If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Sun-Times)   Roger Ebert: "I am not interested in discussing Bill O'Reilly's politics here. That would open a hornet's nest. I am more concerned about the danger he and others like him represent to a civil and peaceful society"   (blogs.suntimes.com) divider line 551
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

22626 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jun 2009 at 2:03 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



551 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-06-21 04:04:30 PM
feckingmorons: A Windy City newspaper hack that does not like anyone who criticizes the One?

Amazing.


Yes. I see I am not the only one that sees what really bothers Ebert.

Like, he gives a shiat about Bill O'Reilly. Ebert just wants absolute conformity to the bunch of Chicago goons that are running the federal govt right now.

What really bothers him is that liberals can't compete with Bill O'Reilly, so you shouldn't watch Bill O'Reilly and his type should STFU anyway.

What are TV shouters telling their viewers? They use such anger in expressing their opinions. Who are they trying to convince?

Yes, anyone (especially Siskel) that ever disagreed with Ebert's opinion on a movie got a calm rebuttal from Ebert. Uh huh.
 
2009-06-21 04:04:50 PM
TheShavingofOccam123: I never imagine that about Bill O'Reilly.

I'm guessing that it would be sort of like sex with dick cheney. Which Seth McFarline has summed up for us Here (new window)
 
2009-06-21 04:04:58 PM
Dammit, html fail:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beJ9yJpR_DA&feature=related
 
2009-06-21 04:04:58 PM
Klingon Penis: He had his own talk at TED, too.

Thanks for that link.
 
2009-06-21 04:05:05 PM
TheShavingofOccam123: fireclown: Say what you will about FOX: They don't have Nancy Grace.

Well, sometimes I think about what it would be like to bag Nancy Grace during a drunken weekend in a cheap Myrtle Beach motel.

I never imagine that about Bill O'Reilly.


I just threw up in my mouth.
 
2009-06-21 04:05:06 PM
SpeshilEdjukashin: You're doing on the Internet, exactly what Ebert was complaining O'Reilly does on television. You do realize that, right? Ok.


I don't think he was calling for your blood. Persecution complex kick in again?


And how exactly am I intolerant? You know what, I'm not - quit trolling.


It's beautiful how you contradict yourself with two short sentences.
 
2009-06-21 04:06:36 PM
Overfiend: TheShavingofOccam123: fireclown: Say what you will about FOX: They don't have Nancy Grace.

Well, sometimes I think about what it would be like to bag Nancy Grace during a drunken weekend in a cheap Myrtle Beach motel.

I never imagine that about Bill O'Reilly.

I just threw up in my mouth.


It was kind of tough for me to type that. I feel for ya.
 
2009-06-21 04:06:51 PM
Complicit: Klingon Penis: He had his own talk at TED, too.

Thanks for that link.


Welcome.
 
2009-06-21 04:08:12 PM
Mordant: Right in this thread we have people like SpeshilEdjukashin telling us that Fox News is a good representation of the conservative POV.

That's not what I said.
 
2009-06-21 04:10:00 PM
I hate to sound like a 4-chan /b/-tard here, but:

1. Damn, there's a lot of butt-hurt in this thread, and
2. Go cry, emo kid.
 
2009-06-21 04:10:22 PM
SynthLord: DamnYankees: No. Wrong. You see, Gore and Obama have this thing called "science" on their side.

When Al Gore says "the debate is over," he's not citing a fact, he's issuing a command. Everything is open to debate, if for no other reason than to preserve the legitimacy of a known fact.

But that's not my point: my point is that both O'Reilly and Gore -- in their respective, different ways -- don't want debate. They want you to shut up instead of questioning them.

DamnYankees: You are essentially defending the modus operendi of Creationism, but in the realm of global warming and economics. And Creationism is freaking retarded.

You're assuming a lot here: for starters, I agree, Creationism is retarded. It's just as retarded, though, for one to accept evolution -- or imminently catastrophic global warming, or any science -- on faith.

I trust in the findings of a century of scientific achievement in the evolutionary sciences, the findings of which have led to practical applications in medicine, anthropology, psychology, neurology, etc. I don't have to be an evolutionary biologist to appreciate the truth of evolution; all I need is a little knowledge of the topic and a functioning mind.

