, just about hate.
"Bush lied" Ok, if he did, so did France, Germany, the UK, the United Nations, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc. EVERYONE said he had WMDs.
"O'Reilly is far right." Not really. He is conservative, but he isn't Rush Limbaugh. He's pushed for a broader 9/11 investigation, supports intiatives against global warming, is against the death penality, etc. Its just that his personality doesn't mesh with the traditional left, so they try to paint him as a really hardcore right winger. He's a moderate conservative.
And yes, opinions can be wrong.
"I think eating babies is good!"
Well, that might be an opinion, but that opinion is wrong.
"I think eating babies is good!"
Well, that might be an opinion, but that opinion is wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, your opinion is that eating babies is wrong. Many would agree with you, but that does not mean that for all of eternity, written in stone tablets, baby eating will be considered wrong. However I'm taking this thread into unchartered and dangerous off-topic regions...
To the point at hand, being a uni student I have a first hand experiance of true Bush haters. Believe it or not, I'm not a Bush hater; I for instance believe that the war in Afghanistan was justified. I don't really know of any left wing political agendas that Bush has supported, but rest assured that if he did support one I would be glad. I hate Bush's right wing policies, not the man. But back to the uni situation, there are people here (mainly socialists, they're like some kind of plague <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ), who hate everything Bush and Howard (Australian PM) does, unconditionally. Doesn't matter if tommorow Bush said "Oh by the way I'm advocating same sex marriages, giving up on drilling the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve, introducing minimum fuel efficientcy laws for SUVs and sending a basket of fruit to the French President", these people would still hate him.
Now if in 2004 a Democrat becomes President, I will despise their policies as well if they essentially mirror Bush's. (By the way I don't consider Democrats to be left wing. At best they're a centralist party). I won't care who's behind those policies.
however, 'the haters have the power right now' kind of undermines the atricle, being not really true.
i dont know where exactly the power lie, but it sure as hell ISNT with the people.
perhaps its an indication of my closed mindedness...
but i see this kind of article as having a 'the left doesnt really matter' or 'get back in line lefty' feel to it.. oh so the left was wrong after all, well thank god for that. I know people will use this kind of attitude to attack 'leftists' .... i mean in a way its ind of hypocritical to beg a fair chance for all, then slag off the entire 'internet using left' in one righteous paragraph.
all it really says is, dont listen to the man before, find this information YOURSELF.
*edit* upon reflection
And also, this article acts like the only thing we need to know about bush is that the left hates him (well, take it with a pinch of salt). the left hates him for a reason, maybe rather then airing the thought that "some people hate bush, perhaps they are wrong", which is pretty knee jerk imo, he might look at WHY 'the anti-bush warriors' hate bush!
In any argument or debate, it is (I think) human nature to always lean heavily towards ignoring the facts that might bolster your opponent's argument. Especially so if you have more than just an academic attachment to the topic. Everyone I know is guilty of this, including myself. It is not just about politics, either. Every topic can come down to the debators choosing exactly which facts they want to use. That much is incredibly easy to understand, and isn't exactly a revolutionary idea put forth by O'Reilly. It goes for both political hate warriors and good-natured high school debate teams.
It gets cloudy when you start questioning what is fact and what is fiction. Unless you partook in the action, or had direct exchange of information from those involved, the collection of facts in regards to any kind of event are always going to be slanted towards the personal opinons of those who are debating the event, if that person has any kind of agenda whatsoever (hidden or public.) Those without agendas are your unbiased reporters... and in today's climate, people like that are few and very far between.
As for whether these facets represent the scourge of Democracy, well... you could thus extend that human nature is the scourge of Democracy. This surely isn't a modern day phenomenon. Politicians have slinged mud at each other for the past 160 years. I agree with one thing he alludes to. I think there are <b>far</b> more important items to be focusing on than witch hunts. Unfortunately, politicians inevitably resort to these tactics when election time comes around, and that's exactly what we're going to have to deal with for the next 400 days.
On the issue of political hate mongering, I personally think that nearly all politicians are despicable, contemptible creatures infecting the Earth. Unfortunately, for the most important position on the planet we are only given a choice between two (sometimes three) of these vile beings. I have always voted for the lesser of the two evils, hoping that they in turn will do less damage once given that lofty and powerful role. Sometimes that is Democrat, sometimes that is Republican. Once that was the longshot (Perot in '92.) I have my own personal beliefs as to what would be required to turn this country around and restore the ideals set forth by our Founding Fathers. Those ideas have nothing to do with the putrid two-party system that exists today and dictates how politicians behave.
To make an understandable analogy : would you eject a comm for being a noob , or rather for saying perverted things ? The latter reason is just irrelevant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The WMD's hasn't been proven, plus, have you read past weapons reports? Iraq DID have them, do you think they willingly just got rid of them?
<b>bush is a very bad man</b>. no two ways about it.
If the people just saw the list of bush's actions since he came to power, there would be no way they could hate him <i>without reason</i>.
as for the sins of freinds against sins of enemies line...
is it not more important to watch and scrutanise the actions of the man in control of the most powerful nation on earth.
I post a thread about "Political hate doesn't solve anything." any it becomes a thread on "Well, you can justify hating Bush since..."
<!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
I post a thread about "Political hate doesn't solve anything." any it becomes a thread on "Well, you can justify hating Bush since..."
<!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyway attacks on Republicans will happen when Republicans are in office, attacks on Democrats will happen when Democrats are in office, anyone who doesn't think it's completely spun is just silly.
'Course, I can't really take a statement like this from O'Reilly without a whopping grain of salt. If it were Clinton in office, you wouldn't have heard this from him. I might be overly cynical, but he's using it as an excuse to complain about the Bush bashing, giving lip service to the fact that it takes place on both sides so that he <i>appears</i> to be fair and balanced^TM.
I mean, do you really think he'd be shedding tears for a Democrat?
Now, he has political views like anyone. And he chooses to express them on his show. But he also allows the other side to present their case. They might trade volleys, but he gets good people on the show. He could just as easily pick some phantom person to make the other side look moronic.
He doesn't deny that he has an opinion, but he also doesn't force ya to agree with him. Folks will naturally buddy up to whatever they themselves believe.
So I don't have an enormous sampling population here, but the two shows that I usually catch on Fox (O'Reilly, and then Hannity and <span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>Colmes</span>*) seem to have a decent amount of discussions where it's like, "Hey, here's a really intelligent, articulate Conservative, and here's a raving, incoherent Democrat".
*shrug* . . . I don't watch enough to have an informed opinion, though, but that's just my general impression. Maybe it's only when I see something that blatantly irritates me that I actually stop to watch.
*Ok, so I ripped that off from Franken . . . sue me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Just my personal opinion of the man, not his opinions.
This is kind of off-topic, but anyways. Do you think Mr. Bush is a happy man? No, were probably a lot happier than he is. He has enough stress on his hands; I mean, he has to take care of the country and parts of the world (in a sense). Lets give this guy a break, already.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er . . . that's sort of the Presidential job description. If you <i>don't</i> want to be burdened by the stress of taking care of the country, and the world at large, there are many, many jobs where those duties will never emerge.
Cashier, for example. Truck driver. Waiter. Lifeguard. Technical Support representative. Rodeo Clown-- And so on and so forth.
But when a guy is so hot on a job that he drops millions of dollars to wrangle it*, I'm going to go ahead and stow the empathy and hold him to a pretty high standard.
* <span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>And by this I mean the cost of his campaign, not a reference to him purchasing the presidency outright. So call the dogs off, folks.</span>
1. What country would you like to destroy next?
A. Syria
B. Iran
C. Saudi Arabia
D. France
E. North Korea
F. Other _________________
2. What reason would you like to use for going to war next?
A. War on Terror
B. War on Evil
C. Jesus Christ told me to do it
D. Disobeying U.N. sanction 43.219-153a
E. We are good, they are bad, war is required to force them backwards folks to align with our values
F. If someone don't like it, bring 'em on!!
3. What is 2 + 2?
A. 3
B. 2
C. 22
D. 4
E. Trick question
F. I don't need to know because I'm the president of the United States of Texas
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Partisan hate, like Msr. Evil, is generally useless and counter-productive. Plus it likes goat p0rn.
Happy?
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yea damn, its about time you two!
Sort of back on topic, Evis, that was rather useless, and quite disguisting :-\
'Course, I can't really take a statement like this from O'Reilly without a whopping grain of salt. If it were Clinton in office, you wouldn't have heard this from him. I might be overly cynical, but he's using it as an excuse to complain about the Bush bashing, giving lip service to the fact that it takes place on both sides so that he <i>appears</i> to be fair and balanced^TM.
I mean, do you really think he'd be shedding tears for a Democrat? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This reminds me of something that makes me angry. Many Liberals like to accuse Rush of spatting lies (yet many of those "lies" proved not to be) and in fact, when callers during the 90's would accuse Clinton of things he hadn't done, Rush would actually DEFEND Clinton and point out that Clinton had in fact not done everything the caller had accused him of.
Try as you might, some conservatives aren't as evil as some other media factions try to make them out to be....
Yes, I know the topic was about O'Reily, but I figured I might as well help out good ol' Rush =)