But evolution is still "debatable". They don't know everything about it yet, and as the nature of science is that newly-discovered facts can challenge previously-held truths, there exists the possibility (if not probability) for some new data to emerge and seriously challenge a lot of what scientists think they know about the origins of life. That doesn't validate Creationism; it acknowledges the nature of scientific discovery.

Al Gore doesn't want you to acknowledge that beyond what he professes to be absolute certainty. If he was talking about evolution, the issue would be moot, but he's talking about something that is being increasingly challenged by the very people he's citing as sources.

Shouldn't that at least re-open the debate?


I agree, but then I don't think the debate should ever have been closed. And I sa that as someone who has much,much more 'faith', if you want to call it that, in science, so as much as I might think Al Gore and the evionmentalists are correct and I can't bring myself to think the debate is over.
 
2009-06-21 04:12:53 PM
Emperorsteele: That's taking it a bit far, and you know it. The article was NOT about O'Rielly's politics, but rather how he conducts himself on television. There are left-wingers who do the same.

Is this just done reflexively to appear bi-partisan, because whenever anyone is pressed on a statement like this, they fail to know of any examples.

It's annoying because it is so often used to justify the actions of people like O'Reilly.
 
2009-06-21 04:12:56 PM
belowner: THIS is how you change minds. Screw O'Reily, and screw Ebert. Neither one of them is a hot chick.

Yeah, but because she's a Mac, you know she'll never go down on you.
 
2009-06-21 04:13:18 PM
Bill O'Rielly, bloody loudmouthed Irishman...
 
2009-06-21 04:13:31 PM
Dinki: Like most of the wingnut radio loudmouths, Oreilly is desperate to hold on to those pathetic sheep that listen to him. You can rest assured they will only get louder and more absurd as the Obama presidency goes on.


Good. They are turning off a lot of people.

Troll these motherfarkers to death. Let them think there are millions more than theer really are who think like they do.
 
2009-06-21 04:14:17 PM
Uncle Tractor: FTFA: ill O'Reilly has been brought low by the same process that afflicted Jerry Springer. Once respected journalists, they sold their souls for higher ratings, and follow their siren song.

That asshole (O'Reilly) was a respected journalist? When?


Why, when he won TWO Peabody awards!


/Fark it, I'll do it live!
 
2009-06-21 04:14:59 PM
DamnYankees: You are constantly exercising the fallacy of moderation - just because two sides use the same grammar to say something doesn't mean they are equally wrong. Some things are actually true and some things are up for debate. If you exercise adamance about the latter, you're an idiot. But that doesn't mean you're an idiot for standing up and saying "THE WORLD IS MORE THAN 6000 YEARS OLD - THE DEBATE IS OVER!"

I'm not advocating that kind of thinking; I'm only using it as a means of expressing my point.

Yes, there is objective truth. But if you can't prove it, if you can't provide factual or logical evidence to refute other claims, you're at risk of losing the truth.

Do you think evolutionary biologists are told "evolution just works, now go discover something new"? Or are they trained in the cellular and chemical sciences so that, even at the most fundamental level, they can prove evolution works? Do we refuse to produce evidence that the Holocaust happened when some idiot claims it didn't happen, or do we accept it on faith that it happened? Do we expect that the "STFU" argument is going to sway a Moon-landing denier to accept the truth?

If an idiot isn't worth engaging with facts and logic, don't engage them at all.

DamnYankees: Your waffling on global warming is pathetic, and exposes you for the contrarian you apparently enjoy being.

Again, I'm not being a contrarian: I'm working the point that when you accept anything on faith, you're in danger of thinking -- not acting, but thinking -- like Bill O'Reilly does.

I don't know about global warming. I've been asking questions about the science for a few years -- asking in science forums, researching what I can online, etc. -- none of which have been answered. I'm not challenging the science, I'm simply trying to learn: if I'm to have the same certainty as I do evolution, I need more information to go on. I won't accept it or deny it on faith.

For now, all I can say is "I don't know what to think of global warming yet, but for other reasons I don't trust our government, and will intellectually oppose the notion that only government, via mass behavioral modification, will prevent Armageddon."
 
2009-06-21 04:15:55 PM
SpeshilEdjukashin: Don't give me any crap about weird peace loving lefties vs violent conservatives. 99% of conservatives are good God loving people who would never hurt anyone.

Unless of course they were black, gay, homeless, .....
 
2009-06-21 04:17:19 PM
mfaby: Somehow Ebert thinks that any extremist that he pins the 'right wing' label on is NOT responsible for their actions

objection, conjecture. leaping to unfounded conclusion. Nowhere in there did he say the man wasn't responsible. Bill was an accessory in his mind. Contributing to this man's obsession. Feeding the hate. Pushing psychological buttons. Inciting a violent response even though he never out and out called for it directly.

Bill is like Father Coughlin.
 
2009-06-21 04:17:33 PM
mfaby: SynthLord 2009-06-21 02:36:15 PM
bubbaprog: When your speech leads to people being hurt or killed, it's not protected anymore.

Should death metal bands and gangsta rappers be prosecuted when teenagers are influenced by their violent lyrics to commit suicide, murder, theft, or rape?

Exactly. And the bands aren't because
1) It is viewed a 'free speech' issue
and
2) The perpatrators are viewed as being responsible for their actions.

Somehow Ebert thinks that any extremist that he pins the 'right wing' label on is NOT responsible for their actions because Reilly et al "DROVE" them to commit their crimes.

Hog wash.

And I noticed that Ebert totally ignores the crap coming from the Left wing - while he mentions Olbermann in passing, he does not address the vile hatred that comes from him and his ilk such as Maddoes, Mathews, etc.

Typical Left wing nonsense.


You know, i've sat and watched a few episodes of bill o, hannity and combs (sp?), and i've watched a few episodes of hardball, and maddow and olberman. I am not a religious viewer of these shows as i mostly watch them when something big happens in the news and i want to see if these people are even going to talk about it or if they are just blowing hot air and ignoring actual news events. This is my assessment from a limited exposure standpoint.

Bill O: works himself to a frenzy quickly and easily, i first thought it was part of his act, then i watched some of those backstage youtube clips and realize this guy needs medication.

KO: Seems to take pride in fulfilling the role of the opposition to the likes of Bill O and Fox News. He gets pretty aggressive and calls out to people personally. I think he is hoping to start an on air fight between him and one of the people he opposes. Seems to be his goal.

Hannity: Tries to come off as an intellectual, but uses topics that are ridiculous. I find trying to have an "intellectual conversation" about a topic that is bat shiat crazy is laughable.

Maddow: While i have yet to hear her spit hate speech or get worked up like KO or Bill O, she seems to look down her nose at anyone who she disagrees with and through voice tone and chosen speech she comes off as "I'm better and i laugh at those who i am better than".

Blitzer: I used to respect wolf blitzer, but lately he seems to be trying to cover too much. I think he should stick with real news coverage and stop worrying about stupid crap like letterman/palin or paris hilton running for prez.

Hardball: I think i've watched this more than others because of the panel discussions. Chris matthews seems to play devil advocate on any of the shows i've watched.

My personal favorite is Real Time:
Bill thinks a lot like i do. He questions government (yes even the obama admin) and asks a lot of the same questions i do. He has preconcieved thoughts about the far sides of the political spectrum and challenges people from those sides. One of his recent shows his discussion panel consisted of nothing but republicans. Former Bush advisors and republican columnists. He flat out told them about his preconceived notions and challenged them to change his mind. He has really started bashing obama for not delivering on promises. And in that episode really bashed on obama for acting like a celebrity and admitted that mccain was right about obamas love for the camera.

just observations and thoughts. I think Limbaugh is much more dangerous to this nation than Oreilly though. I'll be a happy man the day that fat bastards heart explodes, happier still if it gives out on air.

/yes i mean that
//not all human life is deserving of it
 
2009-06-21 04:18:09 PM
Is this the thread where we all whine about how the left is totes just as bad as the right?

Because when actual ideas fail, use moral equivalence. The GOP is TOTALLY just like the Iranian Resistance.
 
2009-06-21 04:20:03 PM
fireclown: Say what you will about FOX: They don't have Nancy Grace.

Would YOU want to be in the same state at the same time with her?
 
2009-06-21 04:21:00 PM
All Apologies: Burn98: All Apologies: It is dishonest to say that Olbermann and O'Reilly are simply different sides of the same coin, or that Maddow and Hannity are doing comparable things. Would someone even compare Glenn Beck to Ed Schulz?

Olbermann only exists because O'Reilly is successful. Sooner or later someone was bound to look at Rush's success (Rush really started it) and imitate it so they can make as much money as Rush does. O'Rielly, Hannity, Beck, and Olbermann are all cut from the pattern Rush created.

To the credit of the Left, successful leftist propagandists like Olbermann are rare.

Alright, just ignore the rest of what was written why don't ya.

You should easily be able to produce a long list of factual inaccuracies Olbermann has produced then. Or, at the very least, give an example of each of the seven propaganda devices that Olbermann uses on a regular basis.

If you're going to make that claim, you're going to have to back that claim up, which is going to be no easy task, but go ahead.


It was not my intention to ignore anything. I simply quoted the only part of your post I wanted to respond to.

I never said Olbermann was inaccurate. What I said was that he was a propagandist. Successful propaganda depends nn accurate facts dispensed selectively and in a slanted manner.

I care very little about Olbermann. I rarely disagree with him. But I object to his methods of presentation. Emotional appeal turns me off.

I hate O'Rielly with a passion. He is a destructive force.

I am not going to take the time to explain in detail why I think Olbermann is a propagandist. So if you want disbelieve my claim feel free to do so. I don't care enough about it to defend it.
 
2009-06-21 04:21:04 PM
SynthLord: Do you think evolutionary biologists are told "evolution just works, now go discover something new"? Or are they trained in the cellular and chemical sciences so that, even at the most fundamental level, they can prove evolution works? Do we refuse to produce evidence that the Holocaust happened when some idiot claims it didn't happen, or do we accept it on faith that it happened? Do we expect that the "STFU" argument is going to sway a Moon-landing denier to accept the truth?

And for some reason you think it is different with global warming. IT"S THE SAME! Same science. Same process. Same shiat.

If you were a creationist, you would be saying the exact same thing.

SynthLord: Again, I'm not being a contrarian: I'm working the point that when you accept anything on faith, you're in danger of thinking -- not acting, but thinking -- like Bill O'Reilly does.

Why do you think people accepting global warming on faith is actually a problem, but accepting evolution on faith isn't? Because I never see you going after biologists, or attacking Hillary Clinton (a non-scientist) for saying she believes it.
 
2009-06-21 04:21:13 PM
Zamboro: Your_Huckleberry: "I'm curious, what values would those be?

Seriously asking..."

Individual rights mainly, the conviction that the state ought to stay out of personal affairs as much as possible. I also think it'd be possible (and desirable) to scale down the existing government if the appropriate changes were made. There are merits and demerits to big governments, but I think there are ways of reducing size and waste while retaining most of the services that large governments are thought to be necessary for.

Understand that I'm also the sort of person who fully expects a gradual descent into thinly veiled corporatism but who isn't convinced it'll necessarily be a bad thing. Even so, we might give some consideration to a wall of separation between private industry and state, to complement the church/state barrier. I won't be able to decide either way until I can get a better sense of how the increasingly rapid adoption of sophisticated robotic automation is affecting the people-powered industries which employ something like 70% of Americans.

It all makes sense if you get me drunk and give me a soap box to stand on, I swear.


I don't doubt that at all.

DamnYankees: Your_Huckleberry: But I can't help but feel he's being almost cowardly in the way he puts the big stick on people and won't give them a chance to respond. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

Fair enough. I don't think everyone who engages in public discourse has to debate people, though. There are plenty of forums to express disapproval or disagreement with someone. There's no compulsion for Olbermann to have anyone on his show, just as there is no compulsion for any scientist to welcome anyone into his lab.


I suppose that's true. But wouldn't you feel better if that scientist did have someone in his lab and verify the work? I mean, how often do we see the great "sources?" rebuttel thrown out in here?
 
2009-06-21 04:21:31 PM
Roger Ebert is a loony toon. All you have to do is peruse a few of his whack job blogs in the Chicago Tribune to see this. Hell, even Wonkette and NPR agree that the guy is certifiable.

Now, I personally like eccentricity in reasonable doses.

My biggest objection to Ebert though is his excess of political correctness. Even in his film reviews everything is filtered through the PC lens of the Hollywood Limousine Liberals.

How does this film portray gays? Does this film stereotype blacks or gender roles? What about the Jews? Does this film reference the holocaust? Well, then it is an Oscar contender. Why are all the fruit pickers in the Grapes of Wrath white? It's racism I tell ya, racism.

Why would anybody take anything this washed up has been has to say seriously?
 
2009-06-21 04:22:11 PM
CeroX: Maddow: While i have yet to hear her spit hate speech or get worked up like KO or Bill O, she seems to look down her nose at anyone who she disagrees with and through voice tone and chosen speech she comes off as "I'm better and i laugh at those who i am better than".

I'm glad someone else stated this. I find her painful to watch personally.

None of these commentators are out to change minds. They know their audience and play to it.
 
2009-06-21 04:25:03 PM
TFA is not about liberals versus conservatives. It's about entertainment being passed off as "news." I'd like to see the schools teaching children to recognize the difference between the two. Maybe, we could get some PSAs for the older retarded folks who apparently can't tell the difference.
 
2009-06-21 04:26:56 PM
Your_Huckleberry: I suppose that's true. But wouldn't you feel better if that scientist did have someone in his lab and verify the work? I mean, how often do we see the great "sources?" rebuttel thrown out in here?

Not really. Because you can verify his work anywhere. That's how it works. If Olbermann says something stupid, you don't need to go on his show to rebut it.
 
2009-06-21 04:29:43 PM
kurfu: The concept of "Freedom of Speech" carries with it the burden of protecting speech that you do not agree with, or may even find offensive.

It's a two way street, you bunch of hypocrites.


You forget that most liberals and progressives like myself would defend O'Rly's right to say whatever is on his tiny little mind... that doesn't make it any less idiotic, bigoted and hateful.
Remember, just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's not stupid, and it doesn't mean you can't be called out on it.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility.
 
2009-06-21 04:34:46 PM
DamnYankees: Your_Huckleberry: I suppose that's true. But wouldn't you feel better if that scientist did have someone in his lab and verify the work? I mean, how often do we see the great "sources?" rebuttel thrown out in here?

Not really. Because you can verify his work anywhere. That's how it works. If Olbermann says something stupid, you don't need to go on his show to rebut it.


Fair enough.
 
2009-06-21 04:41:43 PM
I'm pretty much frightened of people who agree whole-heartedly with O'Reilly or Olbermann.... or Fox & Friends or Rachel Maddow.

The list is pretty long actually.
 
2009-06-21 04:45:05 PM
DamnYankees:

You may find Olbermann melodramatic, btu at least he actually makes arguments in his "special comments". Laced with emotion? Sure. Purely emotion? No.


I freely admit I know far less about Olbermann than I do O'Reilly. And I certainly never intended to say his comments were purely emotion. I have repeatedly said that being accurate is the key to successful propaganda.

Let me give you an example of how to out and out lie by telling the truth very carefully:

George Bush was told that there was one intelligence source that said Saddam Hussein had an ongoing nuclear weapons program. He was also told there was a second intel source that said he had abandoned his nuclear ambitions.

Then Bush flat out told the American people that intel said Saddam had an ongoing nuclear weapons program. This is accurate but deceptive due to what it leaves out. Bush then went on to say that we could not afford to wait for more facts (the smoking gun) as they may come in the form of a "mushroom cloud". This is the emotional appeal component. It leads people to conclude that we are all in danger and need to act.

This was a lie. We were not in danger and did not need to act. But Bush created this conclusion in the American people by carefully telling selected accurate facts and following with an emotional statement designed to provoke fear.

You say Olbermann's presentations are "laced with emotion". I distrust this use of emotion. It may be entertaining but leads people to jump to conclusions. I know it is hard to be completely dispassionate, but dispassionate is the only way to objectively deliver information.
 
2009-06-21 04:51:30 PM
Civil and peaceful = Only Democrats and all other beliefs are outlawed.

When the right demonizes the left, they (rightfully) get all in arms. Then proceed to do the EXACT same thing. I hope all you republicans and democrats out there see this. They are all the same persons.
 
2009-06-21 04:52:18 PM
Weaver95: FlyingPig: If the Democrats hold Congress in 2010 I think we'll be seeing more forthrightness from Obama regarding gay marriage and the like. Progressives are upset that he's not taking enough of a stand, but right now he still has political capital to lose if he goes too far.

I've been saying this for nearly 2 years now - NONE of this is about Obama or the Democrats. This is all about the Republicans. they have drifted so far from their principals that they've triggered a schism within the party. It's fiscal conservatives against radical religious right wingers in a fight to the death over what it means to be a 'Conservative Republican'. While this quiet civil war rages behind closed doors, the Democrats have a free hand to do whatever they want, so long as they do so fairly quietly and avoid uniting the Republicans against them.

For what it's worth, I think the fundies are going to win the fight. They've got control over key positions, and they would rather see the party destroyed than reach a compromise with what they see as evil incarnate. The fiscal conservatives are routinely ejected from local gatherings, their concerns are marginalized (or outright ignored), they find it difficult to get candidates elected without paying homage to Christian fanatics, and they find it easier every year to just leave the RNC rather than fight to help a party that hates them for their efforts.


____________________


This has a lot to do with our winner take all voting system. They really should be two (or three) separate parties (and the Democrats should be multiple separate parties.) Then everyone would have to get together and make reasoned compromises with their opponents. Compromises that would make no one truly happy but would marginalize the extremists and be better for the country than allowing the extremists of either side to run things.

/We need several reforms:
1. Term limits for our Congress Critters (They only have one or two good ideas, which we can get out of them in two terms or less - after that, they are just leaches in it for the money, power, and influence.)
2. We need to reform the voting system. E.G. Instant Runoff Voting (new window)
3. An end to Politician controlled Gerrymandering (new window)
4. An end to the ridiculous legal notion that corporations are people giving their CEOs extra power and influence in their attempts to purchase a Congress critter
5. A Constitutional Amendment declaring the the stupid SCOTUS decision declaring money is free speech (new window) is WRONG! The ability to purchase a Congress Critter is NOT Free speech (You can even spot the oxymoron in there, purchasing a Congress critter may be relatively cheap, but it ain't free.)
6. An enforcement of the anti trust laws in respect to our Mass media corporations (5 corporations control over 90% of everything you see and hear (new window))
7. Sensible public finance of campaign laws. Enough of the Wealth purchasing the laws they want at the expense of everyone else!
8. An end to the gate-keeping done by the powerful members of the two parties. I want more choice! I don't want a few powerful people choosing which candidates they will support in the primaries and thereby determining who has the financing to become the candidate. The Iranians have something similar, the candidates are preselected before they can ever vote for someone. The people who select our candidates are just better at hiding their influence.

questionitnow.com


//If you think that most of the members of Congress are out of touch, but your Congress critter is a "good one" you haven't been paying attention.
 
2009-06-21 04:55:43 PM
antoniojvr: "Civil and peaceful = Only Democrats and all other beliefs are outlawed."

That's right, a call for increased civility in political discourse is actually a liberal plot to outlaw all dissenting views. That's totally a reasonable way to look at it, bro. You're not a nutjob at all.
 
2009-06-21 04:57:13 PM
I can't stand O'Reilly, watching his version of "interviews" and "debate" makes me simultaneously nauseous and stabby. I couldn't even finish watching those clips, I can't see how so many people think he's a credible source of anything but ill-conceived vitriol. It's really hard for me to take people and their opinions seriously if I find out they're O'Reilly fans.
 
2009-06-21 05:00:11 PM
DamnYankees: And for some reason you think it is different with global warming. IT"S THE SAME! Same science. Same process. Same shiat.

There are three differences I see:

1. Climate science is a lot younger than evolutionary science is.

2. There aren't dozens of evolutionary biologists taking to the blogosphere claiming that political agencies are misrepresenting their findings as evidence of a contrary claim.

3. The extent of any government policy regarding evolution is limited to local school boards. Global warming policy, on the other hand, is almost comprehensive in its scope; it can raise everyone's cost of living, limit necessary energy supplies, reduce modern conveniences, reduce raw material availability, and potentially lead to population control measures.

In effect, GW policy has the potential to completely destroy modern life. So yes, it merits a LOT of debate, even over what many feel is as metaphysically given as gravity.

DamnYankees: Why do you think people accepting global warming on faith is actually a problem, but accepting evolution on faith isn't?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear ...

Accepting anything on faith is a bad idea, whether it's science or your own political beliefs. Accepting something on faith means that you've rejected the need for deep understanding or analysis, which leads one to automatically reject anything contrary to what you believe reality to be.

You may accept imminently catastrophic global warming as a fact, but can you accept the idea that it may not be? That scientists may have only peeled back the first layer of climate science? I accept evolution because I trust in what I know about it, but if new data emerges that challenges that assertion, I'm willing to consider it, and maybe even change my mind.

There's very little of that attitude when it comes to global warming. "The debate is over: we're all doomed unless drastic measures are taken immediately. No time to think, analyze, or question: just STFU and obey."
 
2009-06-21 05:00:29 PM
All Apologies: Emperorsteele: That's taking it a bit far, and you know it. The article was NOT about O'Rielly's politics, but rather how he conducts himself on television. There are left-wingers who do the same.

Is this just done reflexively to appear bi-partisan, because whenever anyone is pressed on a statement like this, they fail to know of any examples.

It's annoying because it is so often used to justify the actions of people like O'Reilly.


There is no justification for O'Rielly. There is no comparison between right and left wing commentators. Right wing commentators are both more numerous and frothy.

And I do include Olbermann in an attempt to be fair. I wish I could find a better example of a left wing propagandist, because Olbermann is fairly tame as propagandists go. Micheal Moore would work if he had a regular show.
 
2009-06-21 05:04:04 PM
It's disgraceful that vicious, lying, ignorant, sexist, homophobic, bigots like O'Reilly set the tone of discourse in the United States.
 
2009-06-21 05:04:15 PM
archichris: This is a typical elitist liberal canard. You call conservative opinion based commentators 'conservative journalists' and say that their use of opinion infects their entire political movement,. But then when confronted by a biased journalist in an actual news reporting role, you claim that is the status quo. That somehow a person reading liberal opinion into fact on the air is acceptable, but a conservative telling you he is only offering an opinion on the events is an attempt at coloring the news


I dunno, I hear whining about the liberal media more than anything else from the other side. And using the word "elitist" as an insult is farking hilarious.
 
2009-06-21 05:06:15 PM
milk_plus: It's disgraceful that vicious, lying, ignorant, sexist, homophobic, bigots like O'Reilly set the tone of discourse in the United States.

could be worse - we could be up to our elbows in Noam Chomsky.
 
2009-06-21 05:08:46 PM
O'Reilly make a movie or something? Sun-Times editorial board going to let us if Transformers 2 is worth going to?
 
2009-06-21 05:11:09 PM
Weaver95: good article, and I didn't know that study existed.

hmm....

well, it's not like the right wing in this country is exactly sane. They're certainly not interested in any sort of debate. they've shown us exactly nothing by way of alternatives to Obama's plans. Sure, we know they disagree. And yes, they think Obama is going the wrong direction...but we, as a people, want something from them OTHER than a constant chanting of 'Obama is wrong. Obama is wrong. Obama is wrong'.



And whenever someone attempts to u call em followers of Rush(etc) and start calling them names. O'reilly and yes even rush have said and presented other choices but the main stream media don't give them coverage, and yes FOX is just as bad as CNN just opposite.
 
2009-06-21 05:13:19 PM
milk_plus: It's disgraceful that vicious, lying, ignorant, sexist, homophobic, bigots like O'Reilly set the tone of discourse in the United States.

They only set the tone if you let them.
 
2009-06-21 05:17:25 PM
Kome: SpeshilEdjukashin: at least he's trying to represent an otherwise unrepresented group of people

Do you mean the insane? Hate-mongers? Racists? The ignorant? Why do they even deserve representation?

Or do you mean Christians? Conservatives? White males? Yea, those poor souls have been so unrepresented in this country.


So are you admitting that they are being unrepresented now, even if they were over-represented in the past? Would that make it right or would that make you a brainwashed hypocrite, no better than Al Sharpton?
 
2009-06-21 05:17:28 PM
One correction for you Ebert:

Olbermann acts with civility during his guests. It's only his monologues that become crazy screaming rants.
 
2009-06-21 05:17:41 PM
ham006: And whenever someone attempts to u call em followers of Rush(etc) and start calling them names. O'reilly and yes even rush have said and presented other choices but the main stream media don't give them coverage, and yes FOX is just as bad as CNN just opposite.

www.bitboost.com
 
2009-06-21 05:17:57 PM
internet killed civility a long time ago.
 
2009-06-21 05:19:22 PM
Burn98: There is no justification for O'Rielly. There is no comparison between right and left wing commentators. Right wing commentators are both more numerous and frothy.

Merely focusing on the propaganda angle leaves out the large discrepancies in factual vs. nonfactual information. It ignores the difference between information and misinformation.

That's why I disagree with comparing them as though they are interchangeable parts working for different mechanisms.

The is a clear difference when it comes to the validity and accuracy of the information presented, and that is not what is being discussed. Merely pointing out that there are two sides is not a valid defense for one.
 
Displayed 50 of 551 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report